Markings indicating the beginning of a cycle lane in Colchester have been branded “grossly irresponsible” by the city’s High Steward, who says the signs are ushering cyclists into a “head-on confrontation” with motorists.
Sir Bob Russell, a former Liberal Democrat MP, also criticised the protected bike lane, which runs adjacent to a car park on Vineyard Street in Colchester city centre, for leading to the loss of revenue for the council after it replaced 21 parking spaces.
However, the local authority has responded to Russell’s criticism by pointing out that the infrastructure has been “operating successfully” for two years, with no safety issues raised.
The cycle lane in question, which lasts for just 65 yards before merging into a narrow alley, was installed in 2022, replacing 21 of Vineyard Street’s 93 parking spaces.
However, this week Russell, a former chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Road Safety Group, has raised concerns about the recently painted bike marking leading into the short stay car park, situated next to the outgoing sign for motorists – something the former Colchester mayor suggests could lead to a collision.
“Highways engineers should have road safety as their main consideration in everything they do, but here they have painted road signs which direct cyclists into head-on confrontation with cars,” Russell told the Colchester Gazette.
“It is grossly irresponsible. I have never seen such ludicrous road markings before.”
Russell also said the short length of the cycle lane means it leads “from nowhere to nowhere”, while costing the council £90,000 due to the loss of parking revenue.
> “Why pick on a lone female cyclist?” Cyclist slapped with £100 fine – for riding on a cycle path
In response to Russell’s complaints, a spokesperson for Essex Highways defended the cycle lane, which was funded using the government’s Active Travel Fund.
“This was part of an active travel fund scheme first implemented in 2024 and a road safety audit was undertaken before the works began,” the spokesperson said.
“It has been operating successfully for two years, with no issues raised in any post-construction road safety audits.
“The scheme minimised the impact of the loss of any spaces with the design while providing an improved cycle link.”
Unsurprisingly, this isn’t the first time Colchester’s High Steward has criticised the city’s infrastructure.
In October 2024, he claimed the installation of a cycle-only traffic light on Head Street was responsible for causing congestion on the city centre road.
To back up his theory, the former MP undertook a 12-hour session of checks on the junction that connects Head Street, North Hill and the High Street for six days, before coming to the conclusion that it services “very few cyclists” and is a “waste of taxpayers’ money”.
According to Russell’s ‘study’, the traffic light turned green 40 times every hour for around 20 seconds, with an average of three cyclists an hour, meaning that only 36 cyclists crossed the junction in a 12-hour window while the cycle-only signal remained green for around 160 minutes.
However, according to Essex County Council, Essex Highways’ monitoring of the activity of the cycle lane on Head Street found that the average number of cyclists per day on the street amounted to 402 from August 2022 to the end of September 2024.
Colchester Cycling Campaign’s secretary Will Bramhill, meanwhile, said that the congestion Russell raised concerns about was instead caused by parked lorries and drivers intending to turn into High Street from Head Street, despite the area being pedestrianised.
And the previous December, in a similar manner to his latest bike-related line of questioning, Russell claimed that a two-way contraflow cycle lane on Station Way would result in cyclists colliding with vehicles stopped at a bus stop and described it as a “death trap”.
Bramhill seemed to agree with the former MP in that instance, saying: “For once, Sir Bob Russell is right: the segue between the bus lay-by and the cycleway is not ideal.
“That said, Essex is awaiting further funds to complete the project and we hope to see a solution soon. At least we now have a short section of cycleway that is top class.
“The bus stop connection is not ideal but Rome wasn’t built in a day; I do hope Sir Bob has had a lightbulb moment and will now get behind our aspirations which will improve the mobility of everyone who doesn’t have a car or who chooses not to drive.”
5 thoughts on ““Grossly irresponsible” road markings directing cyclists into “head-on confrontation with cars”, claims former Lib Dem MP – as “nowhere to nowhere” cycle lane blamed for loss of parking spaces”
As a former elector of Bob I’m very disappointed in the stance he’s taken recently, for some reason he’s anti cyclist, seemingly pro car. He’s undertaken multiple Surveys and used them to say ‘there’s no cyclist using this route’ before infrastructure has gone in, completely missing the whole point is the infrastructure is needed to encourage cyclists to ride in what is a very congested old town. People have pointed out to him the reason you don’t see cyclist queueing is they go, they travel through on their journey. They Don’t wait around causing traffic jams
Do you think it’s ignorance and motornormativity, or that he thinks that the public there are a sucker for “stop the war on the motorist” rhetoric (perhaps Reform are making gains…)?
All of those are common enough in the UK, if not the default.
Or … is there more direct “influence” here (pals in the motor / road construction / haulage / energy trades)?
Standard Lib Dem NIMBY populism, they have a kneejerk reaction to support any moaning, new houses, temporary road diversions for essential work, loss of parking spaces.
Incidentally I had cause to use the cycle lanes they put in on a road in a neighbouring borough this evening, trip to B&Q, even with recent repainting to sort out some priority issues, it’s some of the worst cycle infrastructure I’ve ever used.
Off road / on road with giveway across the cycle path, loading bays in the off road cycle path, narrow stretches <1m with wands, wanded up to side roads with unclear priority. It used to have a stretch with on-pavement parking and the cycle lane in the door zone, thankfully that seems to have gone. The only safe stretches are where it's on-road with a painted line.
You can always tell if someone is (a) sincerely concerned about road safety or (b) just anti-cycling.
If they raise concerns about infra and say ‘you need to do x to improve it’, then it’s (a).
If they are saying ‘rip it all out’, then it’s (b).
Yes, but it’s often wrapped up in “criticism in detail”. So a more complex version of “I’m in favour of supporting cycling in principle, but this is the wrong intervention / wrong place”.
A good tactic is to spin it as locals vs. ignorant outsiders who are trying to apply ‘one size fits nobody’ solutions on a ‘blanket’ basis. (It’s not hard to find examples where on the face of it local authorities *do* seem to have done that…)
Often helpfully bringing out a local “lifelong cyclist myself” type (“I’ve been cycling here for 50 years and never had any problems – until they put in this stupid new (whatever the infra is)”)