Negative attitude of Brighton Council Leader to cycling

[gagagiste]

In her blog http://marymears.wordpress.com/. Mary Mears, Tory leader of Brighton Council, tries to defend the proposed removal of especially constructed and segregated cycle lanes in Brighton. It is one of the most anti cycling series of comments that I have encountered from any council leader. Yes, it is pleasant to ride along the sea front, but safe cycling in the town for utilitarian purposes is far more important. Suggest anyone with the interests of cyclists in mind reads it and contacts her to express their views. Removal will cost £1.1M !!

[ChrisButch]

I have a farly sensitive nose when it comes to sniffing out anti-cycling attitudes, but I must say I found it difficult to find much to complain about in this article. There may be (there doubtless is) a lot more behind this story which local riders will be aware of: but taking the comments at face value, they don't seem particularly unreasonable or anti-cycling, particularly as repeated reference is made to the discontent of the local cycling group with the lanes as designed. That in turn raises the perennial quandary whether it's better to have no lanes at all than bad ones - which quite a few riders would agree with (though again, not necessarily when the particular local circumstances are known).

[squeaker]

Personally, I find myself between a rock and a hard place regarding these paths. Grand Avenue is / was a wide road, not exactly challenging to cycle on (more challenging uphill, of course), but potentially intimidating to the average 'pavement cyclist'.
Their installation was the usual 'quarterflash' effort, with junction priority problems etc.. The only time I tried to use the uphill one it was blocked in 3 places (2 sets of roadworks, 1 delivery van). Downhill, I didn't bother as 20mph+ is easily achieved.
If the expansion of the port at Shoreham (heavy goods traffic + cars from additional housing) is going to lead to Grand Avenue being more heavily used / promoted as an HGV route, then perhaps that is an argument for keeping (at least) the uphill path, but if they are regularly blocked forcing users out onto the main carriageway or footway, then that's probably going to be more dangerous than staying on the road in the first place!
So should they stay (only if the existing problems are sorted out) or go?
Discuss!

[snibgo]

It didn't seem particularly anti-cycling to me, either. However, Mary Mears doesn't say why she wants to spend up to £1.1M removing the cycle lane. I assume she has a reason. (Giving space back to cars, perhaps.) She says cycling accident numbers have decreased, but the casualty rate is too high. She wants to "explore" a safer alternative.

If the lane goes, pending the "exploration" of an alternative, does she expect accident numbers to increase? Casualties to increase?

[gagagiste]

If the proposed removal of especially constructed cycle lanes, at a budgeted cost of £1.1M, is not a negative attitude to cycling I don't know what is. The green party petition against the proposal http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43064.html now has 3100+ signatures. The bulk of those signing are local people, numerous comments are made by regular users of the facility. Whilst the lanes may not be perfect, their loss means the deliberate destruction of dedicated cycle facilities. The need is for more facilities not less. I would like to bet if the removal goes ahead there will be an increase of, revenue producing, parking spaces in the roads concerned.

[Steady rider]

Any chance of some pictures, to view what may be the good and any bad parts?

The UK seems to install facilities that divide cyclists and lead to wasting money perhaps.

[squeaker]

Any chance of some pictures, to view what may be the good and any bad parts?
The UK seems to install facilities that divide cyclists and lead to wasting money perhaps.

See attached
Also streetview here and here.
Help yourself
(And yes, that is The Drive, but the seaward end of the scheme is Grand Avenue )

[Steady rider]

thanks for the links.

I have seen similar in Hull/London with the cycle lane, raised section, car space. I am not too keen because if the raised section is high you can catch the pedals, so you have to ride about 0.5 from the edge, either side, if about 1.5m wide leaves less room than the first impresssions would give, chamfer edges helps. Not good for overtaking other cyclists.

the rubbish bins position looks poor, people crossing cycle lane, in Rome they were very near the road edge or on the pavement or in a cut out situation.

Pavement hardly used 3m wide, looks good.

[squeaker]

Pavement hardly used 3m wide, looks good.

That was where I went to get around the lorry

[Steady rider]

http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/ca ... lities.htm

need something like photo no 5, wide with chamfer edges

fines for parking on cyclepaths or lanes

[gagagiste]

Alan Pipes on his blog has gathered a lot of media comment on this subject on http://weirdcyclelanes.blogspot.com/

[gagagiste]

The Brighton Evening Argus reports that at the meeting of Brighton Council yesterday the proposal by the Tory leader Mary Mears was defeated and that the segregated cycle lanes will not be removed.