“Morally wrong” cycleway next to busy main road will destroy “ancient hedgerow”, say locals – who tell cyclists they can ride on footpath or road; Tour de France boss calls for budget cap and admits he “wasn’t a fan of the Sky era” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“This is not a ban on cycling”: Birmingham City Council hits back at criticism of PSPO plans, insisting they will stop the “use of illegally modified e-bikes” and those “cycling with disregard to other people”
In case you missed it last night…
> Council insists controversial proposal to “stop or limit” cyclists in Birmingham is “merely a reflection of how cycles are used in the city centre”
Should the UCI implement a budget cap in the men’s World Tour?
We’ve heard from Tour de France head honcho Christian Prudhomme, now it’s over to you – is a salary cap, and with it the probable end of the ‘super team’ era, the way forward for cycling?
Of course, we’ve been here before, back in 2019, when a certain Bradley Wiggins wasn’t entirely convinced…
> Sir Bradley Wiggins rejects talk of salary cap
To MAMIL or not to MAMIL, that is the question. And our columnist George reckons he knows the answer
> George Hill: Why I can’t wait to be a fully evolved MAMIL
For the snowy day that’s in it…
”Nobody cycles when it snows!” 🚲🚲🚲❄️❄️❄️ . People of #Oulu: ”Hold my kaulaliina🧣” 🚲🚲🚲🤷♂️ . #MeanwhileInOulu #VisitOulu #ThisIsFinland #wintercycling
— Harri Vaarala (@harrivaarala.bsky.social) November 18, 2024 at 1:43 PM
A Portuguese sporting great… and Cristiano Ronaldo
‘Bruno, Bruno! You’ll never guess who I just got a photo with – yes, the Rui Costa! Ah, remember when he outsmarted Valverde and Rodriguez to win the rainbow jersey in Florence? Or when he kept bossing the Tour de Suisse for some reason? Good times, good times… Anyway, who are we playing tonight?’
Obree, Lehmann, Induráin, wet roads, anti-cycling people on the internet, and now a ‘climate’ summit packed with coal, oil, and gas lobbyists – has Chris Boardman found his greatest opponent yet?
> Chris Boardman tells much-criticised COP summit that cycling’s “superpower” can help tackle climate crisis, marks “first time” active travel “has actually appeared in a major platform” at the event
“The modern equivalent of having to scrape your car windscreen”: More snow and bikes content for your chilly Tuesday afternoon
The modern equivalent of having to scrape your car windscreen. Love snow but it can make getting around a bit tricky.
— Cllr Emily Kerr 💚 (@emilykerr36.bsky.social) November 19, 2024 at 10:35 AM
Bling, loud paintjobs, a Tour-winning machine, and Fausto Coppi’s actual bike: Our highlights from Rouleur Live
If you didn’t make it to the Rouleur Live show that ran in London from Thursday until Saturday – or even if you did and you fancy a reminder – we gathered up the the most interesting bikes and bits we spotted while having a nosey around:
> Check out our highlights from Rouleur Live: Canyon, Van Rysel, Colnago, Factor, Cervelo, Bianchi, Fizik…
School Streets guidance to help make it “easier to walk, wheel, and cycle, giving children what they want – an enjoyable, healthy, and sociable journey to school,” Sustrans says
Following today’s launch of Active Travel England’s new guidance for local councils on how to implement traffic-free School Streets, walking and cycling charity Sustrans has praised the new initiative, pointing out that it will give children “what they want – an enjoyable, healthy, and sociable journey to school”.
Sustrans’ Walking and Cycling Index for 2023 found that 50 per cent of those surveyed agreed that closing streets outside local schools to cars during drop-off and pick-up times would improve their local area, while just 24 per cent disagreed.
And reflecting on today’s new guidance, Rachel Toms, Sustrans’ director of urbanism, said: “It’s great to see guidance from Active Travel England for setting up School Streets – one of the top ways to make it safer to travel actively to and from school, with benefits for children, families, and the wider community.
