Letter: Many Residents Appreciate LRAG

Published on: 16 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 15 Nov, 2024

London Road Burpham (image Google)

From Fiona Davidson

R4GV county councillor for Guildford South East

It is very disappointing that Cllr George Potter [Lib Dem, Burpham and Guildford East] has resorted to personal attacks, which are entirely unwarranted. And it is inappropriate behaviour from a county and borough councillor who is supposed to represent residents, not abuse them. He is clearly very angry that many residents oppose the London Road Active Travel scheme, as is evidenced once again in the recent survey on the Burpham and Merrow Community Group Facebook page.

For those who haven’t seen it, by Friday the poll had attracted 777 votes. 71 per cent against, 19 per cent for, 8 per cent not sure, and 2 per cent no opinion. By the way, the SCC survey didn’t require respondents to provide their address and was open to anyone anywhere in the country, whether they even knew where Guildford was or not. The survey platform even helpfully invited people who had contributed to previous surveys on cycling to participate.

I note that Cllr Potter has also provided what he calls “taxpayers money” to fund online collaboration tools for G-BUG, which is a cycling pressure group, so I’m not sure I understand why he has taken such exception to funding LRAG online collaboration tools. He chose to contribute, and he chose the amount he contributed.

LRAG has consistently provided detailed information to describe, explain, analyse, and critique the plans and proposals. Its agenda was to inform. This is the role that Surrey County Council should have undertaken – but didn’t. LRAG has explained why it has latterly become opposed to the scheme, but it continues to provide information which residents wouldn’t otherwise have, and very many residents appreciate being informed.

It is public knowledge that I am against the scheme. I believe there is a significant risk that the road layout proposed would have the unintended consequence of reducing safety.

In the real world how safe is a 4.9 inch clearance between an HGV’s mirrors and a cyclist or pedestrian on a footway or cycleway? In the real world are cyclists really likely to dismount to pass pedestrians on the shared path? 45% of the route is shared by cyclists and pedestrians, some sections are very narrow.

In the era of electric bikes and scooters pedestrians will be deterred, especially the disabled (who often have few travel options), the elderly and those pushing prams.

This section of London Road is currently one of the safer arterial routes in Surrey. The actual official accident statistics for the past five years (held by the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership) show that there were 17 minor accidents (five involving a cyclist and a car), and one serious accident that did not involve either a cycle or a car.

I would absolutely support changes that could accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles separately and safety, but the A3100 is narrow in places, and this is the significant constraint in creating a route that will work for all road users. No accidents are acceptable, and I truly believe this scheme risks increasing the number of accidents.

Councillors often hold strong views, but we have a responsibility to engage in public discourse with civility, otherwise we will deter people from getting involved, and engaging in the community.