A Conservative councillor from the London Borough of Havering has said that a 1.2 metre wide cycle lane, next to a busy road with drivers encroaching the lane, is “safe” and “easy to cycle”, and encouraged cyclists to be “brave”, despite numerous people demonstrating their concerns over using the bike path.
Councillor David Taylor from Romford, Essex posted an image of Mawney Road and wrote: “Even at rush hour, Romford's Mawney Rd is easy to cycle up thanks to this cycle lane. Drivers are politely keeping out of the lane and the absence of bollards meant they could move over when a fire-engine came through.
“My only criticism is that the cycle path isn't coloured.”
However, when one cyclist explained why they’d be cautious of using the lane, both while passing a queue of cars as it “puts you right in the passenger door zone”, as well as freely moving traffic as it would “encourage drivers to pass without leaving the required 1.5 metres”, Taylor commented: “I'd encourage you to be brave. It's very safe and I cycle it on a regular basis. Cyclists must be alert to opening doors, absolutely.”
Twitter user the Ranty Highwayman, who lives in the area, went down to assess the state of the cycle lane. After measuring the width, he found it to be barely 1.2 metres, less than the minimum 1.5 metres and way lower than the desired 2 metres. He said that the disconnectedness of the cycling network in the area and infrastructure like this result in people being discouraged out of cycling because of the inconvenience and safety risks.
He also said that assuming Mawney Road must remain a through road due to it carrying a high traffic (data from 2016 shows 14,500 vehicles in a day), then “objectively and obviously, this is not somewhere that most people would find easy to cycle along”. notwithstanding the network issues around the area.
He told road.cc: “Romford very much feels like a place for drivers and cycling is an outlier from a cycling as transport point of view,” while also adding that the main issues were not technical but political.
He added: “Politics is interesting here. It was previously a conservative led administration, but he [Taylor] wasn’t part of it as he was only elected last year when they lost to the Residents Association led administration.
“The previous administration pretty much did nothing for active travel. He has tweeted like this a lot and talks about being a friend of cycling, so I thought it was fair game to set out the bigger picture.”
Councillor Taylor claims to cycle but on on many occasions, including this latest exchange, has said that cyclists need to be careful on roads and played down active travellers’ concerns. He is also launching a campaign to save Romford’s High Street by engaging against ULEZ and asking for cheaper and more car parking areas.
Taylor also argued against putting in bollards at the cycle lane, as the drivers “could move over when a fire engine came through”, but when a cycling campaigner pointed that “if fewer people drove even easier for fire engines to get through”, he replied: “Yes, if no one owned a car then fire engines would have free use of the roads.”
Others also remarked that the cycle lane was not fit for cargo bikes or trikes.
However, Taylor seemed unfazed with the all the concerns and criticisms, replying to people who raised issues of poor driving because of such cycle lanes with “Drivers and cyclists should do better” and that this road is “like any road”. “Every road user must be alert at all times. Cyclists, pedestrians, drivers. All,” he said.
Cllr Taylor has reached out to road.cc and pointed out that he agreed the cycle lane should be upgraded to a stepped kerb lane, as well as the fact he also suggested a route through existing LTNs.
He also said that he regularly advocates for better cycling infrastructure in Havering. "I sit on the planning committee and recently told developers to engage with cycling groups in their planning," he said.
Add new comment
39 comments
He also said that he regularly advocates for better cycling infrastructure in Havering. "I sit on the planning committee and recently told developers to engage with cycling groups in their planning," he said.
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
May I refer you to my previous comment?
"I've already pointed out that the tories are so up their own fundament that they've already lost the next election, but they seem determined to make sure that it is the biggest landslide in UK history, by being utterly, completely out of touch and patronising us plebs. Be brave!
EDIT: Do the tories have an endless supply of people with no empathy, knowledge or sense?"
Painted line bike lanes are worse than nothing, as they encourage and actually give passing motor vehicles legal refuge from the minimum passing rules, as the rules apply to passing bicycles in the same lane; with cyclists given a separate lane, motorists can legally pass close, as they as they are driving within their lane.
Clueless!
