Cycling UK says that the Mail on Sunday is peddling “alternative facts” on the impact of cycle lanes on the emergency services after it quoted a spokesman for the College of Paramedics claiming that cycling infrastructure and low traffic neighbourhoods were delaying ambulances and putting people’s lives at risk.
The claim, made in an article published today, is one that has regularly been employed in recent months by opponents of emergency active travel infrastructure, although it is not supported by facts, says the national cycling charity.
In the article, Richard Webber, the national spokesman for the College of Paramedics, was quoted as saying: “If you are having a cardiac arrest, your chance of survival decreases by ten per cent for every minute’s delay.
“If ambulances are stuck waiting for someone to open a barrier or taking a long route around to your house, then you’ve got a big problem.
“Lots of areas have segregated roads now in such a way that you physically can’t get down the road and therefore we’ve had to do long detours,” he claimed.
“In some areas where they once had two lanes, they have now gone down to one lane of traffic and a cycle lane and the problem with that is there is nowhere to go.
“People can’t get out of the way and ambulances get stuck in traffic. It has been the same in various city centres.”
Calling on local authorities to consult with ambulance services before introducing such measures, he added: “They need to think that if someone was having a heart attack, could the ambulance get to them as quickly as it could now? But I don’t think the councils are thinking like that.”
It is unclear to what extent the newspaper was selectively quoting the spokesman to reinforce the overall tone of an article that is distinctly anti-cycling and highly critical of efforts to promote active travel.
However, as Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore pointed out, it would not be the first time the mainstream media had misrepresented comments made by him on behalf of the paramedics’ body.
“Back in 2017, The Telegraph interviewed Mr Webber as the spokesperson for the College of Paramedics, publishing an article claiming the College was warning that cycle lanes were putting patient’s lives at risk by delaying ambulances.”
> More rubbish about cycleways as the Telegraph manufactures a story from a paramedic's evidence-free 'feeling'
Dollimore noted that the following day, the College responded to the article through its Twitter account, and expressed disappointment at how the comments made on its behalf had been reported.
The College said that the point it was making when it supplied a quote for that article was that “Segregated cycle lanes save lives, however ‘raised curbs’ can obstruct drivers from allowing ambulances to pass” and that “we are disappointed with how these comments have been reported and request that emergency vehicles are considered when planning highways.”
Dollimore continued: “Clarifications such as this tend to be needed when claims are made without data to back them up, with Mr Webber accepting in 2017 that he didn’t have NHS data to establish whether cycle lanes were hampering swift response times, relying instead upon a ‘general feeling among paramedics’, yet in August 2020 he was once again warning, on behalf of the College, that the ‘Green roads revolution will risk lives’,” highlighting a Daily Mail article.
Mainstream media focus on investment in cycle lanes and LTNs has sharpened this week following the announcement of the second tranche of emergency active travel funding by transport secretary Grant Shapps.
> "I welcome consultation because this is something people want" says Chris Boardman as Government issues new bike lane guidance to councils
The £175 million allocated to councils in England is not new money – it forms part of a £2 billion investment in active travel over the current five-year parliament announced before the coronavirus pandemic struck – but it has sparked predictable outrage from the likes of ‘Mr Loophole’ lawyer Nick Freeman, who in today’s Sunday Express called for cyclists to be given “very narrow” so “they can cycle in a single file and let’s hand the roads back to motorists who urgently need it.”
It’s the second week in succession that the Mail on Sunday has published an anti-cycling piece, with last week seeing a column written by former UKIP and Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage in which the ex-MEP rolled out a succession of well-worn anti-cycling tropes, all of which are easily refuted.
> Nigel Farage forges new career as anti-cycling bingo caller
“We’re used to click bait articles from the Mail on Sunday, blaming cycle lanes for all of society’s ills whilst demonising those who choose to ride a bike,” said Dollimore, “but when someone speaks to them on behalf of a distinguished and reputable body such as the College, it would be helpful hear what evidence or statistics they have to support their claims?
