Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Plans to segregate cycle lane shelved — to delight of residents who park in it

Homeowners appeared in a local news video asking for plans to be scrapped so they could continue to park on the A46, where there is currently an unsegregated cycle lane

A plan for a segregated cycle lane described as "controversial" by local press has been scrapped, the Grimsby Telegraph reports.

The A46 currently has a painted unsegregated cycle lane, which is often used by motorists to park near their homes. 

However, the plans would have seen double yellow lines extended along the route and segregation implemented — preventing on-street parking.

A46 Grimsby cycle lane (Google Maps StreetView)

The plans have been shelved following a period of consultation, meaning the active travel infrastructure will no longer be installed.

Residents argued that many properties do not have off-street parking so preventing people from parking in the cycle lane would force more traffic onto the surrounding streets, which already struggle with parked cars and parents picking up and dropping off children at two local schools.

One vocal critic of the plans, Craig Lamb, said he is pleased the campaigning paid off, saying: "We're not against the cycle lane, we just want it to be done in the right way.

"I'm pleased these particular plans were rejected. I'd like to know whether or not our objections made an impact too. Myself and others were never against the idea as a whole, just the plans that were proposed.

"I'm glad we did what we did though as it paid off in the end. If it had gone ahead, the congestion on the side streets would have been awful."

In November, Mr Lamb appeared in a video filmed by Grimsby Live, and reposted on the road.cc live blog, in which he appealed for the plans to be rethought. 

> Won't somebody please think of the parking...Moaning motorists made miserable by segregated cycle lane plans

Drowned out by the noise from passing traffic, he argued the plans were "hypocritical" considering residents were unable to get planning for off-street parking due to the area being a conservation zone.

"The hundred cars here would have to be parked elsewhere," he said. "The amount of school traffic is already excessive so the risk of accidents during school pick-up and drop-off times would be drastically increased if all these cars are forced to park on the streets in question."

The video ended with a shot of a line of vehicles parked in the unsegregated cycle lane just metres from where the interview was held.

Grimsby A46 cycle lane (screenshot GrimsbyLive video)

A spokesperson from North East Lincolnshire Council said: "The proposal to introduce a dedicated cycleway on a section of the A46 will not go ahead.

"The decision follows extensive consultation carried out in late 2021. If support could have been secured, the new cycle lane on Weelsby Road would have run between Bargate and Peaks Parkway.

"Councillor Stewart Swinburn, portfolio holder for environment and transport at North East Lincolnshire Council, would like to thank those who participated in engagement surveys.

"With all the surveys reviewed, Cllr Swinburn can confirm that the proposal to introduce a new cycle lane on Weelsby Road did not secure the level of support required through engagement surveys.

"The council will continue to explore other avenues to improve cyclist safety along this route. Subject to Department for Transport approval, highways officers are looking at other locations where cycling infrastructure improvements can be implemented."

Cllr Swinburn said: "In this case, we’ve decided not to go ahead with a protected cycle lane because the alterations required to install the cycleway were not supported by the community.

"A large number of people, including residents, business owners, cyclists who use the route, and staff and students at the Grimsby Institute, completed the most recent survey, and I’d like to thank you for your comments."

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
GMBasix | 2 years ago
3 likes

"We're not against the cycle lane, we just want it to be done in the right way so it doesn’t cause us the remotest inconvenience.

“Myself and others were never against the idea as a whole, just the plans that were proposed, as always.”

"I'm glad we did what we did though as it paid off in the end put a proper spanner in the works. If it had gone ahead, the congestion on the side streets would have been awful we would have had to walk round the corner or out the back door to our cars."

"The hundred cars here would have to be parked elsewhere," he said and, without any appreciation of the irony of blocking efforts to make cycling to school safer, he added, "The amount of school traffic is already excessive so the risk of accidents during school pick-up and drop-off times would be drastically increased if all these cars are forced to park on the streets in question."

A spokesperson from North East Lincolnshire Council said:

"With all the surveys reviewed, Cllr Swinburn can confirm that the proposal to introduce a new cycle lane on Weelsby Road did not secure the level of support required through engagement surveys.”

Cllr Swinburn said: "In this case, we’ve decided not to go ahead with a protected cycle lane because the alterations required to install the cycleway were not supported by the community we the lack the abilities to lead in the roles for which we were elected and to differentiate between 'consultation' and 'plebiscite'.

Avatar
Tattoojunkie30 | 2 years ago
1 like

Literally the picture of the street shows driveways that could fit 6 cars on and yet they moan about a cycle lane...oh and the school thing guess what you can use the bike lane and get your lazy dumplings some exercise - the council are so pathetic 

Avatar
lolol | 2 years ago
4 likes

The council should just say, "OK we won't build any proper infrastructure, but we will enforce what is already there." Then  every day fine the crap out of every car that is parked in the "cycle lane".