“Sustrans has been transforming the school run for years, making it easier, cheaper, and fun, for millions of children across the UK to walk, wheel or cycle to school. Research suggests that by travelling actively to school, children are more alert and engaged in class, are healthier and enjoy spending quality time with their friends and family.
“We look forward to working with councils to realise their ambitions around making it easier to walk, wheel and cycle, giving children what they want – an enjoyable, healthy and sociable journey to school.”
“The majority of kids have told us they want to walk, wheel, scoot, and cycle to school”: Active Travel England issues new guidelines for councils on how to set up and manage a School Streets scheme
It’s been a busy day for Chris Boardman.
Not only has the former Olympic champion been extolling the virtues of active travel to disinterested oil barons at COP29, he’s also been issuing councils across the UK with advice and guidance on how to set up and manage their own School Streets, so children can walk, cycle, and wheel to school without the nagging presence of a traffic jam blocking their way.
Published today and launched from COP29 in Baku, the Department for Transport and Active Travel England’s new guidance will enable, the government says, “millions more school runs” to be “transformed to be healthier, safer, greener, and more active”.
School Streets, which have proven contentious among some car-centric communities in recent years, restrict motor traffic outside school gates at pick-up and drop-off times, with only those with a permit allowed to drive on the road the school is located at those times.
“This creates a safer space for children and their families to walk, wheel, cycle or scoot to school,” Active Travel England says, while also bringing a “wealth of benefits to both school pupils and residents”, including improved physical and mental health for schoolchildren, reduced cases of dangerous driving, parking, and turning outside schools during school run times, and a reduction in emissions around schools.
The initiatives also, the government notes, enable more children to stay active by walking, wheeling, or cycling to school, which in turn reduces traffic in the local area, provides more opportunities for social interactions on the way to school, and offers more independence for older pupils.
There are hundreds of school streets already in existence in the UK, with over 180 funded by the government’s Active Travel Fund.
Today’s new guidance aims to increase this number, and outlines “how councils can better deliver school street schemes, so that they work best for pupils and staff as well as local businesses and residents”.
The guidance cites research and evidence from the Road Safety Trust, which shows these schemes increase active travel on the school run, are supported by most parents and residents in the nearby community, and do not cause significant road safety issues through traffic displacement.
It also comes after recent research commissioned by Active Travel England found that 85 per cent of people in England support active travel and would like to do more, while data from Sustrans has previously found that up to four out of five children want to walk or cycle to school.
“The majority of kids have told us they want to walk, wheel, scoot and cycle to school – it’s what they want, and it’s what we want for them,” National Active Travel Commissioner Boardman said in a statement from Baku today.
“It is vital that we give them the opportunity to bookend their day in the classroom with fresh air and exercise, helping them build healthy travel habits for life.
“Through our new School Streets Guidance, we will be able to better design activity into our neighbourhoods and help make life happier and healthier for future generations, all while reducing congestion on the roads during school run times for residents and businesses – it’s win-win for everyone.”
‘So lads, we’ve got £2.6m to spend on active travel, what should we do with it? Resurface a main road for drivers? Sounds good, crack on then’
> £2.6m investment in new cycle lane is “misleading” and actually funding road resurfacing for drivers, report suggests
Councillors set to review decision to scrap active travel scheme binned over fears “narrow route” could put cyclists into conflict with pedestrians and “leave little room for HGVs” – but which cyclists say is “significantly safer than current roads”
Last month, you may recall, we reported that plans to create a new active travel path in Guildford were thrown out after councillors and campaigners raised concerns that cyclists could potentially endanger pedestrians on the proposed shared-use path, which some claimed would also create “pinch points” on the road and make it too narrow in places for lorry drivers.
The scrapped protected cycling and pedestrian path on London Road, which was to be funded by Active Travel England, was also set to include improvements to the existing footways, five new bus stops and shelters, a new toucan crossing, and the creation of parallel pedestrian and cyclist crossings.
