- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Tubeless valves
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Trees cut down for Coventry cycle lane on Clifford Bridge Road (credit: Saw You On Foleshill Road/Facebook)"Tree-hugging" protests backed by David Attenborough continue as council chops down trees to make way for controversial cycle lane
Opposition to the felling of 26 trees to make way for a cycle lane in Coventry, a campaign which received support from Sir David Attenborough and was subject to an unsuccessful High Court challenge, has continued as the council begins work to cut down the trees.
Tree surgeons have now removed some of the trees on Clifford Bridge Road, disgruntled residents continuing their protests by chaining bicycles and pinning notes to the trees, and sitting out on the pavement as council-contracted workmen continue the project.
Trees cut down for Coventry cycle lane on Clifford Bridge Road (credit: Saw You On Foleshill Road/Facebook)Attenborough previously expressed support for the campaign and more than 900 people turned up for a "tree hugging" protest last year, the council's plans since the subject of an unsuccessful High Court challenge from residents against the "destructive" proposals.
Tree hug to save 26 trees, Coventry (credit: gilly_t_photography on Facebook)It all concerns a planned cycle lane on the road, a final stretch of a 6km (3.7-mile) Binley Cycleway, a £12m project that will connect the city centre with University Hospital Coventry. While most other sections are now complete, the Clifford Bridge Road section has faced delays and outspoken opposition from sections of the local community.
Binley Cycleway, Coventry (credit: Coventry City Council)Residents have claimed they are not anti-cycling, instead genuinely "concerned about the safety of cyclists and vehicles", and accused the local council of spreading "misinformation" about their motives for opposing the cycleway. However, Coventry City Council has strongly rejected many of the complaints, the local authority's head of public realm Mark O'Connell having told us the whole reason the initial plans (which only included the loss of a small number of trees) were rejected was because of outrage at the loss of on-street parking and the road being narrowed.
There was, he noted, "obviously a lot of uproar, petitions, and public feeling" but ultimately "the increase in loss of trees is due to residents not being happy with the loss of parking in the first iteration".
A last-ditch attempt by residents to take their challenge to the High Court was rejected by a judge and the council's contractors have begun work removing the trees to make way for the cycle lane.
One resident Annette Bull reported watching "the utter devastation on Clifford Bridge Road" as the trees began to be cut down.
She said: "We have fought this unsafe cycle route, for many years, and decided we would waste our own time and pay homage to the beautiful trees that have graced the road for many years. We have had some lovely conversations with Beechwood Trees & Landscapes Ltd and the security team. They are mainly young lads, who are pawns in the situation. These lads have bills to pay like the rest of us.
"We could complain that Beechwood should not have taken the contract to fell the trees, as they are a local company, but they have the contract with Coventry City Council. The security team have been a bit over zealous, but I don't think they are overly keen to be there."
A bike was pictured left chained to one of the trees while another had a handwritten note protesting the council's plan.
Another resident, Dawn McCann, who has opposed the project throughout said: "The council haven't finalised the plans, for the cycleway, have no disability audit. Have a document they have kept hidden from us and most councillors. The document is an independent safety audit with 30 safety issues, showing the present plan to be unsafe for all.
Clifford Bridge Road driveways, Coventry (Google Maps) (credit: road.cc)"Until a safe for all plan is produced, there is no need to remove the trees... it may be that eventually some of the trees could stay, who knows? Once they're gone, they're gone, we can't pop them back. Please stop the madness."
The council's report into the project appears to refute some of these claims and states, "The safety of all road users is paramount and has been considered."
It then explains the scheme has been designed to the relevant design standards and guidance such as LTN 1/20 and Inclusive Mobility and Manual for Streets. Stage 1 and Stage 2 Road Safety Audits, in accordance with GG119, have been undertaken on the scheme, while "collisions that have resulted in personal injury (PICs) have significantly reduced across the previously completed sections of Binley Cycleway".
"The total number of PICs have reduced from 33 in the three years prior to the scheme being opened to 12 post-scheme opening. PICs involving cyclists have reduced from nine to three. A joint design review panel with Transport for West Midlands and Active Travel England has been completed on the scheme. An Equality Impact Assessment has been undertaken."
Ms McCann has also claimed the "proposed cycleway is probably one of the most dangerous cycleways planned in England".
