A councillor’s claim that money is being “wasted” on cycling infrastructure, that cycle lanes aren’t being used, and that locals in general “don’t want cycle lanes” has been condemned by cycling campaigners, who have branded the politician’s stance as “outdated” and “disappointing”.
The councillor’s assertion that the local authority is “spending money left, right, and centre on cycle lanes” was also called into question by the cycling campaign group, who pointed out that the town in question only has one kilometre’s worth of bike lanes, which they say “start and end nowhere and don’t connect to anything”.
The row over cycling projects in Co Meath, Ireland, erupted following a council meeting discussing a planning application for the Dunboyne to Clonee Active Travel Link Scheme, which local cyclists say will “deliver some much-needed active travel infrastructure to encourage more people to walk and cycle” in the area.
The proposals consist of 3km of active travel upgrades on three roads, primarily in Clonee, located just 10 miles north-west of Dublin city centre, and include a two-way protected cycle lane, pedestrian facilities, and two raised tables to slow traffic in response to residents’ complaints.
A new 1.5km off-road greenway facility from Castlefarm, Dunboyne to Clonee is also featured in the plans, which the council says will increase active travel links for both local journeys and for those travelling to Dublin.
However, according to independent councillor Nick Killian, the proposals are indicative of Meath County Council’s apparent penchant for “wasting money” on active travel schemes, the Irish Independent reports.
Speaking at a meeting of Ratoath Municipal District, Killian said: “Cycle lanes are not being used. We are spending money left, right and centre on cycle lanes and they are not being used.”
He claimed that when he visits Ashbourne he “rarely” sees cyclists using the protected infrastructure, while he says only the lane along the outer relief road in Ratoath appears to be used.
Killian also claimed that the introduction of cycling infrastructure in the area is failing to encourage local children to ride their bikes to school, despite 1,000 students attending Ratoath schools.
“The average number of bikes is around 40 or 50 a day. We’re trying to educate the kids, and we’re wasting space with another two lanes in Clonee. It’s a waste of money,” he said.
He added that councillors were elected to represent public opinion and argued: “The people don’t want cycle lanes.”
Meanwhile, Fine Gael councillor Gerry O’Connor also raised concerns that the construction of cycleways in Clonee could impact the number of car parking spaces in the town, harming local businesses.
Following the meeting, however, the Navan Cycling Initiative, a local community group which aims to encourage active travel, branded the criticism of the plans “disappointing” – and pointed out that the area is sorely lacking when it comes to safe cycling infrastructure.
“Disappointing to see this reaction from some councillors in the Ratoath Municipal District on the Dunboyne to Clonee Active Travel Links. Everyone is entitled to their views, but this is really outdated stuff,” the group said on social media.
“Ratoath has approximately 1km of cycle lanes on only one road – which start and end nowhere and don’t connect to anything – and it certainly wouldn’t encourage anyone to use it.
“If you want to get more people to make the move to active travel, you have to build safe, modern, connected networks. It’s as simple as that. Towns like Ratoath and Dunboyne are rapidly expanding and already cannot cope with the sheer volume of vehicular traffic, and the only way to reduce congestion is to offer alternatives. Especially to schools and local amenities.”
The group continued: “These schemes are also not just for ‘cycle lanes’. A massive part of them is for public realm improvements, something which our towns and villages badly need. They include enhancements such as new paths, new bus stops, new road surfaces, traffic calming, safer junctions for all, to name just a few.
“Cllr Killian is also sorely mistaken if he really believes the people don’t want cycle lanes. The large majority of people are in favour and there is lots of research and evidence which shows that people would swap the car for walking, cycling, and public transport for short journeys – if it is made safe to do so. Active travel brings so many benefits and we need to embrace it.”
At the meeting, council chair Brian Fitzgerald defended the timing of the plans, which if approved will coincide with the building of a new road, pointing out that it is “easier” to integrate cycle and pedestrian lanes at this stage rather than “disrupting the town later.”
Fitzgerald also clarified that the plans are not yet approved and have only been made publicly available so that the public can have their say.
This isn’t the first time in recent months that an attempt to introduce cycling infrastructure has come in for criticism in Ireland.
In August, we reported on a protest which took place along the route of a controversial new cycle lane in Kildare, as critics of the 3km bike path accused the council of wasting money on a “North Korean-style project” which will make the road worse for all road users.
