A meeting in which councillors gave the green signal to build 28 new cycle lanes was the scene of a protest against the infrastructure by a group of around 80 anti-bike lane campaigners, who described the plans as “ludicrous” and had to be urged by the local authority not to be abusive and rude.
The funding for the schemes has been provided via the government and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority grants, with 12 of the routes around Birkenhead planned to be delivered in the next seven years.
While Labour, Green, and Liberal Democrat councillors voted to move forward with the plans, the Conservatives continued their long-standing opposition against the plans, having previously branded the new cycling scheme around Birkenhead as “a monumental waste of taxes” and a “recipe for disaster”, and people advocating for them as the “Active Travel Taliban”.
Just a few months ago, a rather quirky resident from Wirral tested their penmanship by writing a bizarre anti-bike lane poem that was published in the local newspaper, protesting the “cycle crusade” council’s “absurd” and “crazy scheme”.
However, things took a turn at the Environment and Transport Committee meeting on Monday, when around 80 people showed up to show their discontent with the proposed cycling infrastructure, shouting at the councillors to scrap the plans in Wallasey.
Liverpool Echo reports that one woman was heard saying: “I have never heard such a load of crap in my life. I could be watching Emmerdale.”
Dr Fred Newton, the GP at Grove Road Surgery, said that he was concerned about a proposed route through Wallasey arguing it could impact emergency services, put people off attending appointments, and potential bollards could create a risk of injury to elderly patients. Concerns were also raised about impacts on deliveries and parking.
Emma Gold, meanwhile, said that roads were already congested in Wirral and argued “the idea of cycle lanes in a community like ours is ludicrous for so many reasons,” adding: “We are a community and we will continue to make ourselves heard.” A petition against the plans was also put forward and signed by over 1,000 people.
However, the local authority had informed the public that it had shifted the priority of some plans “to reflect concerns raised”. The plans included in the proposal are also subject to further review, surveys, technical work, and public feedback with routes having the flexibility to be altered further down the line.
Residents in favour of the cycle lanes being built have also highlighted these factors, while also criticising the lack of responses from the general public. According to the council, Over 30,000 people had been reached through social media posts and 22,000 subscribers via email as well as eight in-person sessions but only 1,130 responded.
The councillors also raised concerns about the funding available for future road safety improvement and regeneration projects if the current plans were scrapped. Cllr Steve Foulkes said there was £1.6bn of investment coming down the line for the Liverpool City Region which would go into improving roads, pavements, and lights alongside any cycle lanes.
He said that the council was looking to make roads safer for everyone and “trying to future-proof our roads for the generations ahead,” adding: “All you can see is negatives because all you have been told about is the negatives.”
Cllr Allan Brame also argued that it was the council’s responsibility to make cycling safer, pointing to a comment from a member of the public that “no one in their right minds would currently cycle on Wirral’s roads”.
“We haven’t got many (cycle lanes) and the trouble with the ones we do have is they are totally disjointed,” he said. “They take you safely a few hundred yards and then they dump you in the middle of a busy, dangerous roundabout.”
He said the plans were looking to create through routes for people pointing to the experiences of his daughter in London who cycles to work with increasing numbers of people cycling, adding: “It’s a far bigger place than Wirral, it’s got far busier roads, it’s got lots of shops, it’s got lots of businesses and yet it can manage to get cycle routes where significant numbers of people are cycling.”
However, Conservatives strongly criticised the policy arguing the council needed to listen to the public. Cllr Vida Wilson said the Fender Lane cycle route near her ward was a “white elephant,” adding: “When are the majority going to realise that these cycle lanes aren’t supported by the majority of people in Wirral?”
Cllr Jenny Johnson said public response was appalling and called the policy “a complete fallacy,” adding: “We should be going back to the drawing board and doing it properly.” Citing statistics showing low numbers of people cycling each week in Wirral, she questioned “where are the cyclists?” and “why on earth are we creating cycle lanes when the people of Wirral do not cycle?”
She argued there was a lack of evidence supporting the plans and accused councillors of trying to quell opposition, adding: “Sometimes it’s good to turn away from funding when the funding isn’t what the people want.”
Previously, local Tory leader Green claimed that the “majority” of residents were “against the scheme”, describing some of the project’s design elements – such as floating bus stops – as a “recipe for disaster”. He said that “in spite of the ‘Active Travel Taliban’, residents remain opposed to the loss of parking, pedestrian crossings, and trees that this scheme would require.”