A consultation carried out last year found that half of the 995 respondents believed that the scheme would contribute to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users, while 31 per cent disagreed.
But after the scheme was rejected by Surrey County Council’s cabinet by six votes to three, that decision is set to be reconsidered by councillors today, with local cycling campaigners describing the proposals as “significantly safer for both pedestrians and cyclists than the current roads and paths”.
London Road, Guildford (Google Maps)
The local authority’s communities, environment, and highways select committee will scrutinise the cabinet’s decision to refuse the plans for London Road against their officers’ recommendations, after the Guildford Bike User Group (G-Bug) complained that the vote did not follow proper legal process.
“The council decision appears to ignore a number of important considerations, including the overwhelming evidence that the new scheme is significantly safer for both pedestrians and cyclists than the current roads and paths,” a G-Bug spokesperson said.
“The decision also takes account of matters that aren’t relevant, such as floating bus stops, which were removed from the scheme in 2023.”
However, Nikki Roberts, the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People’s CEO, told the BBC today that the group was “strongly opposing” plans for shared spaces at bus stops and on the pavement.
“Blind, visually impaired, disabled, older, and vulnerable bus passengers should be able to get on and off the bus independently directly from/to the pavement as they have always done,” she said.
Responding to the complaints raised by local cycling campaigners, council leader Tim Oliver said: “Alongside both the strength of feeling from the local community and the findings of an independent technical review about the London Road scheme, cabinet members decided not to proceed with this part of the proposal at their meeting on 29 October.
“This was a decision taken at a Cabinet meeting and as such is open to the council’s call-in process as set out in the council constitution.”
Fancy Pinarello’s F Series but don’t want to break the bank? Well, unfortunately you’re still going to have to fork out three grand for their new ‘cheapest’ model. Nice of them, eh?
> Pinarello launches F1, the least expensive model in the F Series road bike range at £3,000
Quick, somebody get Marc Madiot, the results of the live blog budget cap poll are in…
And perhaps unsurprisingly, 70 per cent of road.cc’s readers are all for redistributing that sweet, sweet wealth:
So, this means the UCI has to implement a salary cap now, don’t they?
Alright, let’s do another poll now – how about one on the farming inheritance tax? On second thoughts, probably best to leave that one alone…
Tour de France boss says cycling budget cap would help tackle “unbalanced investment from Arab countries” – and admits he “wasn’t a fan of the Sky era”
Two weeks ago, we were all gawping at the apparent details of Tadej Pogačar’s recently signed six-year contract extension with UAE Team Emirates, which – along with unleashing accusations of sportswashing complicity against the world champion – means the best bike rider on the planet will be paid €8 million a season until 2030.
According to La Gazzetta dello Sport, his new deal makes the Slovenian comfortably the best paid rider in the world too, with the Italian paper reporting earlier this year that Tour de France rival Jonas Vingegaard earns €4m a year at Visma-Lease a Bike (and that €8m annual wage is before we factor in image rights and win bonuses, of course, which would send Pogačar’s earnings into truly stratospheric territory).
Of course, if this were football, UAE Team Emirates – who also placed a €200m buyout clause in the Triple Crown winner’s contract – would be accused of buying success.
(ASO/Charly Lopez)
Which is why Tour de France chief Christian Prudhomme, who after all has a vested interest in making sure that cycling is as open and exciting as possible, believes that tackling the “unbalanced” financial investment from UAE and others through a proposed salary cap is the way forward for the sport.
Earlier this year, the UCI announced that it was considering the imposition of a maximum budget cap for teams, which the governing body said would “preserve sporting fairness by avoiding excessive disparities between teams in terms of budget”.
And last month, Escape Collective reported that the UCI has employed consultancy form PwC to investigate how such a cap could be implemented, with plans currently in place to introduce it in time for the 2026 season.