The protest came after farmers claimed that the construction of the cycle lane along the R448 between between Moone and Timolin had made the road too narrow for combine harvesters and other large vehicles, with some reporting “struggling to use the road because of the works and that larger combines have had to divert from using the road completely”.
However, the scheme was also criticised by local cyclists, following concerns raised by the Irish Cycling Campaign during the consultation phase.
with one road.cc reader local to the route told us: “I live in the area, it’s a lovely wide road with a wide hard shoulder. I’ve cycled it a few times a year for the past ten years and never once thought this section needed a cycle lane.
“Next time I pass through, I’ll be expected to cycle on the cycle lane and will probably get a puncture from all the crap that’ll never be cleaned out of it.”
However, Kildare County Council believes the project will make the route more accessible for active travel journeys, the speed limit also set to be reduced from 100kph to 60kph during the construction phase.
16 thoughts on ““The people don’t want cycle lanes”: Councillor brands new bike route a “waste of money and space” – but cyclists slam “outdated” views and claim most locals support cycling projects”
“I live in the area, it’s a
“I live in the area, it’s a lovely wide road with a wide hard shoulder. I’ve cycled it a few times a year for the past ten years and never once thought this section needed a cycle lane.”
I think you’re missing the point, Iam strong cyclist who wouldn’t feel the need for cycle infrastructure myself, but a lot of projects are aimed at folk in their cars who don’t perceive its safe. We need ‘globally’ to do something to encorage mode shift!
Who benefits from a network
Who benefits from a network of high-quality mobility infra *? Everyone does!
Speed merchants: https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2008/09/speed.html
Other vulnerable road users: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/
Drivers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
Probably most importantly – children: https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/07/school-bike-trip.html
* Cycle lanes aren’t really, UK cycle lanes definitely don’t qualify!
I suppose we should be
I suppose we should be encouraged that all the malevolent and very stupid anti-cyclist people are not concentrated in the UK
Terrific argument from the
Terrific argument from the Irish Cllrs.
If only UK politicians would have the courage and conviction to argue (without any consultation) that the public didn’t want an NHS or state funded education, just think of the billions of taxpayers funding that would be saved.
Isn’t it more accurate to say that the public don’t want and cyclists don’t use badly designed cycling infrastructure that requires them to dismount every 50 metres?
Mr Blackbird wrote:
If Ireland is anything like the UK then the biggest bill paid by Councils is to social services. I, personally, don’t want this, however I believe, with some evidence to back this up, that improving mental and physical heath can help reduce this. Yes, I know that this is generational change and improved active travel infra is only part of the solution but what better plan have you got.
IanMK wrote:
Providing for cycling and walking: your least shit option – Chris Boardman’s advice to councils RE reducing travel costs, and achieving health and decarbonisation targets.
I agree with you on the
I agree with you on the exercise / mental health points. It’s just that I despair when I see the poor quality of some cycle lane schemes. It seems that the main aim is to keep cyclists out of the way of cars. There is no input taken from cyclists and it opens up an argument from motorists that cycle lanes should be used.
It isn’t my job to come up with a plan, as I’m not a councillor / politician / Sustrans employee, but I would rather use roads alongside more enlightened, tolerant motorists.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
This is a fundamental issue isn’t it. Drivers don’t want them at all because they have absolutely no interest in cycling in most cases so why would they want something they don’t use, that would be thinking of others.
Then those same people are enraged even more when some half asses implementation (probably in no small part because doing it properly is expensive and hard and would invite even more whinging) and no one really uses the shitty infra they have built. Then those same people say “I told you so”.
We should take the same tact when building roads IMO. Find 2 places that need linking up, make a really shitty route, make the whole thing a series of switchbacks and then randomly put in traffic calming measures that bring it down to one lane but don’t give either way priority. Bonus points for stacking a few of these close together to really promote a gridlock. Then we can say “why aren’t you happy, we connected these two places. Why aren’t you using the infra we build for you?”
Exactly – plus no signage, a
Exactly – plus no signage, a swing bridge which defaults to being open in case a boat comes along (“but you only have to get out and push the button!”), regular crossings of A roads and a section shared with trains “but the drivers are obviously all licensed and the trains have numberplates – although the last time we had an inquest the train company did say they didn’t know who was driving at the time…”
Oh, and quite often there’s a freight train parked on the shared track section (“but you can just go round it in the ditch” / “I’m sure the driver would move it if you really needed”).