"This cycleway is not safe for anyone, pedestrians, residents and cyclists," she added. "We have been insisting on a safe for all plan. The trees are unfortunate victims of a ridiculous scheme. Build a cycleway, that isn't the problem, it's how unsafe it is. All our safety concerns and more are in this hidden independent safety report."
The "hidden independent safety report" in that quote refers to the Stage 1 road safety audit which McCann shared screenshots from on social media. It lists numerous recommendations which were made in response to the design, for example that the footway and cycleway should be widened to 3m to give cyclists and pedestrians sufficient space.
It also suggested a speed limit on the road should be reduced, a "suitable onward route should be provided for cyclists", and that give way markings added at junctions to require motorists to give way to pedestrians and cyclists.
Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry (credit: Google Maps)When the case was heard at the High Court at the start of the month, deputy judge Richard Kimblin said "the decision taken is one which was plainly open to the decision-makers to make, and was plainly one which took account of all the material considerations – including, and expressly, the decision to remove the trees".
"The overarching decision is not one which can be reasonably said to be irrational," he added. "I have no doubt at all that the decision-makers were fully aware of the amenity value of the trees being familiar – as they will have been – with their local area and the long period of consultation and controversy which this scheme attracted."
A statement issued by solicitors representing those opposing the scheme expressed disappointment at the decision: "We are frustrated that after all the requests for information about the safety of the scheme and the trees by Coventry residents, it was only once we issued court proceedings that the council disclosed to us that it has in fact undertaken an independent safety audit."
The judge also addressed another disputed factor that had emerged numerous times, namely the health of the trees in question. The council told us many of the trees on Clifford Bridge Road are suffering from Ash dieback.
"They wouldn't all die tomorrow, but they would eventually die over the next 10 years, just at different rates," O'Connell explained. "So we can then introduce some replacement purpose-built tree pit, or some sort of native species which will flourish. But along the route where the trees are of significant value, we've actually narrowed the cycleway, so it's not 2m the whole the way through, saving those trees that have significant. So we haven't just gone carte blanche."
Despite some claims to the contrary about the trees' health from opponents to the scheme — at the High Court, the judge said assessments of the trees' health had been made by appropriate experts.
"Sir David agrees to save our trees" banner in Coventry (credit: Abigail Hinley on Facebook)Reflecting on Attenborough's brief involvement (when he responded to a letter from an 11-year-old boy and advised him on how to stage a protest to halt the bike lane's construction, and told campaigners to ask for advice from the Wildlife Trust), O'Connell of Coventry City Council said: "He [Attenborough] advised him to go to the Wildlife Trust. And we have. They haven't raised any concerns. They haven't objected to the scheme."
O'Connell also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy evident in the campaigners' suggestion to reroute the cycleway through a nearby parkland along the River Sowe – a plan, he says, which would wreak a lot more natural devastation than the proposed cutting of 26 trees on Clifford Bridge Road.
"One of the biggest things they've asked is 'why does it have to be on Clifford Bridge Road? Why can't it be an alternative route?'," he said. "And the main suggestion that came through time and time again was the River Sowe valley parkland. But there are obvious safety issues, the park's not overlooked, you'd have to organise lighting, and it's also a flood plain.
"But the primary issue is that to go through there, you'd have to fell a lot more than 26 trees. And we've made that quite clear when we've done the reanalysis from start to finish on this."
Coventry's head of public realm also compared the seemingly belligerent stance of the Clifford Bridge Road residents to those on the city's London Road, who he says were "happy to narrow the road to save the trees".
"If you read the publicity and the petition that went out around the trees, and they put up notices on trees and all sorts, you'd get why some people felt so passionately about it," he says.
"The sign will say 'the council want to chop down these trees for a cycleway, even though there's an alternative route, and it's better'. So it reads like the council are doing this because the council want to do this.
"There's no context about the history of it, the three iterations, the parking spaces, or road width, or the tree species. It's literally just 'the council want to chop down 26 trees, please help us stop them'.
"If you look at the carbon issue as well, there's 26 trees, but we're going to plant more trees than we take out. And we're aiming for modal shift – if you can take vehicles off the road, it has a much bigger impact than a tree would when it comes to carbon reduction.