Speaking to Midi Libre, the Tour de France’s general director Prudhomme argued that a budget cap would help level the playing field in a sport beset by financial turbulence beyond a privileged few, and where UAE Team Emirates’ rumoured annual expenditure of €60m dwarfs all but their closes rivals, such as Ineos and Visma-Lease a Bike.
(A.S.O./Etienne Coudret)
“We are lucky to be professionals paid to do our passion,” Prudhomme told the French newspaper. “Most people in cycling are volunteers who fight. It is increasingly complicated to obtain authorisations, to find budgets, etc.
“That is why the link with the everyday bicycle is necessary for me. The bicycle has never been so fashionable in 100 years.
“Having big sponsors is perhaps what the French teams are also lacking. The UCI is thinking about it, with the organisers and the teams, about perhaps having a maximum budget.
“Because in fact, with the money coming from Arab countries in particular, the match is a bit unbalanced. That would be an understatement.”
Not that Prudhomme, unlike some fans disgruntled with Pogačar’s once in a lifetime dominance this year, finds the current unbalanced nature of cycling boring, however.
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
When asked if the disparity between teams reduces cycling’s attractiveness, the 64-year-old said: “No. We have been lucky to have had attacks from afar for four or five years, since 2019 and the turn of the gun-toting grandpas, if you will allow me the expression, of Thibaut Pinot and Julian Alaphilippe. Then, we had Van Aert, Van der Poel, Pogačar, Evenepoel, and so on.
“I wasn’t a fan of the Sky era, where it was completely locked down, and they attacked 800 metres from the finish.
“Now, they attack from afar, they make or break. We had an absolutely fantastic Tour two years ago, we had an exceptional half of the Tour last year. I just hope that everyone arrives in full possession of their means next year.”
Of course, the interview wouldn’t be complete without a question about the accusations swirling around Pogačar after his era-defining season.
“Given the history of cycling, we can always ask questions everywhere,” he said. “We fought for years to have an independent agency that takes care of the controls. Today, there is the ITA [International Testing Agency]. I do not doubt for a single second its effectiveness.”
And it sounds like Prudhomme is just as convinced about the effectiveness of any incoming salary cap, too.
Over 1,300 locals sign petition opposing “morally wrong” cycleway plans for new development that would destroy “ancient hedgerows” and have “devastating consequences” for wildlife – as residents tell cyclists they can ride on the footpath
Another day, another row over cycling in Birmingham…
Plans to install a footpath and cycleway around a new 5,500 home development have been opposed by more than 1,300 locals and councillors, who claim the proposed infrastructure is “morally wrong” and “vandalism” – because it would lead to the removal of a 410m stretch of “ancient” hedgerow beside a main road.
The massive new development in Sutton Coldfield, about nine miles to the northeast of Birmingham city centre, is set to include new internal roads, green spaces, play areas, and cycle and pedestrian networks, including a new shared-use cycleway and footpath around the perimeter of the site.
However, when the plans were originally submitted by the developers last year, this new cycle path was branded a “land grab” by local councillor Ken Wood, who said it would create a “dual carriageway” and a “tarmac moat” around the site (although I’m sure Ken had little to say about the roads surrounding the development).
In any case, that initial plan was shelved, with a new shorter, 3.5m-wide cycle lane now proposed, the construction of which will see 410 metres of hedgerow removed, instead of the originally slated 1,100m, and outside the boundaries of the development.
However, these plans are now the subject of an online petition launched by Sutton Reddicap councillor Richard Parkin, which has already attracted over 1,300 signatures as of Tuesday morning.
“We object to the proposals in the Langley development to remove and tarmac over the established hedgerow along Springfield Road between the junctions of Churchill Road and Reddicap Heath Road to make way for a new 3.5m wide Western Boundary footway/cycleway,” Parkin said in the petition.
“This unnecessary destruction of the natural environment will have devastating consequences to local wildlife.