“The people don’t want cycle
“The people don’t want cycle lanes” Councillor Nick Killian.
Yes they do, and if you represented them properly, you’d know that.
eburtthebike wrote:
Not “cycle lanes” but separated mobility *paths*, please – or properly done streets in areas that are local-access-only for motor traffic and have reduced speed and greatly diminished traffic volumes via both network and infra design..
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/when-is-there-no-need-for-protected-cycling-infrastructure/
What the people don’t want
What the people don’t want Councillor, is local Councils wasting money on such petty, frivolous and antiquated ideas about whether or not cyclists have a right to use ‘their’ roads!
…when all the wasted time, resources and legal fees, spent on perpetually generating and defending such wilful ignorance, could be spent actually improving road safety by building cycling infrastructure!
What the people want for their rates is better 21st century planning, fully inclusive and actually taking responsibility for the safety of all road users, instead of this tiresome perpetual denial of reality and the law.
Want, or need?
Want, or need?
We’ve all seen the “Why oh why don’t kids get off their screens and play outside?”/ “The Outside” memes.
It’s a serious point though, whatever blend of health and economic consequence you prefer to look at, the growing inactivity pandemic is a massive and quantifiable burden. I can’t claim more cycling will fix every long-term condition keeping people out of the economy, curtailing their lives, but I bet it would help.
A lot less physical jobs, a lot more cars, and for many kids an outside that seems to have become off-limits over the course of my lifetime. Public Heath people seem to be too polite to directly ruffle feathers about cars, but several public health roads clearly lead to cars.
International comparisons are problematic for a range of reasons (e.g. different standards, data collection and measurement).
Here’s a few picks from the AI summary from a search on rates of physical inactivity in Ireland:
“In the Irish Republic, 14% of people are physically inactive, meaning they do no physical activity at all.
Inactivity is higher among women (18%) and older adults (17% for those aged 65+) compared to men (11%) and younger adults (6% for those aged 18-24).
Inequalities: Research indicates rural areas, particularly those with higher deprivation, have very low activity levels.”
Ireland is doing somewhat better than the UK – AI search again:
“In the UK, approximately 22% of adults and 30% of children and young people are physically inactive, meaning they do less than 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per day.
“Economic impact: Active lifestyles are estimated to prevent 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia each year, with a combined saving of
£7 billion to the UK economy”
curiously, for the The Netherlands, where the standard appears to boil down to a daily average of 21 minutes’ physical activity, I got
“44% of the population aged 4 and older was sufficiently physically active in 2022, a decline from 49% in 2019.”
For the USA (federal govt shut down since October 1st) I got this headline :
“Overall, combined data from 2017 through 2020 show physical inactivity prevalence of 25.3%.”
Here’s the decided non-AI
Here’s the decided non-AI David Hembrow on an estimate for a “daily dose of cycling”:
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2017/12/cyclings-recommended-minimum-daily.html
…FWIW from my personal experience I think humans benefit from a “*varied* exercise diet” and beyond the main problem of simply not moving (or getting outside, important in its own right I suspect) it’s easy to be “fit in one dimension”.
Killing two birds with one
Killing two birds with one stone:
“…driving a car might appear to get you to work (13 miles round trip) in about half the time, taking 8 minutes each way, but afterward you’ll also need to drive to a gym and back (5 minutes each way) and you’ll also still still have to spend 30 minutes exercising…pointlessly staring into space on a machine in the gym”
Haven’t heard this one for a while:
“Motor vehicle enthusiasts occasionally make an absurd claim that the environmental cost of providing food to humans riding bicycles makes us so much less efficient than modern motor vehicles that we’d be better off driving a car than riding a bike. It’s nonsense of course. Bicycles are the most efficient vehicles on the planet by some margin.”
Killing two birds with one
Killing two birds with one stone:
“…driving a car might appear to get you to work (13 miles round trip) in about half the time, taking 8 minutes each way, but afterward you’ll also need to drive to a gym and back (5 minutes each way) and you’ll also still still have to spend 30 minutes exercising…pointlessly staring into space on a machine in the gym”
Haven’t heard this one for a while:
“Motor vehicle enthusiasts occasionally make an absurd claim that the environmental cost of providing food to humans riding bicycles makes us so much less efficient than modern motor vehicles that we’d be better off driving a car than riding a bike. It’s nonsense of course. Bicycles are the most efficient vehicles on the planet by some margin.”