Fringe Box

Socialize

Twitter

Opinion: Forcing Cyclists to Share Roads with Motorists Will Not Allow the Change We Need

Published on: 30 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 1 Dec, 2024

By Martin Giles

Whichever side of the argument the SCC Cabinet came down on over the London Road Active Travel scheme it was bound to upset a large number of Burpham residents.

The community was deeply divided on the issue but, as has been pointed out by some Dragon readers, local residents were not the only stakeholders.

See: County Council Cabinet Confirms Its Decision on London Road Scheme

But the transport problems we face in Guildford Borough remain and the root cause is the increasing population. Despite promises, infrastructure has in no way kept pace with population growth, locally or nationally, thanks to ill-judged and irresponsible government.

Local government has no control over population growth, which we now know was almost a staggering one million extra souls in the year ending June 2023 and 700,000 in the following 12 months. And councils only have limited control over planning because so much power has been centralised, with local decisions frequently overturned.

But the leadership of Guildford Borough Council is not in the vanguard of complaining about the new proposed housing targets, nor has it vociferously challenged the government about the risks further development poses to NHS services, sewage treatment capacity, water and power supplies.

All that is in addition to road capacity.

Last night, I drove to Bramley from St Catherine’s to report on a public meeting. If it had been daylight I would have cycled. By the time I got to Peasmarsh I wished I had used my e-bike, despite the darkness. Almost the entire length of Broadford Road was jammed. Because of the weight of traffic on the A281, cars were finding it hard to join the main road.

Broadford Road, which feeds onto the busy A281 Horsham Road, is often congested. Google

“A traffic snarl-up in Surrey? That’s not news!” And you’re right. In the country’s most densely populated county it can happen at any time of day, all of a sudden, for no apparent reason. Traffic slows to a crawl or a complete standstill.

But, as we all know, a lot more housing development is due that will use the A281 the road capacity of which cannot easily be increased without knocking down houses to build a dual carriageway. And who wants that?

So more people switching to cycling and taking up less road space is a good thing, isn’t it? But one of the sad aspects of the London Road Active Travel scheme debate was how quickly, many anti-cycling comments emerged. Why does cycling provoke such antipathy? It should also be said there were also some that were anti-driving but a smaller number.

There are many potential advantages of cycling.

I am a cyclist and a driver and also, like most of us, I am, at times, a pedestrian. Of course, most cyclists are also drivers, 80 per cent, according to Gov.UK, while only 30 per cent of drivers cycle (and a much smaller percentage of decision-making councillors, I suspect).

The Health Foundation says 17.3 per cent of the Surrey population cycles at least once a month, while Gov.UK says that in 2020, 47 per cent of people aged five and over owned or had access to a bicycle.

So perhaps cycling is not quite the small minority activity some believe it to be.

I am 69, overweight and not particularly fit. Until a few years ago I was still able to cycle around Guildford on a push bike. I still cycle but now with an e-bike, and I rarely get significantly wet, even in British weather.

Cycling in Guildford town is quicker than walking, often quicker than driving because there are no problems of parking and most traffic jams can be avoided. It also does no damage to the environment and it provides some exercise. In our house, we manage all our food shopping by bike.

But as we build more and more homes and consequently see more and more cars on our roads (the average locally is 1.5 per household) things will only get worse.

Perhaps we will just have to wait until the problem gets to the stage where more are persuaded that “something has to be done”. But in the meantime, more cyclists will die or be injured. According to Department for Transport data, 139 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in Surrey in 2022.

It doesn’t help that a minority of motorists are inconsiderate, a few even aggressive, when it comes to cyclists. And, of course, the overwhelming majority of cyclist casualties are caused by collisions with motor vehicles.

It is the separation of cyclists and motor vehicles that is the most needed improvement on our roads, the width of which were often set out well before the introduction of motor vehicles or today’s traffic levels.

London Road Burpham Google As the Department of Transport says, cycle lanes are not perceived as safe enough on busy roads.

I am convinced that a more flexible approach needs to be taken to mixing pedestrian and bike traffic. It is not just cyclists who are most at risk from motor vehicles. Although cyclists spend so much time in close proximity to people who walk, road casualty statistics show that cycles are involved in just two per cent of pedestrian casualties. The rest, 98 per cent, are hit by motor vehicles.