 

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to lolol | 2 years ago
1 like

Wish they could, however as it is an advisory one and there is no parking restrictions in place (Double Yellows), then I believe unfortunately cars are able to encroach and park there. I wonder if any cyclist injured along the stretch due to having to avoid parked cars can sue the car owners though?

Avatar
brooksby replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 2 years ago
0 likes

The IAM quotes Rule 140 ("You must not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You must not park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.") and then goes on to say 

Quote:

When it comes to a cycle lane marked with broken white lines, use common sense in relation to the term ‘unavoidable’. While you should not normally cross them, there may be occasions when the confines of space or the nature of traffic dictate it as unavoidable. 

...so I guess it depends on whether the council put any parking restrictions in place there too, or just depended on "good old British common sense" (c) ABdePJ)

Avatar
brooksby | 2 years ago
3 likes

The council ought to have stuck to their guns: if the local residents could be trusted not to park in the painted cycle lane that is already there then they wouldn't need to put in a protected/segregated cycle lane.

Whether it's a segregated/protected lane or a simple painted lane, the point is that those people are NOT supposed to be parking their cars there no

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
3 likes

The real failure here is council underestimating the effort of engagement with people. Or probably not really caring.

a) Council didn't commit to this. They failed to put together a persuasive story and keep arguing for it.

b) They didn't do the work! I don't know what engagement they had with residents but in my experience that's often limited to "inform" (posters and letters), "consult" (survey) then "implement" or "scrap".  So by the time this gets on may people's radar there's just a question "change - do you like it?" to which they mostly reply "no" if they bother at all. I know this is the hard (and not cheap) bit but that is real democracy in action. You have to listen to complaints / worries:

Quote:

Residents argued that many properties do not have off-street parking so preventing people from parking in the cycle lane would force more traffic onto the surrounding streets, which already struggle with parked cars and parents picking up and dropping off children at two local schools.

Then identify the issues that people think there are (too many parked cars - especially around school times) and then show what you're doing is part of the solution. Children coming into the schools from long distances? Look at that. Is there a school cycle bus at the moment? Get one going now - then "cyclists" are not just some "outsiders" who are getting free provision at the expense of us. Dunno about the side street parking but that's only a problem if people parking on the main street want to park there so why's that? What about these odd conservation area rules - maybe they need a look? Why do they all have lots of cars in the first place? Sounds like bigger transport issues - so look at that but stress cycling can and will play a part in those.

c) "Consultation" should not be a referendum - if you've done the work above. By the time you get to your main "consultation" you should have convinced the majority that this is of overall benefit. (Of course you may not be able to reach the majority of people anyway but you should have a large number on-side). At that point you "consult" - but only on the "how", not on the "doing or not".

At the end of the day the issue was "too many cars filling the space" - so the answer cannot be the status quo of "no change to the number of cars and continue to let them fill all the space".

Avatar
massive4x4 replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
0 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

The real failure here is council underestimating the effort of engagement with people. Or probably not really caring.

a) Council didn't commit to this. They failed to put together a persuasive story and keep arguing for it.

b) They didn't do the work! I don't know what engagement they had with residents but in my experience that's often limited to "inform" (posters and letters), "consult" (survey) then "implement" or "scrap".  So by the time this gets on may people's radar there's just a question "change - do you like it?" to which they mostly reply "no" if they bother at all. I know this is the hard (and not cheap) bit but that is real democracy in action. You have to listen to complaints / worries:

Quote:

Residents argued that many properties do not have off-street parking so preventing people from parking in the cycle lane would force more traffic onto the surrounding streets, which already struggle with parked cars and parents picking up and dropping off children at two local schools.

Then identify the issues that people think there are (too many parked cars - especially around school times) and then show what you're doing is part of the solution. Children coming into the schools from long distances? Look at that. Is there a school cycle bus at the moment? Get one going now - then "cyclists" are not just some "outsiders" who are getting free provision at the expense of us. Dunno about the side street parking but that's only a problem if people parking on the main street want to park there so why's that? What about these odd conservation area rules - maybe they need a look? Why do they all have lots of cars in the first place? Sounds like bigger transport issues - so look at that but stress cycling can and will play a part in those.

c) "Consultation" should not be a referendum - if you've done the work above. By the time you get to your main "consultation" you should have convinced the majority that this is of overall benefit. (Of course you may not be able to reach the majority of people anyway but you should have a large number on-side). At that point you "consult" - but only on the "how", not on the "doing or not".

