A local highways boss’s call for cycling and walking infrastructure to be introduced in all new build developments has been scathingly dismissed as “pathetic” by his fellow Conservative councillors, who have claimed that riding a bike is too dangerous in rural communities where much of the new housing is being built.
David Brazier, Kent County Council’s cabinet member for roads and transport, published a report this week looking into the local authority’s “involvement in the highway aspects of planning applications”, Kent Online reports.
In the report, the Conservative councillor argued that, “where possible”, the highways department is not “looking to amend the network to accommodate more cars”.
He continued: “Instead, they are looking to see how people could travel more sustainably from new development sites and are asking developers to provide the infrastructure to make this happen.
“The hope is that in the future it will be more inviting and easier to walk and cycle short trips than to use the private car and that public transport will be more accessible with reliable journey times.”
> Plan to cut down 140 trees for cycle lane to new housing development sparks debate
However, Brazier’s call for active travel infrastructure to be introduced in new housing developments was dismissed as “pathetic” by a fellow Conservative councillor.
Discussing the report yesterday at cross-party transport board, Gill Fort, a borough and parish councillor for the village of Leeds, said: “The idea is fine if you live within a mile of the shops. But in rural areas, no way.
“There is no way I would get on a bike in Leeds as it’s too dangerous on the roads. If you weren’t run over by a HGV being driven illegally through the village, a speeding car charging round the corner would get you.”
Meanwhile, Harrietsham Parish Council chairman Eddie Powell added: “There are certain parts of the A20 which are a death trap with the amount HGVs on it. It’s a single-track road and cyclists mean less room.
“With new housing, the population of Harrietsham has nearly doubled in ten years but [there has been] no investment in the roads. I would not allow my children to cycle to school, that’s for sure.”
> Rishi Sunak is “on the side” of drivers – What happened to Britain’s “golden age for cycling”?
Another Conservative on Maidstone Borough Council, Denis Spooner, also described the county council’s approach to road improvements as a “standing joke – nothing gets started, nothing gets done.”
However, Spooner was also distinctly noncommittal when it came to the need for active travel infrastructure, telling the meeting: “In fairness, it’s the way the world is going – there is simply not the capacity to take all the cars. And it will take a massive sea change in public perception to make it happen.
“I support sustainable travel, but you cannot do the weekly shop at Tesco or pick the kids up from school on a bike.”
> Rishi Sunak accused of seeking to exploit division over LTNs as he orders review of schemes
However, not all members of the cross-party board were as critical of the councillor’s report.
Labour councillor Paul Harper, a member of the Maidstone Cycle Campaign Forum, said that the plans to introduce cycling infrastructure in new housing developments would only work alongside broader schemes which created “good public transport, cycle paths, and decent walkways for pedestrians”.
Meanwhile, Maidstone Green Party borough councillor Stuart Jeffery added: “There has to be a fundamental rethink of how we get around in the future.
“I broadly welcome David Brazier’s comments because I hope they will prompt a level of debate.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
45 thoughts on ““It’s too dangerous to cycle on the roads”: Conservative councillor’s call for cycling infrastructure in new housing developments branded “pathetic” by fellow party members”
Maybe riding a bike is too
Maybe riding a bike is too dangerous in rural communities but you know what, it’s not some natural phenomenon like the weather or wild bears – it’s dangerous because of the behaviour of the people who live there or who drive through there.
(I’m sure KYA can add to this – IIRC they are very knowledgeable about the leafy lanes of nearby Essex…).
Indeed – the idea that
Indeed – the idea that cycling infrastructure is unacceptable because motorist drive illegally is absolutely outrageous. I do not comprehend how on Earth anyone with a single brain cell could possibly spew this kind of non-sensical rubbish. I mean how about you know, ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THAT?
We can’t have cycling infrastructure because cyclists do illegal things and are too dangerous and don’t deserve to be on the roads. Now we can’t have cycling infrastructure because motorists do illegal things and make it took dangerous for us to be on the roads. I mean I suppose we should be happy that this hapless fool has identified the problem and yet dismayed that their solution to the problem is to ignore it and tell cyclists to suck it up!
Jesus wept!
brooksby wrote:
This is the crux of the matter – there’s a fine infrastructure (well, apart from the motor vehicle induced potholes) very fit for cycling, walking, horse riding and even driving a car if the driving is done safely. No extra “cycling infrastructure” (which often isn’t any such thing, unless you think murder strips and pedestrian-shared skittle alleys to nowhere count) is needed as the roads are great for cycling about as well as getting from any A to any B.