“A new shared use footway/cycleway would instead be better placed running alongside the existing hedgerow within the new development. This will ensure a new footway/cycleway can be built to encourage active travel, whilst retaining the existing hedgerow and not harming the local environment.”
Writing on Facebook, the councillor continued: “I have been knocking on doors to get more signatures to add to the online petition and over 1,200 people have signed the petition so far. Every single person I have met opposes the plans.
“The Langley developers will be building on vast swathes of our beautiful countryside as it is. We cannot allow them to rip out our ancient hedgerow, a natural habitat and home to local wildlife, and tarmac over it.
“It’s morally wrong. And it’s unacceptable. I can’t promise the campaign will be successful but I will do all I can to save the hedgerow.”
Some of those who have signed the petition, such as Teresa Graham, described the cycleway plans as “unnecessary destruction and vandalism”.
“I thought it was supposed to be sustainable,” David Howes said of the cycle path plans. “We need to protect ancient hedgerows for wildlife and for beauty’s sake.”
“There is more than enough destruction going on in the fields as it is,” added Chris Walsh, who indulged in a bit of classic ‘but nobody cycles here’ bingo.
“We desperately need to keep the hedgerow. The wildlife will suffer terribly from the field building.
“Also people can cycle either on the footpath on the other side of the road or the road itself – not that I have ever seen anyone cycling up there. We have a major issue with global warming and flooding, we need these trees and hedgerows.”
Speaking to Birmingham Live, Parkin insisted that he’s “not against a cycleway and footway” – but argued that it should be on the developer’s side of the hedge.
“This hedgerow has been there for at least 100 years. It could be 200-years-old,” he said. “It’s established hedgerow. I am told Birmingham City Council want to have the whole length of the cycleway visible to existing Sutton Coldfield residents. I have been up and down the road and residents are against it.
“This hedgerow is a natural part of the environment and is full of wildlife. They could run it the other side of the hedgerow to keep residents happy. This is on a busy main road. It would be safer for cyclists to be the other side.
“I have done petitions before and I have never had a reaction like this. I have been overwhelmed by the responses. Everybody wanted to sign the petition.
“The residents are more angry about the hedgerow being removed than being incentivised to go cycling. If they have got any sense they will listen to residents. It’s an appalling destruction of the environment.”
“In Walmley it will wipe out all the trees and verge and some of the hedge. All of the trees will go. Some are mature, others only planted last year,” added David Cooke, from the Walmley Residents Association.
“It beggars belief. We found out in September, it’s not a requirement of the developer. It’s a requirement of Birmingham City Council.
“City council planners have got it in their heads that they want to encourage cycling and walking. They also say it will benefit from existing street lighting. Cllr Parkin said there is no street lighting along Springfield Road on the opposite side of the road to the houses.
“If the topography is suitable, I’m with it. We are sitting at the top of a hill. Very few people actually cycle here. All this infrastructure is taking out verges and hedges. But who is going to use them?”
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
32 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
The problems mentioned in this article are far more wide-ranging than simply affecting the viability of hiring Saturday lads/lasses. Fixing bikes or selling bikes now requires so much more skill and knowledge than it did 10-20 years ago, but the pay is still rubbish, partly because public perception is that the job is easy and is just a hobby. Therefore people with the ability to be good at the job are not encouraged to stick around and they look elsewhere for a career that can earn a decent wage. I don't enjoy the fact that half the bikes that I work on have almost-unique parts that requires odd techniques, tools, or parts to repair and I first have to research what I need for many of them (despite having 20 years of experience). I'm now getting so much work that I could consider hiring someone else, but it would be impossible to find a skilled person who would work for the wage I can offer and it would take far too much of my time to train someone to a level where they can do more than the simplest 10% of the jobs that come in (whereas 10-20 years ago, after a small amount of training they probably could have done 30+% of the jobs). The complexity and uniqueness of modern bikes is apparently necessary to sell them, but soon there are going to be no mechanics left who will work for the wages that people are prepared to pay. At some point, people are going to have to admit that bike mechanics and salespeople are highly skilled and knowledgeable and should be reimbursed accordingly. Or, everyone can just order bikes online and watch YouTube repair videos and end up with a bike that barely works and isn't safe; but that's fine because they're just simple kids' toys, right?