At the end of the day the issue was "too many cars filling the space" - so the answer cannot be the status quo of "no change to the number of cars and continue to let them fill all the space".

So very reasonable and pragmatic, are you sure you meant to post it here?

The road coridor looks pretty wide, I would be surprised if it wasn't possible to fit a cycle lane, two lanes of traffic and some parking particulary if you moved all the parking to one side and put it in bays.

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 2 years ago
4 likes

One vocal critic of the plans, Craig Lamb, said he is pleased the campaigning paid off, saying: "We're not against the cycle lane, we just want it to be done in the right way.

Some of my best friends are black but . . . . . . . . . . Blah, blah

Avatar
joe9090 | 2 years ago
2 likes

Broken Britain Brexity Barage Bammons Borking the Bicyclists

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to joe9090 | 2 years ago
2 likes
joe9090 wrote:

Broken Britain Brexity Barage Bammons Borking the Bicyclists

Boris.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to joe9090 | 2 years ago
0 likes
joe9090 wrote:

Broken Britain Brexity Barage Bammons Borking the Bicyclists

Bardon?

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
0 likes
mdavidford wrote:

....

Bardon?

Bellas

Avatar
Benthic | 2 years ago
2 likes

"The hundred cars here would have to be parked elsewhere..."

No. Just scrap them.

Avatar
TheBillder | 2 years ago
9 likes

Ok then. Grimsby drivists, we will allow you to park there as it's so important. But the cycle lane will still be built, taking space from the bit of the road you don't abandon your property on. Happy now?

Does anyone else see vehicles parked in a cycle lane and start to imagine driving over them with a tank?

Avatar
Gimpl replied to TheBillder | 2 years ago
5 likes

Yep - either that or I would like Danny MacAskill skills just to go straight up and over them whilst watching their facial expressions!

Avatar
Surreyrider | 2 years ago
5 likes

De. press. ing. The level of stupidity is something to behold. This country...

Avatar
mjc2669 | 2 years ago
8 likes

Great environment in our towns and cities isn't it... The comment "The hundred cars here would have to be parked elsewhere,"... Says it all... Councils are not looking at the big picture here... If a hundred cars are parked up unused it should set off a bright lightbulb... I guess they are all to dim.

Avatar
Sussexcyclist | 2 years ago
12 likes

You could copy and paste the responses from local residents for any scheme like this up and down the country. 

Look at the width of that road FFS!

Avatar
ChasP | 2 years ago
13 likes

'The amount of school traffic is already excessive' used as an argument against a cycle lane??? Things will never change when faced with this level of stupidity...

Avatar
Sriracha | 2 years ago
10 likes

I'm obviously missing something, but looking at that photo the homeowners have masses of space to park on their own properties.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
19 likes

But as you can see, they've already filled that up with cars. Where are they supposed to park their other cars?

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
7 likes

The article suggests some houses cant have off street parking because of conservation area requirements.  If that the case the council deserve a slap for not coming up with an integrated plan.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
7 likes

Let me check I understand the conservation area logic:
It's an area of special architectural and historic interest and accommodating cars on the property frontages would detract from the area. So put them somewhere else, at public expense, where they detract from other people's amenity. Have your cake and someone else pays for it.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
4 likes
Sriracha wrote:

Let me check I understand the conservation area logic: It's an area of special architectural and historic interest and accommodating cars on the property frontages would detract from the area. So put them somewhere else, at public expense, where they detract from other people's amenity. Have your cake and someone else pays for it.

indeed, cars on someones drive are inappropriate, but cars on the public highway look just fine.

Avatar
Backladder replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
1 like

If it is a conservation area then why have they tarmaced the road, it should be restored to the mud and ruts from the horse and cart era. At least that would keep the MTBers happy  3

Avatar
brooksby replied to Backladder | 2 years ago
1 like

I'd assumed many councils were working to that plan anyway...

Avatar
massive4x4 replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
0 likes
Sriracha wrote:

I'm obviously missing something, but looking at that photo the homeowners have masses of space to park on their own properties.

You assume that those large properies don't include HMOs and ones converted into flats.

We also assume to know better than people do about their own streets.

 

Avatar
mdavidford | 2 years ago
15 likes
Quote:

We're not against the cycle lane, we just want it to be done in the right way

"i.e. somewhere nowhere near us."

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
2 likes
mdavidford wrote:
Quote:

We're not against the cycle lane, we just want it to be done in the right way

"i.e. somewhere nowhere near us."

unfortunately it seems the mean, "cycle lanes are OK< as long as we can park in them"

Pages

Latest Comments