Why HBC was right to veto the Alexandra Park cycle route

Bea Rogers replies to the article by Anna Sabin, a member of Hastings Urban Bikes, criticising Hastings Borough Council’s decision to refuse the cycle path through Alexandra Park. A cyclist herself, she also proposes a new approach to walking and cycling which, she says, “is less aggro, more peaceful co-existence.”

Unlike HUB – Hastings Urban Bikes – many cyclists (including myself) do not agree that cycling through Alexandra Park would be a good idea. When Hub organised a counter-rally in the park to the previous park users’ one, there were some good discussions between people of the two groups and several of the cyclists said they had not been aware of the problems, including danger to themselves, from a “shared-use” route: collisions or near-collisions with pedestrians, disabled people, small children running around, and dogs on long leads (which the cyclist may not see until too late).

Incidentally it was not “a small but loud opposition”, as Anna puts it, who opposed the cycle route in the park. A large number of people worked on this over a long period, lobbying local election candidates, writing letters and turning out for rallies and group walks around the park to protest about the proposal.

There was a petition of over 800 signatories, despite attempts to stop people finding out about the plans – nothing on park notice boards, for example. Not all that loud, but certainly not small. To overturn a previous decision took a lot of people putting a lot of pressure.

The key point for me is Anna’s claim that the cycle route would “expand non motorised options for getting around town”. Cycling through the park is not exactly getting around town, but the point is that the use of vehicles there would deter many of the most vulnerable people from going out. Many have said that the parks are the only safe outdoor space for them, and without feeling safe they may well stop coming and even, in some cases, be confined to their own four walls.

Small children

People with small children have also said that they might think twice about bringing them to a park where until now they could run around , explore and play freely without having to be constantly supervised or restricted in their movements. All this is essential to healthy child development – they need more fresh air, not less, more unstructured play, movement and freedom.

As for dogs on long leads, that has been so long established (especially in the lower park where dogs are not allowed off the lead) that there is little chance you could put the genie back in that particular bottle.

Anna states, quite rightly, that cycling is an alternative means to get about and transport stuff (although most bikes do not have any provision for carrying stuff). But it is one of a mix of options. Cycling suits some people (including me) but not all.

In fact the importance of cycle journeys can easily be exaggerated. The latest national transport survey shows that less than 3% of all journeys involved a bike, as opposed to 32% involving walking. Despite a seriously large amount of government and local Council funds being spent on cycling provision recently, the number of cycle journeys has been falling. It is also seasonal and dependent on the weather: only the most determined cyclist would go out in the rain, strong winds or snow.

Cycling will never be for everybody – especially those with mobility issues or disabilities, such as partial sight and blindness. If you have never cycled, it would take a big effort (and cost) to obtain a decent bike, have it adjusted for you and safety-checked,  and then learn how to ride it.

Shared use

Anna writes that the proposed shared pedestrian/cycle route meets current national standards. But it was reliant on an out-of-date government policy favouring “shared use” which has been superceded by one strongly discouraging it. This is precisely the issue when cyclists ask for the use of pavements, pedestrian areas in town, or open spaces and parks: yes to promoting cycling, no to disadvantaging walkers who need these areas to be kept safe, and vehicle-free, for them.

Anna concedes: “…on foot you’d rather not have faster cyclists intermittently wizzing/weaving/apologising past you.” But she then goes on to justify this because cars can be a danger to cyclists, and this was indeed the argument used by advocates of the park cycling scheme.

Incidentally they focused on pedal bikes, but many of the dangers to walkers – from people using the park illegally – came from heavier and faster e-powered bikes, and e-powered scooters. They are just as silent as pedal bikes, but were coming up behind people without warning and passing far too close, as well as approaching from the front and forcing people to step aside to avoid a collision, or shouting at people to get out of the way.

There were many of these confrontations in the park as more cyclists were using it, with confrontations, near-collisions and indeed collisions: one incident involved a cyclist riding fast around a blind corner and colliding with a woman on a mobility scooter. There were hundreds of pounds’ worth of damage to the mobility vehicle, which she was forced to pay for herself.