I think the author is trying too hard to "both sides" this one. The basic error is Gove's - he was wandering across a pedestrian crossing on red for him with his head in a cup of coffee, and started well after it was on red. The Highway Code says "should not cross" in these circumstances. He then tried to excuse this by red herrings. Conservatives, including Gove, are supposed to have taking personal responsibility for their actions as a core value. Perhaps having the crooked coward Boris Johnson and Fruit Loop Liz as elected leaders demonstrates that this is merely historical. Gove is permitting a culture war being fought in the pages of his magazine; that is a war where Conservatives are demonising cycling because they hope it will save the rump Conservative Party. One example was their sudden reversal of support for the Welsh 20mph default limit. Should noodles have reacted less sharply - perhaps. A chat with Michael Gove to stop him wandering around the streets like a lobotomised koala may have been beneficial.
@mdavidford Funny, as soon as I saw your comment on the ticker on another article I knew to whom you must be replying.
@mctrials23 People have been suffering for years because they have been unlucky enough to have been hired by bad people, or had the bad luck to become ill. This is just bringing the system more into balance. I don't have a problem with encouraging people to start businesses but I don't agree with doing it by letting them exploit the poor and the desperate, if they need encouragement then offer state benefits for small businesses and use the claims process to make sure that they are doing everything they should to run the business properly including paying and training their employees. If they just want to get rich quick by exploiting others then they should be in the USA.
One may wonder why you've brought up DEI when it has nothing at all to do with anything in what Lappartient said. Or why you care about the state of the women's sport if you're so down on diversity, equity and inclusion. 🤷♂️
Not quite the first time, I rode over it back in the late twentyteens, just happened to see it was jammed nose-to-tail so thought it would be fun to filter along...turned out there was an overturned lorry at the eastern end blocking all carriageways. I honestly didn't know cycling was banned (the signs aren't very prominent), just assumed nobody rode on it because it would be suicidal in normal circumstances. Fortunately the weary copper at the other end who saw me just cut off my apologies and said, "Fuck off over there [a gap in the barrier to a slip road] and don't do it again."
They're not slalom barriers, they're Sheffield stands for parking your bike.
@momove I would think that spending time training someone up, putting the time and effort into that only to have most people move on relatively quickly isn't a great business model. I know there is the argument that "if your business has to take advantage of people to run then its not a viable business" but thats the reality of some of these shops. Up to a point, thats exactly what apprenticeships have always been. A business get cheap labour that might help them a bit and the apprentice learns something.
One may wonder why bureaucrat Lappartient wants to reinvent the wheel with a massive injection of DEI and drastic reduction of money. Let the best cyclists win, period. Meanwhile, women's pro peloton needs means and support to attract new sponsors, increase TV coverage, improve salaries and prize money.
So they want to pay people a pittance "for the experience", not record their leave accrued, have them ineligible for sickness pay, then complain about them not being experts on e-bikes, bikefitting and more?
32 thoughts on ““Morally wrong” cycleway next to busy main road will destroy “ancient hedgerow”, say locals – who tell cyclists they can ride on footpath or road; Tour de France boss calls for budget cap and admits he “wasn’t a fan of the Sky era” + more on the live blog”
I was under the impression
I was under the impression that “unbalanced investment from Arab countries” is having a not necessarily good impact on pretty much every sport.
Re. the cycleway and
Re. the cycleway and hedgerows, it sounds as if the local planning authority hasn’t done a great job. Cycleways and active travel need to be incorporated at the start, rather than as an afterthought.
There’s some weird logic
There’s some weird logic going on here. It’s ok to ruin countryside and the environment to build lots of homes but not ok to cut down some hedgerow?