He continued: “We heard late on Friday afternoon that the Mail on Sunday was running this article today, and the gist of Mr Webber’s comments to them, following which we contacted the College for clarification of their position on cycle lanes in general, and on temporary cycle lanes introduced this summer during COVID – given that Mr Webber appears to object to both – and whether Mr Webber’s comments accurately reflect the position of the College.
“We’ve yet to hear back from the College, but as indicated to them on Friday, are still happy to meet with then virtually early this week to discuss any concerns they may have.
“To date, no Health Trust or body representing emergency service personnel has contacted us to express concerns about separated cycle lanes, whether permanent or temporary, and neither have we seen any evidence to substantiate ‘general feelings’ or anecdotal comments.
“Of course, it’s important that whenever any highways scheme is implemented that consultation takes place with the emergency services, but reading the Mail on Sunday report you’d think that no emergency vehicle had ever been delayed in traffic before some temporary cycle lanes were installed this summer, and that cycle lanes are the sole cause of congestion, both of which are ‘alternative facts’ that exist only in the mind of someone with a blind eye to the telescope,” he added.
On Twitter, meanwhile, cycling campaigner Adam Tranter, who is Coventry’s Bicycle Mayor, today wrote a lengthy thread countering the claims contained in the Mail on Sunday article, including that “cycle lanes were actually being used on 999 calls to cut past congestion caused by motor vehicles,” and that “if you look at Waltham Forest, [one of London’s ‘mini Holland’ boroughs] home to more cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhoods than any other borough, response times have decreased from pre-LTNs and cycle lane times.”
Add new comment
26 comments
The people that vote for LTNs are probably the same people that vote against them.
Everyone wants to live in a LTN, but they do not want any others to exist where they could disrupt their rat runs.
It's human nature and applies to all sorts of things like "we should clamp down on speeding drivers" (except me).
They also quietly published this story about the fall in car ownership amongst the third of the population that are younger and live in wealthy urban areas...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8950787/Car-ownership-falls-Bri...
Listening to the Wake Up To Money on my ride this morning, it seems that there'll probably be more space on the road in the near future: the replacement of diesel and petrol cars with hybrid / electrics is going to cause a GBP 40.0bn black hole in our tax base which will have to be filled with road charges, emission zones and congestion charging. COVID borrowing will fast-forward these changes. The writing is on the wall for motorists, that's for sure.
They're considering taxing road use according to a report on R4 this morning. The fall in fuel duty revenue is massive and unaffordable at the moment, so why aren't the government reinstating the fuel duty escalator, which would match with what they say about green issues at the moment.
I also heard this report and laughed to myself about the motorists who claim to pay for using the roads already scratching their heads about such a charge.
The there's this
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/paramedic-disputes-claim...
Cycles do not hold up other traffic in already congested urban environments, see any city centre web cam feed at a busy junction, but I can see how physical segregation could make it more difficult for drivers to move their overly large vehicles out of the way of an emergency services vehicle. Maybe one solution is to ensure that, where possible, cycle lanes are made wide enough to accomodate vehicles up to the size of a Fire Engine with designed entry and exit points for emergency vehicle use? Wider cycle lanes that double up as dedicated emergency services lanes, what is not to like?
That makes a lot of sense - would also mean that all cycle lanes would be of adequate width and you'd have the DM calling for action if they didn't get gritted or swept of leaves in the winter or cars parked in them!
In fact, don't call them cycle lanes - they are emergency vehicle lanes, which cycles can use...
Aren't they the "anything that's not a private car" lane?
Where possible, thenext one across would be the Leaf Lane for all the electrics.
This evening on my way home I was riding up the bus lane/ cycling lane. An ambulance was coming up the road behind with it's sirens blaring and had to undertake the queues of cars in the other lane. As a cyclist, it was easy for me to pull aside to let it through. I was literally the only vehicle not holding up emergency services and the only one with the flexibility to ensure the ambulance could pass at speed.