It's shite infrastructure, a pointless waste of tax payers money, if that is the best they can do while ticking the cycling infrastructure box.
There will never be a cycling revolution in this country until we vote out these muppets who have no idea what they are talking about.
Edited - sorry, late to the party, NotNigel said the same thing a day ago.
Unfortunately in Essex we are represented by some of the worst of the extreme Tory party, Braveman, Francois, Duddrige, Goebells, et al. This councillor appears to be another, but with the added benefit of having god on his side. Surely what he meant to say was, "motorists be brave and replace your car with a bike, you know Mawney Road is one long car park, it will be better for your health and quicker."
The issue with this sort of language is the context - would you say to an elderly person or a parent with children, don't worry about that crossing on the A road. Be brave, the cars will slow down when they see you.
If you're brave enough for that cycle lane you're brave enough for the road.
If you're slow enough to avoid car doors you're slow enough for the pavement.
do we think if the councillor had said the cycle lane wasnt any good because you never see anyone use it, so it should be removed...the reaction from cycling quarters would be but its only 1.2metres and you need to be brave to use it, or but cycle lanes are much more efficient at moving larger numbers of cyclists through and thats why you never see anyone using it...something to ponder at least
Ponder bullshit? No thanks.
Somebody got up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning then.
I once got out the wrong side of bed - fell out the bedroom window.
If you have to be 'brave' to use a bit of cycle infrastructure, then it isn't fit for purpose. That seems a pretty basic fact to me.
Hmmm . . . no bollards so cars can move over for a fire engine. And what if there happens to be a bunch of cyclists in the 'lane'? This scenario always makes me twitchy, having been cut up more than once by drivers mindlessly doing their good citizen act. Not especially fond of bollards myself, but isn't preventing this situation precisely one of the reasons for having them?
burn the heretic. The World Bollard Association will correct your heresy!!!!!!
A bunch of deaf cyclists? That's not very likely, is it?
It isn't only car drivers who are supposed to faciltate the movement of emergency vehicles when they hear the sirens.
True. But an emergency vehicle isn't going to be driving in a cycle lane (protected or otherwise) so it's up to the people driving in the main traffic lane...
Oh, but they do, to avoid the motor lane which is jammed with cars.
You've missed the point. You're cycling in the cycle lane, you hear the sirens, you expect other vehicles to get out of the way of the emergency vehicle, which probably means they'll get in your way. I.e. you have to accept a bit of inconvenience to facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles.
An emergency vehicle sounding off behind you doesn't grant you carte blanche to run down cyclists in the adjacent cycle lane, and since you're the one doing the manoeuvering...
I had this happen on my bike on a road in town 30mph, 3 lanes. Bloke in L2 swung into L1 where I was - he did not check it was safe !
Last month in the car, I hear/see an ambulance. Pull over before the roundabout to see the 2 drivers behind me overtake me, followed by the ambulance! One driver did subsequently pull over and the other one carried on !
I can assure you I always move so as to facilitate the passage of emergency vehicles. But on several occasions I have nevertheless been cut up/encroached on by drivers doing the same without looking. So yes, when I hear sirens I'm most certainly looking out - for my own protection as well as to do the right thing!
Mawney Road has been a sh1te hole forever and to even imply it is safe is disingenuous.
Wow! "I know fuck all about road safety, but when challenged, I just carry on as before, as if my opinion was the same as actual FACTS"
#whatswrongwithpoliticstoday
Cyclists must be alert to opening doors? Most effectively done by staying well out of their way.
It is actually an offence to open the car door causing danger... the councillor might want to mention that.
Guess we know that Nigel is alive and kicking
If the cycle lane was fine then nobody would need to be brave to ride in it.
(and - minimum 1.5 metres and ideally 2???!!!? I have never encountered a painted lane that wide. If it's wider than my handlebars then I consider myself very fortunate)
technically for an advisory cycle lane, 1.2m is permissable.
Why doesn't he cycle on it, during rush hour, with his kids, and maybe tell them to be brave?
These painted, advisory cycle lanes are more dangerous than nothing at all. Be brave - take primary.
May have been better for him to use a photo where at least 2 cars aren't encroaching the cycle lane.
Pages