More recently, there have been lists of dangerous incidents sent to the Parks Department. One video showed a woman riding round pedestrian paths in a time trial, ignoring the pedestrians, and there was also video footage of a cyclist riding fast towards two walkers on a bridge over the stream, and a collision was only averted when one of them moved quickly to the side.

Many pedestrians will give way in this situation, in a park or on a pavement, but some (including me) will not. I have not been hit yet, but it is always a possibility – and as a cyclist I know that the cyclist may come off worse than the walker if there is a collision. Since the Council’s decision to withdraw support from the park route, a report has gone in to the Council of a young cyclist riding straight towards a pedestrian: the front wheel ended up between her legs and she was only able to stop it by grabbing the handlebars.

Road rights

Anna tells us that “as active travellers, we’ll have to share space for a bit“ until road space is taken away from motor vehicle traffic. This assumes that cyclists cannot, or will not, use their right to ride on the roads. This is where I really part company with her. Cyclists have a right to use the roads, and we should insist on that right.

Hastings is a particularly difficult town to cycle around, because of its many long, steep hills and lack of alternative routes to the few main roads. Where there are alternatives (like Stonefield Road to Queens Road) they involve unnecessary slopes, and one thing cyclists do not like is going uphill. We can’t get rid of the hills or bulldoze homes and shops to widen the roads, so we have to use all available means to make it safer for cyclists to use our right to be there.

Making Hastings more cycle-friendly

This means traffic management in the form of advance stop lines for cyclists at junctions; strategic use of traffic lights at roundabouts; planning the right width of a gap for cyclists to ride past road closures; light-controlled road crossings for walkers and cyclists; removing parking provision on some roads and considering making some (like Lower Park Road) one-way to accommodate a cycle lane. It also means enforcement of parking rules, especially on Queens Road which is a key route for everyone but often has illegally parked vans forcing cyclists away from the kerb.

It would also involve more bus lanes, important for walkers who use the buses for longer journeys but also important for cyclists, who can ride in bus lanes while car drivers can’t. The authorities could also help by putting up traffic signs to alert drivers to cyclists (“they have a right to be there!”) I would also suggest cycle training areas and regular advice sessions, where people new to a bike can get used to the feel of it before they go out on the road. Here could also be special sessions for small children learning to ride a bike or scooter.

Cyclists can make things safer for themselves and everyone else on the roads. This means hi-vis clothing and helmets so that no driver can claim, “I didn’t see them”; good lights after dusk for the same reason; and riding predictably, safely and legally – no jumping on and off pavements; no cycling against the traffic; riding in a straight line on the road; always indicating when we plan to turn left or right, and looking behind or using a mirror; and of course stopping at traffic lights on red.

It would be excellent too if cyclists stayed off the “no cycling” routes. Anna mentions the seafront cycle route but she may not be aware that Bottle Alley and the lower prom has become an illegal cycle route especially for the fastest cyclists, making this dangerous for pedestrians.

There is so much that can be done to improve the experience of cycling, but nothing should undermine the welfare of walkers who are the most eco-friendly of all, and the most vulnerable on our streets. Let’s have at least the amount of attention and money spent on walking issues as on cycle routes, or better still: something approaching walkers’ importance in the transport mix.

They could start with replacing the broken moveable bollards meant to control car access to pedestrian space. Then get on with some of the zebra and light-controlled crossings which many residents’ groups have requested from the county council. After that, improve the awful state of some pavements. Followed by a campaign against pavement car parking and illegal parking. I could go on…

 

Bea Rogers has been involved with the campaign against the shared cycle route in Alexandra Park since it was proposed 10 years ago. She is a former member of the London Cycling Campaign and has previously ensured cycle provision in Islington, north London, as former Chair of Islington Council’s Transport Subcommittee.

Also in: Point of View

« Why we must oppose the ‘Illegal’ Migration Bill
Questions ESCC needs to answer about Queensway Gateway project »