"But all of that is lost, as it's all focused on 'these trees are critical, please help us'. And that's why it's got the traction it's got."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Jogle 11 min 56 sec ago
And in Southampton today we had another example of those entitled ambulances going through red lights without a care for anyone else!...
- belugabob 1 hour 23 min ago
Because the number of 40% tax payers buying downhill bikes on the scheme, whilst lower rate tax payers (who are more likely to actually cycle to...
- TheBillder 1 hour 26 min ago
The spokes and nipples are not anodised for environmental reasons, but the rims are. Which is a lot more metal. Hmm...
- Zebulebu 1 hour 58 min ago
Yeah, they'll be great after being crushed in your jersey pocket for three hours. ...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 5 min ago
I'm afraid so, anything operated by TfL apart from the Woolwich ferry and the Silvertown Tunnel bike bus when it opens next month.
- Backladder 3 hours 13 min ago
Its only "meh" because we all experience similar passes every ride, I'm sure if they got their finger out and worked out the distance it would be...
- Global Nomad 3 hours 14 min ago
have (had) both generations of Empire and loved their fit, so hoping the update keeps the same shape/last. Hope they're going to have a good range...
- Miller 3 hours 25 min ago
Hadn't heard of this. Very uncomfortable echoes of the death of Muriel Furrer at the Worlds.
- dodgy 3 hours 31 min ago
"It is worth mentioning, though, that there were a few occasions where the second light wouldn't act as it was meant to" <-- I'm out....
Add new comment
28 comments
Trees are being cut down because drivers are too precious to give up road space for cyclists.
To be fair, it is a bi-directional cycle path with a load of driveways next to a very busy road. So it is a dangerous cycle path. I have had to exit from the cricket club in a car across this path on the Binley road and you have to look right and left for the cycle path and then right and left for the road. It works when the path is barely used but if it should ever get busy, reversing in or out of your drive will be terrifying.
Well I know for UK drivers this is all very new and a struggle. And frankly much of the problem is encapsulated in the conjuction of "residential area" and "very busy road" - there's your problem.
... however - a) as people have pointed out, you really shouldn't be reversing out. (And if it's too scary to reverse in, reversing out cannot be a good idea).
b) Where's the terror? You're in a car (or are you reversing a mobility vehicle, or a unicyle / fixie). How do you cope with footways now - they're all bi-directional?
Joining the road - first, you deal with the footway / cycle path - two directions, yes, but they're bikes so not generally moving at
20mph+30mph+. Having chosen an appropriate movement you cross that, then deal with motor traffic (only from one direction - but of course we allow overtaking so both directions need checked).Leaving - stop just after your driveway. Check it's safe, then start your reversing manoever. Stop to check the cycle path / footway, then cross that.
Simples - or are we saying "I can't risk the ire or inattention of other motorists - so I'll take a chance with the lives of vulnerable road users"?
Ideally there would be space to wait before joining the road - but I don't think that's always the case even in NL for driveways. Sadly in the UK I we're probably stuck with drivers doing what they usually do for the foreseeable: using the space for cyclists and pedestrians to wait in while they deal with the actual threats to them, motor vehicles.
You probably know the answer to this, after thinking about it. Drivers deal with footways by looking directly in-line with their vehicle, either fore or aft, depending on travel direction. If there's no person directly in front of them, or behind them, they proceed, and rely on the pedestrians not to walk into the side of their vehicle.
Cyclists are completely different, due to increased speed, and break that model, because they might very well ride into the side of a vehicle, if not given sufficient time to stop.
I'm not defending any position here, just explaining how pedestrians and cyclists differ in this respect.
The terror is the fear of injuring a cyclist, the vast majority of people do not only think of themselves. I have driven across this very cycle path in Coventry, as a motorist you can see how dangerous it is. I cycle a 50km commute in Paris everyday and there are some bidirectional cycle paths but none with loads of drives. A study performed in Berlin in the 1980's ( https://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/adfc173.htm ) showed that you were 12 times more likely to be hit by a car on a bi-directional cycle path than if you were cycling on the road. The council should have put in two unidirectional cycle paths on this stretch, there is plenty of space (and plenty of trees in the wood behind the houses).
