A freedom of information (FOI) request has revealed that MP Kate Hoey may have instigated the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust campaign against ‘floating’ bus stops on Westminster Bridge. The trust has so far spent over £10,000 opposing the plans, despite admitting it hadn’t actually researched the dangers it claims they pose.
In May, St Thomas’s Hospital angered cycling campaigners by claiming that vulnerable people would be put in harm’s way by proposed ‘floating’ bus stops on Westminster Bridge. Also known as bus stop bypasses, the design means pedestrians must cross a cycle lane to reach the bus stop.
Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust started a petition calling for Transport for London to review designs, while Hoey, whose Vauxhall constituency includes the hospital, called on Mayor Sadiq Khan to intervene.
A September 9 response to a freedom of information (FOI) request by road safety campaigner Tom Kearney has revealed that the trust has spent £10,249.50 on its legal action to oppose TfL’s plans.
This is despite the fact that in July, a Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust spokesperson had admitted the “serious concerns” it referred to regarding patient safety were merely opinions and it hadn’t actually looked into the evidence.
“The trust has undertaken none of the research or tests enquired about. It does not oppose the introduction of bus stop bypasses in general; it has a specific set of concerns about the proposals for Westminster Bridge. The legal responsibility for putting proposals, testing them and consulting about them rests with the Transport for London; they are the experts.”
Another FOI request, by Francis Gaskin, has revealed that the campaign may have been instigated by Hoey. Gaskin has published a number of internal emails on his blog, including one dated April 27, in which Hoey contacted the trust to say: “Please stand up for bus passengers. This is a great opportunity to just say they can’t have a cycle lane disrupting the bus stop.”
Hoey has long had an uncomfortable relationship with cycling. In October 2013, a £240 fine for driving through a red light received widespread media attention as she had previously described cyclists as “Lycra louts that run red lights” in a 2003 article for the Mail on Sunday.
While she has previously said that she supports segregated bike lanes, she has also said that bicycles should be registered and that riders should pay road tax and carry insurance.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
9 thoughts on “Kate Hoey may have instigated hospital’s costly legal campaign against floating bus stops”
So a health service that is
So a health service that is complaining of a lack of funds spends >£10k on a poorly researched campaign. Wouldn’t that £10k+ have been better spent on patient care?
When are the chief executive and the minion that decided to run the campaign going to resign due to the scandalous waste of public funds?
As I’ve mentioned on Twitter,
As I’ve mentioned on Twitter, £10K is about 4 months worth of a senior/specialist nurse’s salary & close to half of a health care assistant, and that £10K is presumably without any internal staffing costs.
It’s frankly disgusting that an NHS trust can burn money like this on something which is so beneficial to society. It’s like taking legal action against a proven drug because you listened to a smoker
Kate Hoey also needs to go.
Kate Hoey also needs to go.
She was in favour of the leave campaign, even going as far to share a platform with Farridge, despite Lambeth (her constituency) voting overwhelmingly to remain (was the 2nd highest remain vote in the UK with 78.6%).
She has previously called cyclists ”lycra louts” saying, “[…] don’t just break the law; they often do so in an aggressive and threatening manner”, while being fined for blowing through a red light
Shes a POS, doesnt represent the people of Lambeth (me being one of them) and needs to go.
Didn’t Kate Hoey campaign
Didn’t Kate Hoey campaign against a cycle docking station because it was tremoving a couple of car parking spaces and because of the “noise”?
Al__S wrote:
Yep. Thats the one
And further proof of how batshit insane she is
The article states the
The article states the following as though it was a contradiction
A lot of motorists are very happy to see segregated bike lanes installed. Anything to get bicycles off the roads and out of their way. It continually perplexes me that some people that claim to cycle are in league with segregationists like Hoey.
Ush wrote:
I’m not surprised you’re perplexed, if you think there are campaigners who only “claim to cycle”.
I should check if there’s a cycling fallacies entry for this, but I don’t think they’re really bothering with the handful still in the VC movement.
Quote:
As the pavement is currently shared use (cycle and pedestrian), a seperate cycle lane and pavement would be better for vunerable people. But as St Thomas’s haven’t done any reserch, so they wouldn’t know.
Hoey interferes in local
Hoey interferes in local affairs to the cost to the NHS of over 10 grand. What censure will she face in parliament for this? None, because parliament is also strongly anti-cycling (although many MPs often pretend to be pro-cycling, for the positive PR).
Even the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group, whose members imagine themselves as superheroes, has done almost nothing at all for cycling in the UK in their entire history.