I’m not comfortable, though, with cutting down hedgerows for anything. Same goes for all those trees that were lost in the name of ‘imrpoving’ the Wisley junction in Surrey.
I was also puzzled by that. 5
I was also puzzled by that. 5,500 new homes and yet the complaint focuses on the environmental impact of a cycle path? Shome mishtake, surely!
‘Ancient headge rows’.. is
‘Ancient hedge rows’.. is there such a thing? Whats so special about that particular Hawthorn? Hedge rows are just large weeds in the right place.
An ‘ancient’ hedgerow, AFAICS
An ‘ancient’ hedgerow, AFAICS, is one that predates the Enclosure Acts (passed between 1720 and 1840 in the mainland UK).
One hundred years old is old, but not ancient. Probably predates all those houses on the other side of the road, though.
One to two hundred years
One to two hundred years according to the article. Old enough that most or all of the ecosystem of ancient hedgerow will be there, and old enough that if you rip it out to put in a cycle path and replant a new hedgerow beside the path, only in your great grandchildren’s or your great-great grandchildren’s time will it be home to all the same elements. Complex ecosystems aren’t built in a day, or even a decade. When you’ve destroyed an unbearable amount of ecosystems that take centuries to develop (ancient woodland, peat bog, hedgerow, salt marsh etc), it’s not a good idea to destroy something that’s a century or two on its way to replacing part of it.
bikeman01 wrote:
Sounds like the sort of thing Jeremy Clarkson would say if he were a cyclist.
Yes, there is such a thing. And like ancient woodland, they’re complex systems that develop over generations and can’t be simulated by just planting the same species.
On the other hand, though, it
On the other hand, though, it appears that this particular one isn’t actually one of them.
[Not that that means it’s fine to grub it up – a slightly old hedgerow is better than no hedgerow at all, even if it’s not ancient.]
Yep!
Yep!
But presumably while at least some people weren’t happy about “the whole thing” presumably the development as a whole is a very done deal (for oodles of cash). So people no more bother charging against that windmill than they demand the existing roads are narrowed (or made single-lane, one-way through the place, or even removed).
Besides – the historic whatever that’s now under tarmac is gone; people won’t accept the Hedge of Theseus as genuine if they know it was cut down and burned a few generations back. “A new hedge” doesn’t make a campaign…
I am not for paving everywhere either. But since we’re already driving unsustainably, and also installing a ton more people (and their children…) having a way for them to generate fewer driven journeys seems less self-harming.
Quote:
I think the petition is about building the cycle path on the other side of the hedge to the road. This of course would take away some of the building land rather than public land so obviously the developers will object to it but it’s obviously the right thing to do. If you can build a cycle path without ripping out the hedgerow with it’s long established wild life with the added benefit that the cycle path is separated from the road by a hedge row which will cut out some noise and pollution as well as being safer, it seems a no brainer to me.
Or have I misunderstood the article?
That’s how I read it too –
That’s how I read it too – the real argument is “Build it on your land” rather than “Don’t build it”.
Which seems fairly reasonable? A cyclepath shielded from the road by a hedge sounds nicer than one right by the road anyway.
I think all new housing
I think all new housing developments should be forced to do exactly that. They already do the LTN type thing. And cyclists do ride past it, I have!
Should also all be 20mph zones unlike a new development on the outskirts of Solihull where the council missed a trick by putting a 20mph just after the entrance to the estate to slow the traffic down from the estate rather than within it…
They should start a campaign
They should start a campaign & a gofundme page to help with the fight.
They could even call it, I don’t know…… a hedge fund.
*exits stage left*
Or you could exit stage right
Or you could exit stage right – you know, hedge your bets!
Can’t respect anyone who
Can’t respect anyone who copse out like that though.
Branching out on the comments
Branching out on the comments (which are getting a bit thorny) I see. I’ll just leaf this here.
Scrub that, they should just
Scrub that, they should just pass round a box for donations.