Given the attitudes that one can see in the press, on social media et cetera every single day of "Cyclists get what they deserve", "Serve them right if they get hurt", "If you're going to play with a child's toy with adults don't complain if you get hurt" and so forth I find it hard to believe that the vast majority of people really care if cyclists get hurt (as opposed to caring about possible sanctions for hurting them, raised insurance premiums and damage to their own vehicles). Anyone who is "terrified" of injuring a cyclist on this cycle track can avoid that quite easily by pulling in/out of their driveway slowly and carefully and making all necessary observations, if they do that they won't hit anyone, it really is that simple. I agree with you that unidirectional paths on both sides of the road would be preferable, but these protesters are concerned about their perceived loss of amenity and the inconvenience of losing a few seconds by having to be more careful when driving their cars, concern for cyclists is a long way down the list and is only really trotted out when it supports their "I don't want to be inconvenienced" case.
Like I've said, I've tried crossing this cycle path, it isn't that easy, with the road you have 4 lanes of traffic, all going alternate ways, to cross. Then you have to reverse in from a busy road having to keep turning your head 270° back and forth. If the path becomes as popular as the council wishes then accidents will happen. The vast majority of the Binley road is adapted for bidirectional paths. This is also the case for the Clifibridge road, however not this section. For this section a bi-directional path is dangerous. I agree the protestors are just interested in car park spaces and loss of convenience, they would protest against unidirectional paths.
Well - in the UK at least - the choices at currently "everyone drives" (and nobody cycles because it's not pleasant cycling, and equally everyone else drives so why wouldn't you) vs. breaking out of that cycle.
It's not easy to get started! However without doing something - albeit imperfect - we're stuck.
This road - like many UK residential roads and indeed streets - sounds like it's too busy / people going too fast to allow you to take your time (10 seconds?!) to carefully reverse in to a driveway doing proper observation. That needs addressing as well (network level stuff). But presumably this is a "missing link" for cycling if the civil are even bothering? So that also needs addressed also.
Single direction paths might be better (in the early days of transition, likely). But in fact bi- directional seem to work fine in NL (and elsewhere). There may be places where certain patterns are better or worse. Perhaps we should be taking from people's gardens to make a buffer space?
Sounds more like when people realise there may be cyclists everywhere, and some of those will be their family, or themselves sometimes, they might be prepared to work a little harder. Because currently we're *training* drivers every day that the space is for them - and a quick scan is fine and then foot down...
They could try the strategy that is known to work -- enforcing traffic laws so that people can cycle safely on the existing road. Then no trees have to be chopped down, Attenborough doesn't get involved, and people can choose whatever mode of transport they prefer.
But I guess that's no fun, right? Much better to have a years-long argument about building infrastructure that doesn't accomplish anything.
"Seem to work fine" IFF we ignore their still-high cyclist fatality rate, and their disturbing injury rates ( https://www.dutchnews.nl/2021/09/cycling-injuries-three-times-more-than-... ).
Which is one of the many problems with trying to build dedicated cycling infrastructure -- every other inch of road becomes explicitly for drivers, in their minds.
That's a bit like refusing to get a sofa because you've got cats or dogs "because then every other inch of the house becomes explicitly for animals, in their minds"!
No, you lost that battle when you let them have the run of the place originally! Might as well enjoy the sofa...
Drivers in the UK are already taught that the space is really theirs ("I pay road tax"). Conversely, most drivers in NL manage to cope with "places we don't expect to see cyclists and pedestrians and places we do so are happy to drive a bit slower / 'share the street' ". (The majority in the UK do also, but there are just too many places we happily mix modes where there are too many drivers, driving too fast for comfort).
In fact - drivers can be trained to some extent ... better places help them understand by strategies like "you can only drive (or park) In designated places". Contrast with the UK's tacit encouragement of an attitude of "right, there aren't double yellows, no loading kerb marks, regulation signs at designated intervals, no policemen witness me parking... Plus I was only there for 10 minutes and I deployed BOLAS - so I'll see you in court".
right, there aren't double yellows, no loading kerb marks, regulation signs at designated intervals, no policemen witness me parking...
This is a newly surfaced road, with a sign prohibiting parking from 8am-6pm Monday to Saturday. This was Tuesday- I should have added that Garstang Police Station is just left of the top of the road that you can see.
They've only got two wheels on the road, so it doesn't count as parking in the road.
The van driver is really trolling us - their two wheels appear to be on the double-yellows!