Ed Lamb, a Green Party councillor for the Wirral, responded to Green’s comments on social media, saying: “As I’ve said at a couple of recent talks, some elected folks just do not ever want this stuff to happen – even if they have voted otherwise in the past!
“They are not serious about regeneration, health, climate, and we are allowed to ignore them. On Wirral, there is no overall control. Tories often hold a lot of sway on committee items. This one? Let’s hope not…”
43 thoughts on ““Typical left-wing council ignoring the majority vote”: 28 cycle lanes given go-ahead at council meeting disrupted by locals protesting “ludicrous” decision”
Perhaps Councillor Johnson
Perhaps Councillor Johnson could ponder for a few minutes why “the people of Wirral do not cycle”?
I believe Chris Boardman is
I believe Chris Boardman is/was a Wirral resident!
“Dr Fred Newton, the GP at
“Dr Fred Newton, the GP at Grove Road Surgery, said that he was concerned about a proposed route through Wallasey arguing it could impact emergency services, put people off attending appointments, and potential bollards could create a risk of injury to elderly patients.”
Instead of composing a list of things that don’t happen, perhaps Dr Newton might wish to reflect on the fact that, if more people were enabled to cycle more often, fewer of his patients would need to visit him, and less often.
“Potential bollards could create a risk to elderley patients.”
Of all the things that won’t happen, this one won’t happen the most.
There aren’t even any data on potential bollards for him to assert this nonsense.
I feel like subscribing to his surgery, just so I can leave!
Perhaps this is a medical
Perhaps this is a medical condition the doctor is describing? “You have Potential Bollards, but with a good dose (of funding – from road tax) we should be able to clear your congestion up and have your arteries flowing freely”.
I think he may be confusing potential bollards for actual balderdash though.
Also “Potential bollards” makes a good emo band name?
You can’t have people being
You can’t have people being fit and healthy: he needs the patients.
Don’t worry it’s only
Don’t worry it’s only ‘potential bollards’ causing a risk not actual bollards.
I have tried to look whether
I have tried to look whether the World Bollard Association has anything on “potential bollards” but have drawn a blank
SimoninSpalding wrote:
It’s got its own scale, like acidity, but instead of Ph, it’s Pb: or is that lead?
Lead bollards would have a
Lead bollards would have a density advantage over steel – while that might help resist a car’s inertia it’s just too malleable.
Apparently using depleted uranium in them is frowned upon due to collateral damage.
I’ve read through this report
I’ve read through this report twice and I can’t find the “majority vote” that the left-wing council are ignoring? Does Tories saying without any evidence “the majority of people are opposed to this” now count as a vote?
They shouted louder, so they
They shouted louder, so they must be a majority.
Majority defn (right wing):
Majority defn (right wing): people who agree with me.
Tory gonna Tory……..like
Tory gonna Tory……..like night follows day.
“I have never heard such a
“I have never heard such a load of crap in my life. I could be watching Emmerdale.”
Never having seen Emmerdale, I can’t comment on it’s contents, but I can’t imagine it’s fictional stories are any more ridiculous than the residents of Birkenhead, who are happy to see one type of road user put in danger of their lives and oppose measures to make them safe.
Does driving a car make you selfish beyond belief? Or is it that being selfish beyond belief makes you drive a car? I sense a Phd in there somewhere.
Just remembered the RAC report from ten years ago (?) which showed that drivers threatened with losing their cars behave like drug addicts when their drugs are removed.
eburtthebike wrote:
My grandmother watched it when I was a kid but she stopped watching it as a protest when they changed the name from ‘Emmerdale Farm’ to just ‘Emmerdale’
Good for her. Just see how
Good for her. Just see how the country has gone to the dogs since that awful day.
pockstone wrote:
There seem to be a lot of
There seem to be a lot of people out there who think that a public consultation is some kind of plebiscite or referendum. I see it all the time – ‘99% opposed it but it still went ahead’.
It isn’t a vote. It’s an evidence gathering process.