It’s often said that “we” (whoever this imaginary cohesive group is) should accommodate “everyone” in a nice civilised fashion. Cyclists, peds, horse riders, lorry drivers, motorists and even taxi drivers all ought to behave with care and consideration. But the nature of the car and it’s century-long culture is such that care and consideration are difficult for many to manage, once they have their foot on the accelerator pedal of their two ton ton-uppers ……. So …..
Those two ton ton-uppers need to be severely restricted via a redesign to reduce their mad speeds, weights and freedumbs to murder & maim through both aggression and inattention.
In short, the car (and many other motorised vehicles) are not fit for purpose because they’re inherently dangerous. They need to be greatly changed, reduced in numbers and perhaps banned altogether.
If they were banned, that would solve a vast number of other dangerous issues besides the maiming and murder of some cyclists. So …. spend the money on car reduction, not expensive, useless and actually unneeded “cycling infrastructure”.
It might need a few quids to train feeble Conservative councillors in how to ride a bike or walk more than 20 yards without collapsing in a heap of panting pathetic pugglewick with just enough breath to call for a taxi driven over two cats and a toddler by a right-wing loon to service the Toryspiv’s call for rescue.
Cugel wrote:
You’re much older than I though! The roads were great for cycling (and all the rest) when they were first given tarmac surfaces. Before that presumably they were great for the great great … grandparents of gravel grinders).
Now… they’re massive maintenance-heavy asphalt pinball chutes, tiring to the eye, uncomfortable under foot, garlanded with curbs for catching your pedals on and grates for your wheels. At night their lighting irritates nature, astronomers and probably disturbs our sleep patterns, there are the traffic lights which are unnecessary in the absence of large fast motor vehicles at which cyclists can dutifully wait for a couple of minutes also.
Cars are here to stay though, being almost as lucrative and popular as the drugs which we have failed to win a war against.
We just need to rebalance things. Reduce the amazing amounts of money and space for driving and use it for walking, cycling, green space etc. Help protect everyone from people driving, work harder to protect drivers from themselves and keep them in control though infrastructure and enforcement. Where possible restrict them to somewhere safe where they won’t get in the way. Ideally out of sight and hearing.
When I were a lad, there were
When I were a lad, there were few cars. What there was went slow, as they all has enjins of only 5hp and no one could afford petrol. Then that Macmillan insisted that we should have it good and within days the place was infested with lead-footed motorists, who also put lead into the brains of wee bairns; or ran them over.
But I digress.
Out here in The Hinterlands of West Wales there are roads but they’re still rather like those 1950s ones of me yoof, since the population density in very low and, anyway, have slow tractors blocking the car loon wanting to speed (all 17 of them albeit spread over thousands of square miles of green) since many of those tractors are Very Ancient and only go at 8.3mph. Also, they stop together so the drivers can have long talks about many Welsh things. I can get me bike through but others must wait …. for ages & ages.
So, two actual solutions to car loonery and provision for safe cycling might be envisaged.
i) Toryspivs rob & rob & rob the rest of us until no one can afford a car, whilst the spivs all go about in helicopters.
ii) Roads are little used as a result and eventually revert to gravel as the potholes join up and their detritus spreads out under the actions of millions of bicycle wheels* and heavy duty weather that grinds nearly everything down to gravel.
Anyroadup (so to speak) ….. Ah’ve gorra gravel bike, me! And some waterproofs.
* Bicycles will become less expensive as empty-tank cars are melted doon for feedstock to the new Hercules and Raleigh factories, perhaps even a Claude Butler one. 531 once more becomes the best you can get but most settle for gaspipe (its cheap).
All I know is… first if you
All I know is… first if you’re cycling about you’re happier*. Yes, you’re probably contributing less to us eating / burning / digging up all the useful stuff but individually that only counts for imaginary points. (All those other humans gonna human and some of them have very expensive life habits).
But … second – if the trains aren’t running and the pumps go dry and the sockets don’t answer the call, you’ve got at least one cycle. And very likely drawers or boxes of spare parts too!
* Except when someone grazes your elbow at 55mph, your crank arm detaches, chain snaps or the pawls on your freewheel give up, or you get a puncture then realise it’s a slash in your tyre and you left the spare tube at in the pannier you didn’t take… Actually I never had a crank go but a pedal disassembled itself shortly after what will be my last attempt to service one.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Preach brother Chris!
If only we could share this with the millions of drivers who don’t know what they are missing.
Can we let them find out this bit after they discover the happiness?