There are quite a few shared pedestrian/cycle routes in Guildford, for example the Wey towpath, one of those I use regularly, which is quite narrow in places. I am sure there are cyclists who are inconsiderate or even reckless, but I can’t recall the last time I noticed that.

The River Wey towpath – narrow but not a problem for considerate shared use.

However, I have witnessed poor behaviour from a small number of pedestrians. Very occasionally they appear to be deliberately obstructive but mostly the problem is caused because they are not paying sufficient attention, sometimes “plugged in” to earphones.

Nonetheless, by slowing down and taking care, using my bell, saying “excuse me” or “coming past” and “thank you” if they move aside, I find most encounters pass off perfectly well and safely. Sometimes I add a pleasantry eg “lovely day!” After all, they are my Guildfordian neighbours.

I do realise that some pedestrians are fearful of bikes but I am convinced it is a disproportionate fear. In the whole country only 2.5 pedestrians on average are killed annually because of a collision with a bike, regardless of any fault.

In other European countries cyclists and pedestrians share space routinely. It does not appear to cause major problems. We should really learn from their example.

Tomorrow: What went wrong with the Ash Bridge communications?

Share This Post

Responses to Opinion: Forcing Cyclists to Share Roads with Motorists Will Not Allow the Change We Need

  1. Mike Smith Reply

    December 1, 2024 at 7:42 am

    One reason why European cyclists and pedestrians are able to share space is that that with cycling infrastructure comes rules about how to use it.

    Much like here, where if there is no pavement pedestrians should walk facing oncoming traffic, over there cycles use the right-hand side of the path and pedestrians the left, so cyclists and pedestrians coming towards each other face each other on the same side of the path and as pedestrians (like here) have priority the cyclist will move to the ‘wrong’ side of the path to pass them.

    Unfortunately, this requires the path to be wide enough to allow two sides and also for people to follow the rules of the road, unfortunately neither of which seems to be very common in this country.

  2. Ben Paton Reply

    December 1, 2024 at 12:54 pm

    The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of Government in England. It deliberately ignores and/or misdiagnoses the problem. Then it goes through ostensibly legal processes which are no more than legal algorithms to get what they want while pulling the wool over the electorate’s eyes. They categorise what they don’t want to see as “irrelevant”.
    Here are some relevant objectively verifiable facts:
    1. There are 1.22 cars per household and a toatal 33.2 million cars in the UK
    2. Most people rely on cars and buses to get to work or go to a supermarket. Walking or cycling are not feasible alternatives for most people.
    3. Congestion increases year by year because there are more and more cars and more and more people – but the capacity of the infrastructure has remained fixed or almost fixed for decades.
    4. Government does not care about congestion aka quality of life. it is content to inconvenience the electorate. The mental health of the electorate is a sacrifice it is happy to make for the sake of pie in the sky divorced from reality political dogma.
    5. The only shortage of housing in England is of Council Housing. The reasons are obvious. They sell them off every year. They build very few, if any.
    7. House prices are driven by the availability of lending and by interest rates not by the supply of newly built houses.
    8. The housebuilding industry is now an oligopolistic cartel that builds the wrong houses in the wrong places because that’s how they maximise their profits.

    Politicians do not put the interests of the electorate first.

    The final chapter of Anthony King’s book Who Governs Britain starts: “There is something surreal about the way in which British politicians comport themselves at the moment – and the way in which they have comported themselves for several decades past. Few British politicians are liars but most of them are living a lie – or, if not an outright lie, then at least a bizarre fantasy.”

    Hmmm. Is that apposite for what’s happened to Woking BC (bankrupt) and Guildford BC’s failure to update its Local Plan?

    Modal shift is one of these bizarre fantasies. Increasing the housing stock in Guildford by 12,000 or so on a stock of about 55,000, which is a percentage increase of over 20 per cent when births less deaths is negative is another bizarre fantasy.

    In economic and business terms housing is an overhead – not a means of creating wealth. The “body politic” (an idea that seems to have died in the 17th century) would be better served by making social housing available to the people who need it rather than by kowtowing to the housebuilding lobby.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *