An under-fire council has promised “angry” residents an extra disabled parking bay will soon be added to a car park, the furious backlash following the installation of a car-shaped cycle rack in one of the spaces.
The parking row erupted in the Suffolk market town of Beccles, “concerned” residents sharing pictures of the Hungate car park’s latest addition, a car-shaped bike rack (believed to be one of Cyclehoop’s designs as seen in a similar story below) that has replaced one of the parking site’s five disabled spaces.
> “Cartoon-car” bike rack removed from Lincolnshire town as locals miss the point
East Suffolk Council told the Beccles Journal that the rack was installed as part of efforts to “promote environmental sustainability by encouraging cycling”, and that the car park “still retains the number of disabled parking bays recommended by the British Parking Association”. The local authority did, however, add that a fifth disabled parking bay would be reinstated elsewhere “in due course”.
Locals took to social media with their pictures and comments about the bike rack, one person asking “what is this all about?” and another telling the local council: “Give us back our parking spaces.”
One resident said they were “concerned and angry” and suggested there is “no need” for the bike parking.
Even a few local cyclists joined the negativity online, with comments questioning the design of the rack and whether bikes would “get scratched to bits” getting them in and out. Another rider suggested a non-disabled bay would have been a better location. Others tried to get their heads around the car-shaped design and messaging of the space still displaying a painted wheelchair.
“That looks awful, what is it supposed to be? A bike or trolley park? If that’s where it’s staying it’s pure laziness on planning and fitting not to cover or remove the markings underneath. That being said why is it needed instead of the parking bay? If it’s for bikes why not renew the bar that ran down the side of QD which has worked for many years? Probably just so someone can say look I’ve done a thing and spend some money I would be interested in who authorised this and what did it cost.”
Another local commented: “What I think is ironic is that if it’s a bike rack why does it look like a car?”
“One car space = ten bicycles”
The answer to the confused questions appears to be that this is one of Cyclehoop’s cycle racks that we covered on road.cc about five years ago when a similar “cartoon car” cycle rack was installed in a Lincolnshire town, only to be removed within 24 hours of being installed after traders complained that taking away one car parking space could affect their takings.
The point locals there, and potentially now in Suffolk, missed was that the design is meant to demonstrate how many bikes can be parked in the space ordinarily taken up by a single car. It’s a design that has also been spotted in London, for example in this photo with a certain former prime minister and displaying the message: ‘1 car space = ten bicycles’.
Back in Suffolk, responding to the backlash, the council said: “The bike rack was installed at Hungate car park as part of efforts to promote environmental sustainability by encouraging cycling.
“Its specific location was selected due to the space being suitably lit, secure and visible. With this installation, the car park still retains the number of disabled parking bays recommended by the British Parking Association, based on requirements for the Disabled Parking Accreditation award. However, we plan to reinstate a fifth disabled parking bay at Hungate car park in due course.”
55 thoughts on “Locals furious after car-shaped bike rack replaces disabled parking bay, demanding “give us back our parking spaces””
So… before it kicks off – I
So… before it kicks off – I guess it could be in the best place, and the rack could be OK *. But … that’s a question (for locals).
However the “hasty install” (e.g. not even bothering to remove the previous markings) certainly suggests that may not be the case.
If not then it’s a wow – this would appear to be a literal illustration of “let them fight over scraps”. e.g. who is it most important to consider when allocating limited space? a) People with disabilities b) People choosing active travel (who maybe can’t drive – but at any rate aren’t taking up much space…) or c) Able-bodied people who choose to drive (and possibly “choose to buy a bigger vehicle”)?
* I’ve seen these “car” design racks in person – and they can be OK as a rack. But the car part, unless it’s providing extra protection (e.g. against cars driving into the rack) is superfluous and might even get in the way when parking. Really what we need is more good enough infra e.g. cheap, standard, boring Sheffield stands (ideally with that extra bar though). Ditch the fancy stuff, spend the money saved on extra bike stands, or a roof over the parking!
chrisonabike wrote:
It does seem to me that the council might have been better off removing a ‘normal’ parking space to replace with bike parking, rather than being seen to be ‘picking on the disabled’…
although, a standard parking
although, a standard parking space wil be further from the store enterance (and may have car parking bays on either side). While providing spaces for active travel is important, it;s critical that cyclists should be confident their bike will stil be there when they get back to it. That generally means front and centre, as close to the store enterance as possible to maximise passing pedestrians/witnesses, and that is usually where you’ll find the disabled bays.
Well, yes … except that:
Well, yes … except that:
a) If it’s this one it isn’t really a store… just a town car park *.
b) Of course in the UK ATM it’s moot – I’m not sure the extent of deliberate misuse of disabled parking spaces but where “but I can’t park anywhere” or where people are “justing” (“Just popping in for a minute…”) you’ll see people ignore their own safety, any signs and markings or even the distinction between road and footway. Certainly when “pressed” (pressure of course usually self-generated) people rapidly discount the interests of others.
Because we “have to drive” (see here just how strong that feeling can be… and people’s attachment to their car / drive – but really a lot of this is “because we can”).
* In fact having cyclists “parking” in a a car park isn’t really great for cyclists anyway. You need to be aware of the cars. Plus cyclists would ideally be accommodated actually on the shopping street, outside the shops – where there are lots of people coming and going for maximum social safety. Or – if you’ve got “problems of success” and thousands of cyclists (which the UK will likely never have in my lifetime) then in a dedicated cycle parking garage with staff which is really convenient for the shops [1].
I think Chrisonabike has hit
I think Chrisonabike has hit the nail on the head. It’s easier, even if not consciously thought through, to take from one weak, inconsequential group of spongers to give to another weak, inconsequential group of spongers, than to take from a strong, impactful group who pay parking fees.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Looking at this town – they could put the cycle parking just off the main shopping/pedestrian (sort of) area – oh, wait, they filled it with cars also …
(Just a parking grumble – not
(Just a parking grumble – not a “paying fees” scenario) – here was one of this lunchtime’s helpful drivers. Removals (?) guy parked right across a separate cycle path (it runs left-right here marked in red). Albeit the authorities haven’t helped by making it continuous over this street (access only – to parking behind flats. You can – appropriately – see a guy sat waiting parked in a dumb place on the double-yellows in Streetview).
Not that this would matter. There is parking literally 5 metres further on – it’s well used but I have always seen spaces (this starts where the two cars are in picture).
What you can’t see in this picture is that there are a couple of builders vans which have driven up the cycle path (to left) and are parked outside the flats – half-on the footway.
Do they have a key for the bollards? Did they just drive round them?
In one sense those guys are fine – there is still space to get round on either side, and no doubt it is more convenient for them if they have to move heavy or bulky stuff. Pragmatism and all. But… there is access to get in anything short of a grand piano from the parking spaces at the back of the flats!
I guess in the UK this would need some kind of (enforced) time slot booking, else (shock horror) people who needed to be there might have to walk up to 50 metres (there is some parking on the main road).
chrisonabike wrote:
But we’re the bike rack installation team – you can’t expect us to go around changing markings – that’s an entirely different department, and in any case, you haven’t filled out the required sixteen forms and got the necessary twelve authorisations. What are you – some kind of anarchist?
…and yet I often see able
…and yet I often see able bodied folks jump from their cars stopped in the disabled/family bays at Sainsbury’s and the like. No rage shown there or online vitriolic campaigns, decent working folks in a hurry, init!
I’m sure that the huge number
I’m sure that the huge number of people I see parking in disabled bays just have hidden disabilities. It is amazing how many of them drive expensive prestige cars from brands like Audi though and seem perfectly capable of walking when they get out of their car.
No sticker is required in the
No sticker is required in the case of the empathy disabled. If you see someone in yoga wear getting out a wankpanzer it’s clear they are crippled by narcissism and are permitted to park anywhere it may cause an obstruction.
I’m just going to drop in
I’m just going to drop in here that I am disabled and ride a two wheeled bike.
In “lycra” too.
Guess you’d be judging me like this?
But not all disabilities are
But not all disabilities are risible…
Now I’m primed I see a lot of stupid / rule-breaking or sometimes even dangerous parking around the local shops and supermarket (blocking visibility, immediately next to junctions / behind blind corners). Not in disabled bays so much, but on double yellows (but but dropping off… with nobody in the car) or blocking lanes through the car park.
What people can do they will do. It’s training – the only way to correct that from where we are is guaranteed feedback.
I’d say it’s a lost cause at the moment. Social conventions don’t necessarily say it’s right doing that but it’s clear that a large number of people feel entirely justified ignoring rules (or even common sense) under many circumstances (but always “when it’s convenient for me”).
The real social dont-give-a
The real social dont-give-a-fuck: parent and child bays.
Now … that’s free game for all.
Not legally enforceable and you *may* get a notice from the car park owner … which you may or not pay …
I’m not sure that disabled
I’m not sure that disabled bays in private carparks are legally enforceable either.
chrisonabike wrote:
I don’t think I find any disabilities to be risible
(I think that was an
(I think that was an intentional pun, aimed at those mctrials23 identified, whose entitlement to use disabled spaces is questionable. But maybe I’ve missed your point and the ‘whoosh’ is on me!)
Ah, OK…
Ah, OK…
You were following me like a
You were following me like a panther.
Hidden disabilities are real.
Hidden disabilities are real. Those with disabilities are allowed to drive expensive and/or prestige cars. And those with disabilities may be capable of walking. Much more reliable just to check if they’ve displayed a blue badge.
Incidentally, I only recently discovered that you can park on double yellows with a blue badge. I admit I am a little confused by this – surely double yellows are there for safety / visibility / traffic flow (e.g. avoiding parking close to junctions). Seems a little odd that this can be trumped (although I know it is routinely trumped every time it suits someone’s convenience).
Agree about the blue badge /
Agree about the blue badge / double yellows … as you say it’s moot in practice.
As I understand double yellows officially indicate “No waiting at any time” (subject to any signage indicating variation) – but in practice mean “temporary parking, because dropping off innit? Or I’ll say I’m working/loading”. I think it depends where they are also and the time of day: maybe parking for over an hour on double yellows in the middle of the day is seen as edging it a bit.
Then there’s the delivery “exemption”. I have had a quick look and I can’t find any official exemption for the Royal Mail, but it does appear there’s general understanding that normal parking restrictions will not be enforced if a) they are in the course of performing their duties and b) they aren’t causing a hazard / serious obstruction.
I think there is also some expected (unofficial) commonsense around e.g. removals vehicles.
Of course – there are specific “no loading” marks… the logic seems to be “if they didn’t paint them, it’s fine to leave my van / truck here!”
On which – a small detail but which seems to show a complete difference in mindset is possible. In the UK to ask drivers not to park anywhere they feel we have to effectively paint two lines along streets everywhere – and if they’re not both red (not the case for streets) we then have to add no-loading double-slashes on kerbs at intervals.
But in e.g. NL as I understand it they only mark where you can park.
A small thing, but a very different mental model of what public space is *for*. And saves a LOT of paint.
In Switzerland, if you want
In Switzerland, if you want to temporarily park a van for removal etc you apply and pay for a permit. Police officers then put up signage to leave space available for said date and time.
If you don’t do this you will get a heavy fine.
Any parking for very short periods of time is okay.
The full street is not available for parking and has painted bays for where it is available, permit holders only.
The reason why this works is that the rules are enforced and punishment harsh.
It is accepted without any complaint because the benefits are obvious.
Why not check they are
Why not check they are displaying Blue Badges? Remember the driver may not be disabled but a passenger may be.
Is this council deliberately
Is this council deliberately stirring up anti-cycling hate?
While perhaps we should be grateful that they’ve bothered with cycle parking at all, putting in a disabled bay isn’t exactly the best look.
It’s a spot that’s considered
It’s a spot that’s considered the most secure for cycle parking, its directly covered by cctv that is on the ticket machine, well lit, and has the most footfall, or would you prefer it got stuck in the corner out of the way ?
They’ve already said they intend converting one of the other spaces in to a disabled spot, so what’s the issue ?
In a more perfect world the
In a more perfect world the replacement disabled bay would be installed first.
Likely comes from different
Likely comes from different budgets of money
It’s amazing how, the length
It’s amazing how, the length and bredth of the land, Councils are run by complete and utter idiots.
Perhaps things would improve
Perhaps things would improve if more people like you stood for election. The chances of succeeding on an ‘Active Travel’ platform are not good. We get the Councillors we deserve.
IIRC eburtthebike from this
IIRC eburtthebike from this parish has done just that, with success. (Presumably they stood for various things – Green Party I think?)
chrisonabike wrote:
Yes, Greens, but trying to get anything actually positive done is proving beyond my meagre means. Motornormativity is so totally ingrained here I’m nearing despair.
Hi @Bigtwin. What an utterly
Hi @Bigtwin. What an utterly negative comment. I wonder what qualifies you to spout such hatred? Isnt this simply a reflection of the way motornormatively inclined spout about us as cyclists? Are you refering to Councillors or Officers? Do you engage in civic life for your community? Do you write positive communications to your own council/councils looking to guide the outcomes you receive for the money you invest in services? Have you considered a career in local government? If you simply sit on the sidelines jeering into your social media platforms then you are just part of the problem.
Samtheeagle wrote:
Voters?
(Theyworkforus, and all that…)
Bigtwin wrote:
I’m on our local council and am always more than happy to argue in favour of pedestrianisation (which we’re looking into) or charging for car parking (which we’re bringing in soon) and to point out motonormativity whenever it rears its head. But as pointed out above, if you feel your councillors are inadequate in some way, why not stand for election yourself?
Beccles residents are always
Beccles residents are always furious about something, usually parking and usually about it not being free, I’m surprised they don’t demand the council pay them to park instead.
I think during Covid they implemented parking for bicycles in the main market square and a sort of modal filter/ltn pedestrian area, the locals objected to losing their car parking spaces as a result,so the changes were reverted.
They put the price of car parking up by a pittance, the locals were furious it was the death knell for the local shops. I think they managed to get through some of the price increase but not all. Most of their car parks are still free, or at most £1 for 2hrs, they still complain about the costs.
Motornormativity is ingrained in the locals, so any change provokes reactions like this.
I wonder if South Kesteven
I wonder if South Kesteven sold it to them cheap.
They put one in a town, poorly placed but got lots of negativity until it was removed(colour, eyesore etc) then it made its way to Stamford where it simply won’t do dahling, conservation area and all that….eventually even Grantham didn’t want it(or the Maggie statue as it goes). Not sure why it needs to be a garish colour and can’t be painted a more muted tone.
Mpcleathero wrote:
It’s obviously deliberately designed with the intention of catching the eye and making the point that ‘just one car would have taken all this space’. Making it a muted colour would rather have defeated that purpose.
Whether that’s actually an important design consideration for a bike rack in the first place is another question, but if you don’t think it is, then why bother having the ‘car’ to start with?
I imagine the bright colour
I imagine the bright colour was to make them more noticeable. Except car drivers are obviously blind to anything outside of their vehicles. In my experience, where these bike racks have replaced a single parking space,I have noted they have all been hit and damaged then replaced or repaired several times before they are eventually removed. ( Most recently, Stevenage, Herts.)
Some drivers have zero observational/coordination skill.
🙄
Locals furious because lazy
Locals furious because lazy able bodied people have lost an extra space.
I think Reach.plc and all the
I think Reach.plc and all the other local news purveyors could save themselves and their readers a lot of bother if they turned it into one national publication with one headline that just reads: “Locals Furious”.
We’re living in strange times
We’re living in strange times right now where cycling is getting shoved down our throats every day for no good reason. The most obvious problem is that we don’t have a good enough climate to allow for comfortable biking more than 6 months of the year and those who do are such a tiny insignificant minority for us to be wasting so much public money on at the expense of the vast majority who would prefer to carry on living a normal life. I don’t understand why we are allowing those in power so much control over this. I sometimes cycle and the additional parking and ill thought out cycle lanes do not encourage me to try and cycle more.
Pollax wrote:
Ah, that’ll be because you’re going on *cycling sites* on the internet. Simply switch to the BBC or almost any other media and the problem will go away, except for the occasional negative take, like yours.
Presumably you’re writing from Bahrain or maybe Minnesota? In such places people are reluctant to walk outdoors now, because it’s so hot, or cold (although they got there in the first place somehow)?
Anyway, here in the UK (and indeed everywhere I’ve been in Europe) I see people walking throughout the year. So I’m pretty sure cycling isn’t a problem “because weather”.
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/8/the-weather-isn%E2%80%99t-right
I’d say the most obvious problems are one you’ve identified (“living a normal life”) and one other.
The first- we have made choices in our built environment which make cycling feel inconvenient and indeed unsafe to most. So it’s a niche activity. And the normal media – outside of a few cycling corners – seems to delight in joining in either as you’re doing (the majority are under attack! Being harassed somehow by a tiny minority!). Or portraying cyclists as at best weirdos.
The reason behind this? A choice to go all-in on mass motoring (to the detriment of alternatives – actually to the detriment of many things). Other countries show its possible (and more pleasant) to keep driving AND have alternatives.
Recent studies show that we
Recent studies show that we actually aren’t in the minority. Most people, 2/3, actually want better active travel opportunities. We just feel in the minority due to the information we are being fed.
I think it very much depends
I think it very much depends what we’re talking about. For “people now using cycling as part of their transport” it’s a small percentage (nationally in the UK – a very small one). For people honestly prepared to try with things more or less as now – also pretty small (probably saw the maximal version of that in the pandemic lock down).
Equally, we know from places where they’ve made it attractive (never mind “possible”) that in fact the majority of people (just like us) can be happy adding cycling to their transport mix.
I would agree that – depending on how it is presented to people – we do seem to be broadly supportive of some active-travel-friendly things. So e.g. kids being able to walk places, or being able to do so more safely). We are certainly aware of the negatives of motoring e.g. people would be generally in favour of “nicer places”, appreciate less road noise, certainly would like some green in the environment …
BUT as e.g. Chris Boardman has noted we’re very quick to back off when we feel we will lose something. Particularly something that has literally become a part of our identity (well, our status / social position). Whether it’s “my” parking space, or “the main road is busier now” or “I can’t take a cut-through so driving a short distance takes minutes longer”.
You correctly note we’re in a conflicted information environment now *. Those objections (or just fears about negatives) are absolutely the meat and drink of politicians, the media, the (checks notes) (electric) car and tech-with-everything sellers etc. And they’ve been very effective at grabbing the popular discourse.
* Always been the case but perhaps it’s the volume or speed with which this is circulating that is novel? I think there’s probably more science (and more resources spent) in increasing the salience of or selling some ideas (or the reverse).
Pollax wrote:
The majority of people aren’t children, or disabled, but we spend lots of money on them. Would you consider that a waste?
People in power allocating money to things that some people don’t care for?
Respectfully, you don’t seem to have thought this all through.
Keep cycling!
We’re living in strange times
We’re living in strange times right now where cycling is getting shoved down our throats every day for no good reason.
If only. I am literally considering retiring from the UK to The Netherlands,
David9694 wrote:
Good luck – have you seen the weather there? [1] [2]. And there’s a reason they had all those windmills…
And what if you want to live a normal life? Aren’t you worried about being trapped in your homes? [3] [4] If you have to drive to drive to e.g. the doctors’ how on earth will you do that – surely it’s impossible, or at least extremely inconvenient?
Actually I think the “Stop
Actually I think the “Stop forcing your views on me” cartoon you posted on the Funnies thread is probably the best response.
I’m reminded of this one –
I’m reminded of this one – live scene from Beccles – especially in the light of all the on street car parking.
Pollax wrote:
This is an insightful observation. On the timescale of 300,000 years of H. sapens’ existence our time is anything but normal. Over my lifetime the human population has gone from 3 billion to over 8 billion and on average each one of those 8 billion is using nearly 10 times the (non-renewable) resources. I’m not convinced that times are anywhere near ‘normal’; new-normal maybe.
Agree. I am almost 60. I
Agree. I am almost 60. I remember for much of my childhood nobody living on my street had a car. My father eventually got a motorbike, but we generally walked, all the shops were nearby, or took a bus. The road itself was a playground to us. All the children played together. Once cars started appearing it was as if the floodgates opened. We stopped playing on the road.
Our present time is not normal.
Pollax wrote:
Unlike those year-round balmy, warm conditions in Denmark and Sweden where cycling to work, school and the shops is normal?
Possibly they live in eg.
Possibly they live in eg. Finland, where it’s obviously impractical to cycle in winter and nobody would want to. Oh, wait…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20231220-why-oulu-finland-is-the-winter-cycling-capital-of-the-world
Easy to resolve the fact a
Easy to resolve the fact a disabled space has been removed. Change an existing car parking space to a disabled only space
To be fair as much as I like
To be fair as much as I like to see decent public rack being put up just not at the cost of taking spaces like these specifically designed to allow a wheelchair user between the cars or even behind too… Included is a picture, 21 spaces in standard packed in formula, pre bike rack 3 disabled bays now down to 2. Easier fix and less of an issue would’ve been to put said rack in a normal space as from the above sourced article photo it doesn’t even take up the full space.