There’s a lot of LTN
There’s a lot of LTN implementation (I just call it blocking off rat-runs that should have been done years ago) in Bath; anyway one is being considered near us and I went to a public meeting organised by the local councillors. The ‘antis’ genuinely believe that if the majority of respondants to a consultation are against the proposal then that is a democratic mandate (ie if you didn’t respond to the consultation then you didn’t ‘vote’), even though the councillors point out that the reason the said proposal was kicked-off was as a result of years of people asking them (incl from doorstep discussions) to sort traffic out; that was exactly the discussion I heard. Normally an ‘anti’ is older (‘boomer’) and in this meeting they were siting the recent introduction of a residents parking scheme where ‘democracy was thwarted’ because 90% of respondants to a consultation opposed it; hence they thought that the proposed LTN would be implemented whatever. I guess a referendum would be better but not sure how you set the eligibility. A recent residents association AGM, after a presentation on all the good community activities they do eg halloween parties, litter clearing etc, descended into a hard-core group of anti-LTN people voicing their opinion. The level of self-entitlement and motornormativity is staggering and you just can’t reason with them; I didn’t even try. A few just post endlessly on NextDoor to whip up opposition. I’d be impacted by the LTN, but I’d just adjust my habits when I drive and see that as a small price to pay for quieter roads. When I WFH I watch the usual suspects out of my window; multiple short car journeys all day.
bensynnock wrote:
Even a ‘referendum’ isn’t necessarily legally binding, unless you want it to be
brooksby wrote:
Oh yes it is!
eburtthebike wrote:
Oh no it isn’t! 😉
brooksby wrote:
Look – it’s behind us…
They also seem to ignore
They also seem to ignore ‘block votes’ . Eg if during a consultation opinions are sought from stakeholders, for example, a cycling group then their response should represent all cyclists or at least members of that group. Isn’t it one of the reasons we join CUK or similar, to lobby on our behalf.
Our local council seems to think putting things on Facebook is ‘advertising’ the consultation. My twenty something kids dont use Facebook. It’s the boomers, mentioned in another post that they’ve actually targeted.
I’m always amazed how people
I’m always amazed how people bring up various issues with cycle paths, elderly people and bollards, emergency services, suprised the good Doctor didnt mention wheelchair users.
They always trot out these same issues when cycling is the topic, and I bet they never ever think about these issues in their daily lives , they are just a convenient excuse. What they are really against is any change to the status quo, ie car is number 1.
And ‘the trees’. Don’t forget
And ‘the trees’. Don’t forget the trees. Always so much ‘concern’ for the trees.
Rome73 wrote:
Tell that to Twyford Down.
Of course they don’t give a
Of course they don’t give a shit. In the same way people don’t give a shit about anyone else when they park over the pavement blocking them for people with wheelchairs or prams. The same way they don’t give a shit about ambulances when traffic moves at walking pace because there is so much traffic from cars, 99% of which have a single person in them. They are just appealing to the other idiots who also like to lie and pat themselves on the back for their compassion and thoughfulness that is entirely self-serving.
mctrials23 wrote:
Harsh! Sometimes – also fair. While clearly not everyone will be won over I do think it’s helpful to try to avoid “space-inefficient-resource-wasteful-transport shaming” – and recognise we’re all living in a driveogenic environment.
That has been the case for a few generations now so it is literally “built in” (e.g. some “necessary” amenities etc. are genuinely hard to get to access without driving). The latter is compounded by public transport being run down, and “social expectations”.
I think there’s a middle way (which – hopefully – other countries rather like us have managed to find) between “Though shalt not drive” and being challenged to provide a like-for-like replacement for every (car) journey people currently make.
The latter is of course almost always impossible! It tends to quickly become existential and generate anger e.g. “you’re ruining my life / stopping me working / can’t access education, health car, look after dependents etc.”
However a better version of that must occur for change! But that’s about people themselves looking at their own lives and finding journeys they can cycle / walk / do with public transport, and then find they don’t need some of those trips they used to drive. (Another one Chris Boardman has touched on!)
As ever, I can only imagine
As ever, I can only imagine these people will really lose their shit when they discover how much public money and space is dedicated to the motor vehicle. What’s that you say? “That’s different”? Oh, right.
Drivers showing their
Drivers showing their sensitive side.
“Graves damaged by drivers using cemetery as shortcut”
Just as well that it wasn’t in Birkenhead, they’d never get to watch Emmerdale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egj8ezm0no?at_link_origin=BBC_West&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=EB7D6234-DE4E-11EF-AC79-AA4BB7469F61&at_format=link&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_medium=social&at_campaign_type=owned&at_ptr_name=facebook_page
There will only be action if
There will only be action if they run over a “sleeping policeman”…
Right whinging snowflake
Right whinging snowflake wankers.
Cycle lane protester: ‘The
Cycle lane protester: ‘The roads are already congested.’ That’s why cycle paths are needed. Why should motorists be allowed to delay cyclists?