Hang on there. Was there not
Hang on there. Was there not a contributor on another thread who enthused that racing round a track in a performance car trumped pootling about on a bicycle?
giff77 wrote:
For my 50th Birthday my family managed to find a company that was brave enough let me race a Ferrari round a race track even though I don’t have a driving licence. I agree it was incredibly exhilarating and one more tick on my bucket list but a major downside is you never actually go anywhere, you just end up back where you started.
I can’t think of anything that combines fun, fitness, utility and value for money better than a bicycle.
Rejoining the rejoining the
Rejoining the rejoining the EU is top of my bucket list – thrilling and exhilerating.
Last Saturday…5km in to the
Last Saturday…5km in to the ride ?
KDee wrote:
Did that just fall off due to not being installed correctly or did part of it snap?
I blame the idiot that likes
I blame the idiot that likes to regularly strip, clean and reassemble his bike! Note to others, if you have Hollowtech II cranks, and notice a sudden change in front shifting or chain rub, check the cranks before assuming it’s the front mech!
KDee wrote:
Did you just forget to tighten up the two bolts on the crank?
It’s the torque of the town.
It’s the torque of the town.
KDee wrote:
Argh! Bad memories return! 😉
OTOH only 5km into the ride. And it’s more aero now.
brooksby wrote:
I have just come back from north wales, there was a national speed limit lane outside where I was staying – I don’t think I once saw a single person drive at more than 30mph on it, I felt very safe walking on it and would happily have ridden my bike on it, if I had brought it with me. Last year a spent a short time in Devon, in a place with a similar road where I rarely saw anyone driving at less than 50mph (admittedly that was in February when there was probably a higher percentage of locals) – I felt extremly unsafe walking on it and likely wouldn’t have ridden on it.
The way I see this, there is a very simple solution – the national speed limit needs to be re-defined. Roads where there is zero pedestrian and cycle infrastructure should have a max limit of 20mph. The idea of permitting near motorway speeds, on roads that are far from being motorways is, is clearly ludircrous.
I think David Brazier has a point, it is fairly pointless requiring new build developlers to include cycle infrastructure in their developements without something to connected it too. The solutions isn’t to remove the requirement though, the solution is to require them to contribute to the provision of shared use ways that link the new developments to the existing population centres or make the existing infrastructure more equitable by reducing and enforcing the speed limit. Requiring cycle infrastructure on new build developments, where the only roads in and out are defacto motorways, is just pointless.
With all the road closures
With all the road closures around Leeds for the next six months, cycling is probably the only option now!
‘And it will take a massive
‘And it will take a massive sea change in
publicpoliticians‘ perception to make it happen.’Seems they’re admitting to being incompetant & implying that motor vehicle number plates a driving licence are pointless. At least they stopped short of complaining that cyclists go through red lights (as there’re no traffic lights in Leeds).
A new build estate near me
A new build estate near me has some bike lanes. They are great parking for the cars of the people that live there. They can park completely off the road with the bike lane. Its just the right width. I wonder why they do that eh?
I messaged the council and they said “not our problem”. Apparently I need to talk to our local PCSO about it.
Apparently I need to talk to
Apparently I need to talk to our local PCSO about it
That is disgraceful, dangerous talk! Won’t somebody think of the people forced to die laughing?
So basically, “I wouldn’t
So basically, “I wouldn’t ride a bike on the road here because I might get run over by a car or lorry and I oppose the plans to introduce more cycle infrastructure which will make cycling safer because I’m an idiot that can’t think logically”.
They literally highlight the reason why cycling infrastructure is necessary as an argument for opposing building cycling infrastructure
HoldTheWheel wrote:
They just forgot to add “…and I never see anyone cycling there so it’s pointless making provision for cycling”.
Out yonder there is this huge
Out yonder there is this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckons like a liberation…unless you’re a Tory that is in which case it’s a woke conspiracy to be defeated by laying tarmac upon tarmac and allowing the internal combustion engine to choke everything.
So how do us, that live in
So how do us, that live in rural communities, manage to do the weekly shop or the school run while on a bike?
Many of us seem to manage, and with ebikes increasing the ease in which you can ride cargo bikes or tow trailers, it’s not the barrier that some seem to think it is.
“I can’t imagine doing it, so
“I can’t imagine doing it, so obviously nobody else can. Although I’ve never tried.”
andystow wrote:
Excellent! It’s almost the generalisation of what lead to “quaxxing” – although I think the original carries a measure of disdain also.
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
Kent County Council already has a “Strategy for Vision Zero” in place, including “We will strive to follow LYN 1/20”.