Also - a 20mph limit in Lancashire? (Fortunately I'm sure it's taken in the jocular spirit it must have been enacted with).
They've only got two wheels on the road, so it doesn't count as parking in the road
But it comprehensively obstructs the pavement. The lorry isn't on a double yellow- they're further up. But don't worry, this is the Wild NW where traffic law don't amount to a hill o' beans- full scale law-breaking will be along soon!
Oh the horror. Will this war on motorists never end?
If only there were *more* of that that terrifying cycling infra they might have an alternative to the driving it seems they're struggling with!
A driver having to look left and right before joining a road, what a ludicrous concept
TBF I think their complaint was with the design as proposed. There would be a cycle path with cyclists moving in two directions with little buffer between it and the road (this often happens in the UK because apparently "we have narrow streets").
I think their main worry is really the other drivers who might rear-end them if they stopped to back in, or abuse them, or frankly hit them whenever. I wonder also if they're worried that if they can't get right up to the road and start edging out they won't be able to quickly find a space in the traffic?
The UK's not unique - although we're probably quicker to reach for solutions which allow us to get cycling with the least amount of disruption / effect on drivers e.g. bidirectional paths on one side.
How do other places manage? In NL - where they have driveways also but somehow people cope - it's true there are some differences. They certainly have bi-directional cycle paths but I think single direction ones are more common. Not sure what the speed limit is on the road here (regardless people will be going faster than 20mph in UK!) but in NL it would be 30kmh I think. b) the traffic volume would likely be lower.
(Also article here on general points with bi-directional paths in the UK - and in NL).
Of course, if we could just re-allocate a cars' length from the existing road or people's gardens for a buffer, that would make it "safe" for resident motorists - I'm sure they'd all approve ...
In the UK we have no shortage of "residential streets" which can also double as very busy through-routes. Ultimately getting to the "optimal" place with this sort of "conflict" means we need to sort out our categories of roads.
I do wonder whether there would be so much protesting if this was for road widening / parking as opposed to a cycleway?
it is absolutely transparently NOT about the trees
Hmm... I think that needs tweaking. People do get passionate about keeping local things, but:
a) only *after* they've had all their houses and amenities built and their speedy high-capacity motor access and convenient, extremely close free parking needs catered for.
b) ... and much of why they're attached to local features like trees (or eg. historic lamp posts...) in the first place is they're rare, because *we already removed most to make way for all the housing, amenities, motor access etc.*
The central principle is: many people *are* a bit grumpy about transport / negatives of mass motoring, and they'll likely take any *improvements* ... except if those have the tiniest impact on their motoring convenience. Because they feel *entitled* to those and already put-upon / harassed by having to pay / wait / spend time on stuff like finding a parking space!
It is absolutely about drivers not wanting to share roads with cyclists
"......disgruntled residents continuing their protests by chaining bicycles the trees,..."
Oh the irony!
"Ms McCann has also claimed the "proposed cycleway is probably one of the most dangerous cycleways planned in England"."
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that Ms McCann isn't an expert in highway safety, cycleway safety or anything else remotely relevant, hasn't seen 99.999% of English cycleways, and doesn't ride a bike: but I could be wrong. Perhaps she's going for the Dunning-Kruger award 2025?
I have a great deal of sympathy with the council here, but it really does feel as though, once they got to this point, they should have gone back to the original plan, kept the trees and lost the parking spaces and then announced it as "Listening to the voice of local campaigners, we've saved the trees!" This way they've still got angry morons, but they're angry morons with a more superficially sympathetic argument.
At some point it should have become clear that the 'No angry morons' case was off the table.
Well I feel that the opponents of the cycleway would have kept changing their objections whichever design the council went with.
Fundamentally these people are against provision for cycling because they think 'I don't cycle so there's nothing in it for me'.
I commend the council for its commitment to getting the cycleway built. My own council would have abandoned plans for cycling infrastructure by now.
Exactly - so the council had a choice of whether to lose the parking or the trees, and in either case the opponens are going to whine about it.
So what's the case for losing the trees and keeping the parking? It's not better, it's not what the council originally wanted, and it's not making the objectors stop objecting.
I wonder if it will eventually get modified into the original plan, but in a few decades down the line.
"A few decades down the line" our civilisation will have likely collapsed… But at least there will be plenty of space to park your Mad Max styled battlewagon