Ahh you see you are making
Ahh you see you are making the mistake of thinking that cars ever inconvenience cyclists which obviously never happens. I don’t got from 25-30kph average in the countryside to about 10kph when I hit the local town. I don’t sit in massive queues of traffic where 90% of the cars are a single person in a SUV sized behemouth.
I’m sure they will tell you that cyclists holding up cars is optional and that cyclists can always pull over whereas cars can’t. Which is largely true. Its also largely true that most journeys in the car aren’t necessary and could be taken via public transport, walking or cycling. They don’t because its easier and more convenient for themselves to drive. Nothing more. Convenience.
Plus there would be almost
Plus there would be almost zero need for traffic lights (etc.) if there were no motor vehicles of course!
The good doctor might like to
The good doctor might like to know that the very busy KIng’s College Hospital in South London has a cycle lane running right past its entrance. I cycle that way regularly. It’s not a safety issue there. I’m sure if he’d ask the people at King’s College, they’d say the safety record is good. They’d probably point out too that a very large percentage of employees at King’s College cycle to work.
“Oh look, Dr says it will
“Oh look, Dr says it will delay ambulances, so it must be so”
Uhh; The emergency services have experts paid to monitor and deal with consultations (for which they are statutorily required to be contacted), for both permanent and temporary road changes (i.e. road works).
Plenty of examples of paramedics or firemen claiming a particular change has caused massive issues, while the service is pointing out that response time has actually improved – cycle lanes are easier to deal with than parked cars (if they actually cause an issue we only need to change it once) and when properly designed can be used by emergency services (much easier for bicycles to stop and lift bikes onto footway to let blue lights pass than for a queue of cars…). Also in Waltham Forest they could show a reduction in car crashes – Turns out average response time improves when they are less likely to already be busy cutting someone out of a car…
“could impact emergency
“could impact emergency services, put people off attending appointments” really surprised by this GP – so many of his patients / future patients would benefit from more outdoor exercise.
LTNs etc are immaterial to how soon you will be picked up and how soon you will be seen in your hour of need.
This nonsense grinds my gears. It’s usually the anonymous firefighter or paramedic who pops-up around now. I did a little thread about the Exeter LTNs called “death by anecdote” a while back that goes into the detail.
Ambulance responses, and the GP will know this, are mainly affected by:
crew availability (e.g. how many you’ve trained in the last 5 years), abstractions for sickness, training, rest days, leave;
hospital handover delays – this is the biggie at the moment as it obviously reduces the number of crews/ vehicles you have available to deploy to meet demand*
vehicle availability – it isn’t usually lack of vehicles that affects things though
money
Seasonal demand for services; how effective you are at triaging to a no-send response to a call, hear & treat, 111 advice
what private ambulance services you can procure for lower priority work
* all of which tracks through to how the hospital is doing with managing demand, discharging patients whose hospital treatment is complete (“medically fit”), what beds it has to get patients needing a bed out of A&E so a full up A&E can unload another queuing ambulance.
“why on earth are we creating
“why on earth are we creating cycle lanes when the people of Wirral do not cycle?”
Because the reason they don’t cycle is the infrastructure isn’t safe…
The people of Wirral aren’t some special group who won’t cycle. They aren’t cycling because they are scared of the roads…
Absolutely with you on the
Absolutely with you on the circular reasoning. (Or – any system that you find that’s lasted for some time is going to be self-reinforcing / “locally stable”!)
I think we need to consider things beyond just “it’s because they’re scared”. That’s a “necessary” to address but it is in no way “sufficient”. It’s far from the whole explanation.
It is in fact “safe” to cycle (statistically). Of course people rarely judge safety via statistics. What is important is “subjective safety” and “social safety”.
What else is missing is explained by the “Milton Keynes / Stevenage factor”. People drive because it is (it has been made) easy to drive! Perhaps more significant is driving is attractive relative to other modes – it’s normally much easier (or more pleasant, or “social”, or “prestigious”) to drive than e.g. cycle or take public transport.
* There is also the fact that driving is “what exists here, now” – it’s a “default” and embedded in our culture (it is important to own a car), education, laws, infra, built environment …
I’m a lifelong Wirral
I’m a lifelong Wirral resident, cyclist, and council tax payer.
Jeez, you should see the vitriol this has inspired in our local paper. There’s one nutter in particular who thinks all cyclists are “ninja rats” and “North Face hoodies”.
I’m 63. Never had a driving lesson in my life. Cycled over 60k miles.
michophull wrote:
Fake news. The people of Wirral do not cycle