She’s a bit late.
https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/124521/Vision-Zero-Strategy.pdf
Tory backward thinking
Tory backward thinking leaders need to be roundly ignored for being stuck in an era that we will never return to. The continued fascination with old and outdated attitudes and behaviours is a huge barrier to our progress, both economically and societally. We should all just completely ignore these Tory luddites, and those who yearn for an unachievable past, who lack any capacity to move our country forward in a sustainable manner. It won’t be long until we can progress towards a better existence once these calamitous fools leave govt.
ymm wrote:
No, not just ignored, they should be challenged, disproved and shown up for the out-of-touch reactionaries they are. Trouble is, that applies to 99% of the tory party.
If only there was a fine
If only there was a fine system for councillors who make dumb comments and arguments like this. It would pay for the required infrastructure that they can’t comprehend.
Unfortunately they’re still
Unfortunately they’re still less likely to spend it on the good kind of infrastructure and more likely to spend it on … this stuff. It’s slowly getting better, some places.
They are much more forward
They are much more forward thinking in Brazil;
‘World’s deadliest cycle lane’ with no safety measures is removed after public outcry
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/worlds-deadliest-cycle-lane-no-30630921
Kent County Council is not
Kent County Council is not fit for purpose. It’s too large to care about local people, incapable of fixing its road infrastructure so we are plagued by mega-potholes and shocking surfaces. The only answer to this that would result in proper decisions and action across the County is for the introduction of unitary authorities which are better value, more democratic and which deliver what people want.
A West Kent authority comprising of Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks would be a more appropriate sized authority. Time for a change.
A West Kent authority
A West Kent authority comprising of Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks would be a more appropriate sized authority
Well, they’ve abolished former Cumbria by the same means
Ah yes because all the
Ah yes because all the problems vanish forever when you reorganise.
“I support sustainable travel
“I support sustainable travel, but you cannot do the weekly shop at Tesco or pick the kids up from school on a bike.”
oh yes you can. I will happily show you how it’s done. (and so can thousands of others no doubt)
“I support sustainable travel
“I support sustainable travel, but you cannot do the weekly shop at Tesco or pick the kids up from school on a bike.”
Never heard of a trailer or a cargo bike then Cllr.
Hirsute wrote:
For drivers, the blinkers aren’t for indicating a change of direction, they’re for the eyes.
This the sort of anti logic
This the sort of anti logic we’ve come to expect from the Tories. Don’t build cycle lanes to make cycling safer because it’s too dangerous to cycle at the moment because there are no cycle lanes.
I presume this buffoon did indeed cycle as a kid when the roads were much more dangerous. But in those good old bad old days, nobody noticed when someone was killed ina road crash because it was so common. The peak year for road deaths in the UK was 1972 and there were 5x as many people killed on UK roads then as in 2022.
It’s the conservative
It’s the conservative councillors driving you’ve got to worry about around our way…
https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/crime/milton-keynes-tory-councillor-resigns-after-being-convicted-of-driving-without-due-care-and-attention-no-full-licence-and-no-insurance-4242972
What a complete wanker.
What a complete wanker.
HoarseMann wrote:
[/quote]”Cllr Balazs himself said in the statement: “I apologise for any upset and concern my actions may have caused. I feel that the issue is of sufficient severity and has placed enormous stress upon myself and my family that the only honourable option for me is to resign with immediate effect from my role as a Milton Keynes City Councillor”.
He added: “I also do not wish to inflict any reputational damage upon the local Conservative Party for which I have worked tirelessly over many years and for the residents of the Newport Pagnell South ward for which I have always endeavoured to offer commitment and service of the highest order’.
Cllr Hopkins said he was “deeply sorry” to see Cllr Balazs leave in such a manner.”
“…..only honourable option or me is to resign…” A tory with honour, pull the other one.
“I also do not wish to inflict any reputational damage upon the local Conservative Party….. “ How can you damage the reputation of the biggest bunch of liars, cheats and hypocrites in the UK?
But Cllr Hopkins, tory leader, sums it up nicely, saying that he’s deeply sorry to see him go in “such a manner.” Not that he’s deeply sorry that his party colleague was breaking the law, seriously injured someone and devastated their business.
It’s not just nationally that the tories are utter tossers, it’s locally too.
I guess he would argue it was
I guess he would argue it was a ‘minor motoring offence’. The sort of criminal offence that is deemed socially acceptable:
https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/people/disgraced-milton-keynes-councillor-kept-criminal-convictions-secret-from-fellow-conservatives-4245961
Lying to a tory is like
To a tory, lying is like breathing, only easier.