Quote:
I suspect you probably mean uninterested. Disinterested they most certainly are not.
“We have a major issue with
“We have a major issue with global warming and flooding, we need these trees and hedgerows.”
and our cars.
Funny isn’t it how climate change and environmental destruction are both fake news when it comes to lifestyle change and motor vehicle/fossil fuels but are sound reasons to when it comes to not implementing measures to counter them.
They are professional
They are professional cyclists in elite world teams, I say no to budget caps, they should be able to have expensive caps!
Personally I’m all in favour
Personally I’m all in favour of these celery caps. I think they’ll make the sport healthier.
I think I saw something like
I think I saw something like that at a Welsh international – it looked a bit leeky though.
Protesters telling us that a
Protesters telling us that a new cycle path will have devastating consequences on wildlife – motor vehicles are already doing that, but no protests about them.
That’s whataboutism – just
That’s whataboutism – just because roads are bad for wildlife doesn’t mean it’s ok for cycling infrastructure to be bad for wildlife, especially as it completely undermines the environmental arguments for cycling. And if you think there are no protests about new roads and the environmental effects of motor vehicles you must have had your head in a bucket for the last forty years.
Ah – but the vast majority of
Ah – but the vast majority of this is effectively selective concern. So e.g. big roads are fine in general / people are happy to call for them where they feel they’ll improve things for them BUT they certainly don’t want a new big road near their house.
The same kind of concern which also creates shouts when a couple of parking spaces are removed, or a lane disappears, or speed limits are reduced.
As Chris Boardman has noted – many people will agree it is a good idea to e.g. have nicer places at cost of e.g. parking / speed limits / road space – BUT on a street that they don’t live on.
However – in this case I note that some posters say the protest here is rather that the developer should still build the cycle route but just on their land, not at the cost of the “public good” e.g. a hedge they couldn’t sell for house plots anyway.
The cycle path issue
The cycle path issue illustrates a really difficult problem.
It is a Planning Application with 299 separate documents on the website.
That will swallow weeks of time just to engage with properly.
They are probably right about the hedge, but in a 5500 house development it should not be hard to meet standards.
Would the cutting down of the
Would the cutting down of the hedge then enable another access road to the new estate, so do it under the guise of ‘active travel’? I agree with the protest, it should be built on the developer side of the hedge. I’m sure anyone cycling there would prefer the additional barrier between them and the cars. I agree with another comment that active travel infrastructure to estates should be compulsory, not just around the new estates.
Can’t do it on the developer
We can’t do it on the developer side of the hedge – there’s room there for another two rows of executive houses and the estate becomes financially unviable if we can’t build those to offset the cost of the two ‘affordable’ houses we’ve already had to squeeze in next to the sewage outlet.
I thought ancient meant like
I thought ancient meant like thousands years ago, not 100 years and being able to regrow in 3 years with good weather conditions.
cyclisto wrote:
It’s not as simple as that, hedgerows often have incredible biodiversity, sometimes comprising up to 40 different types of plant supporting a corresponding variety of wildlife. It takes many decades for the plants comprising such hedgerows to meld together and grow sustainably into their environment, you can’t simply rip them up, chuck down 40 different types of seed and expect them to grow back as they were before. Also, even if that were possible, while they are growing back the wildlife they sustain can’t take a sabbatical, the colonies supported by the hedgerow will die out; in many cases the wildlife will include endangered species.
You are right in terms of definition, strictly speaking ancient hedgerows means those planted prior to the Enclosure Acts, although the term has come to mean rather more modern ones. In any case, a century-old hedgerow has had 100 years to shape itself into its environment, you simply can’t replicate it in three years.
Where I live we are
Where I live we are experiencing a lot of housing development on small and large plots of land. These developers don’t seem to have problems destroying ancient hedgerow and pathways and the LA choose to ignore it. I agree that we should avoid damaging hedgerows and maybe stop trying to avoid annoying drivists.