After years of misinformation telling people the EU and immigrants were responsible for the faults of the health service and for congestion, now it's the fault of cyclists.
It is difficult to descend far enough to plumb the depths of the dark echoing empty caverns of Mail, Express and Sun readers' minds- after all, these are the people who think that a load of blustering bollocks from a loathsome lying fat b*****d will force the 27 countres of the EU represented by clever politicians like Merkel to agree to LLFB's Dunkirk Spirit pseudo Churchillian demands. The EU will give him a deal, as long as he agrees to whatever the EU wants. Mail readers will proclaim the catastrophic defeat as a victory. When you know they are as thick as that, you are not surprised that they publish distorted and misleading anti-cyclist tripe like this- or articles by nut jobs like Farage, for that matter. They would all be rabid Trump voters with National Rifle Association posters in their windows, if they lived over there. Not worth worrying about them or their opinions.
I can't believe we're hung-up on fish - who cares??
Whatever Brexit pigeons come home to roost next year, they will all be French or German speaking.
The Leave/Remain voting heat map - a picture of isolation, ignorance, anger and sheer folly.
Sadly, it is worth worrying; they have a vote, they write to their local media, they hassle their councillors and MPs, and as recent research showed, those with the loudest voices have a disproportionate effect; they don't have to be right, just loud.
What would really be useful is if Viscount Rothermere, owner of the DM, paid his taxes.
Cyclists are the new n****rs. The daily rags, for some reason called newspapers, can't attack people on racial grounds, or women, or gays, so who's left to attack that their car driving moronic readers can hate? Cyclists.
Actually, I'm slightly comforted, as if they're attacking us so much, we must be a threat and something might actually be improving for us; and our cities our country and the world, but the rags don't care about that, only getting the morons to keep paying for stuff they can make up without actually having to go out and report anything.
What about where there is no existing cycling infrastructure? You can't improve something which doesn't yet exist.
And, as is currently a common point made on Twitter, I don't recall the consultations for allowing the roads to be congested 24/7 with cars. If drivers really cared about holding up emergency services, they would use their vehicles a lot less. What they want is to continue doing even more of what they have been doing but trying to blame others for the consequences.
a better spend would be on improving existing cycling infrastructure
If we already had coherent networks of high-quality cycle infrastructure, this would make sense. In reality, we are a million miles from having coherent networks of high-quality infra, so your idea is a million miles from making sense.
Stunned. The mail peddling untruths??? NAY!!!
well the Mail & the Telegraph seem to be having a competition about who can publish the most anti cycling articles this year, the Telegraph claimed in another article criticising LTNs this weekend (up to nearly 20 now since July) that the Met police only find out about LTNs/road closures via searching social media, and then followed it up with an opinion piece today titled "I am a motorist, not a potential convert to the great cycling religion"
both stuck behind the paywall, but I doubt with a title like that the latter especially is promoting cycling positively much, but worth calling out all the same as whilst the Mail gets the most coverage for its antics and shock tactics, the stuff other papers are doing is just as bad
Is there any reason that the members of the Met are not getting out and about, finding out what's going on outside their police stations?
Surely they would find out about these LTN a lot quicker?
well all they actually would have to do is use the one.network site which councils use to record all roadworks & road closures/diversion routes.
but then that wouldnt neatly fit the narrative that LTNs pop up overnight without warning or notice...so we are made to believe they trawl twitter and facebook, or as you say patrolling their neighbourhoods instead.
They're not allowed out on bikes, it's too dangerous.
Most of us would be astounded, astonished and amazed if they told the truth.
Disgrace! I have a good mind to write to the Telegraph
Prevention is quicker than the ambulance. The more people cycle the fewer have heart attacks.
https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1456
Depressingly, the College of Paramedics website repeats these articles on its own website.
Not every casualty situation conveniently occurs near a road - they've always had to deal with that.
hey Siri, remind me why there have to be physical barriers:
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18873949.letter---karen-drove-wrong-way...