Mayor Martin Biermann gives his view on the Top of Town cycling debate (From Basingstoke Gazette)
When news happens, text BAZ and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Mayor Martin Biermann gives his view on the Top of Town cycling debate
5:10pm Monday 1st October 2012 in Local
Cllr Martin Biermann
The Gazette can claim a proud history of campaigns and engaging with local issues. However, I find the recent targeting of cyclists at the Top of The Town somewhat mystifying, writes Mayor of Basingstoke and Deane Martin Biermann.
I would be the first to condemn irresponsible cycling, especially in the midst of pedestrians, but also among other cyclists or motor vehicles. Equally, I strongly condemn cyclists in dark clothing and without lights at night time.
However, one must really ask whether it is the cyclists or the local councils who are at fault when it comes to the issue of cycling in the Old Town area.
Let me give some reasons why I would disagree with the emphasis of your report:
- There are no decent/safe crosstown cycle routes, especially if travelling west-east.
- Signage indicating locations where cycling is not allowed is far from prominent and in some cases missing altogether.
- There is a good case to be made for mixed use at the Top of The Town, not least because the areas concerned are former vehicular highways and are indeed still used by motor vehicles at certain times.
- Such mixed use is very common throughout mainland Europe and makes cycling more attractive, which is something which all tiers of government claim to be promoting.
- It is not unheard of for police officers to be seen cycling in the topic areas.
Whilst there are a few examples elsewhere of improvements for cyclists (such as along Popley Way), even such schemes have notable flaws. And the complete blocking of Sherborne Road is little short of an outrage.
But let me quote a particular example where the borough has totally failed cyclists.
I sat as a member of a so-called advisory panel for the then portfolio holder considering the refurbishment of The Malls.
Throughout the process (the minutes of meetings would confirm this), I was assured that there would be improvements for cyclists as part of the scheme.
Despite these assertions, not a single detail of the implemented scheme has made cycling more user-friendly. One could even argue that the contrary is the case.
Ironically, it is South West Trains which has made the biggest strides in being helpful to cycle users in our borough.
I submit that The Gazette’s energies would be much better spent on tackling the many motorists parking in an anti-social manner, causing real difficulties, in particular, for disabled persons. Please, no more photographs of hapless cyclists on what are really roads.
Comments(23)
privateryan65
says...
1:58pm Tue 2 Oct 12
robertspet8
says...
3:04pm Tue 2 Oct 12
What is so mystifying to our Mayor? The Gazette were responding to reports from members of the public and the subsequent article created lots of local interest and debate - surely this is what The Gazette should be doing.
He goes on to say, 'However, one must really ask whether it is the cyclists or the local councils who are at fault when it comes to the issue of cycling in the Old Town area.'
It is open to debate how much the council are at fault but the cyclists were clearly at fault - bad planning and bad laws have to be changed not flouted.
The mayor sums up by saying, 'I submit that The Gazette’s energies would be much better spent on tackling the many motorists parking in an anti-social manner, causing real difficulties, in particular, for disabled persons. Please, no more photographs of hapless cyclists on what are really roads.'
I guess we all have our list of bete noires which we would like The Gazette to target - and inconsiderate motorists is high on my list. However cyclists are also a legitimate target - and the ones photographed might not appreciate being described as 'hapless'.
Best_Name_Ever
says...
5:41pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Quimbo
says...
7:07pm Tue 2 Oct 12
JacquesMeahof
says...
9:21pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Quimbo wrote:+1.
You don't have to wear helmets.
Long may it remain personal choice.
The current crop of helmets are designed to a standard that protects toddlers falling off a trike.
If cyclists have to wear them so should people climbing ladders, pedestrians, mobility scooter riders...
Well done Mr Biermann for exercising your right to "ride free".
Anyone else been told to wear a helmet by a fat guy smoking a fag?
Oh the irony.
Best_Name_Ever
says...
7:39am Wed 3 Oct 12
Quimbo wrote:Fair enough. I guess it is up to the individual then if they want to wear one or not. I did not think it was illegal, just common sense.
You don't have to wear helmets.
Jonty11
says...
7:48am Wed 3 Oct 12
Anyway there's cycle racks outside aren't there?
jonone
says...
12:30pm Wed 3 Oct 12
Quimbo
says...
3:51pm Wed 3 Oct 12
jonone wrote:Agreed on Victory Roundabout underpasses; I got so used to cyclists whizzing by quietly, from behind, I made sure I always maintained a steady course, didn't change sides of the path, and if I had to change sides, always looked behind me first. That saved me from being hit by cyclists several times, and caused several cyclists to thank me for my due diligence as a pedestrian.
Perhaps Cllr Biermann can explain the clear signage at the Victory Roundabout subways that state "Cyclists Dismount" and are, as far as I could tell, ignored by 100% of cyclists passing though. And if ever as a pedestrian, I nearly got knocked down by one of these lovely people flying round a corner, it was almost always my fault from the attitude and reaction of said darlings. He can also explain why, having spent £000s on cycle lanes, many cyclists ignore them - Popley Way being a good example. As for no helmet, if I - as a car driver - see a cyclist without a helmet, I take even more care as I know they believe that their safety is not their responsibility. Not denying existence of bad car drivers etc, but bad cyclists are a problem and in some place a majority.
I also found that middle aged commuters in suits and hardhats behaved worse than BMXers and other cyclists, including shouting abuse at pedestrians for not getting out of the way.
And all that action in the short walk to the station.
Lastly, Biermann is wearing high visibility clothing and not listening to an iPod or texting. That is the correct example.
Sam_Walker123456
says...
4:18pm Wed 3 Oct 12
Best_Name_Ever wrote:Nearly all the research into the wearing of cycle helmets and cycling accidents has produced counterintuitive results which fly in the face of what you or me would regard as common sense. In countries where cycle helmets have been made compulsory the number of riders has deceased but the injury rate has increased.In The Netherlands there are far more riders than in the UK but about the same levels of accidents - but hardly any of the Dutch wear helmets.The more cyclist there are the lower the accident rate.Women are better riders but have more accidents.
Quimbo wrote: You don't have to wear helmets.Fair enough. I guess it is up to the individual then if they want to wear one or not. I did not think it was illegal, just common sense.
The list of these strange findings goes on and on. But overall the health benefits of cycling with or without a helmet far outweigh the risks of injury.
Best_Name_Ever
says...
11:14am Thu 4 Oct 12
Sam_Walker123456
says...
1:36pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Best_Name_Ever wrote:The stats show that you are more likely to have an accident in this country if you wear a helmet. But the jury is out as to whether this is because helmet wearers feel safer and therefore take more risks or car drivers think they are well protected and give them less space.
Interesting stats Sam_Walker123456, but just to be sure, my helmet will stay on my head :)
Only one thing is clear from all the stats and that is cycling with or without a helmet is good for your health..............
...unless you get squashed by a juggernaut.
JacquesMeahof
says...
1:50pm Thu 4 Oct 12
"As for no helmet, if I - as a car driver - see a cyclist without a helmet, I take even more care as I know they believe that their safety is not their responsibility" - I appreciate and think I understand the comment, but in the highway code (Rule 163) it states that you should:
"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car.", wouldn't it be nice if ALL drivers followed this advice?
Some do - some don't.
66Mike
says...
2:38pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Best_Name_Ever
says...
6:27pm Thu 4 Oct 12
JacquesMeahof
says...
9:30pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Best_Name_Ever wrote:Rule 66:
JacquesMeahof What is the official position on cyclists riding two abreast on a main road?
"never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends".
I think that covers it - wise advice in my opinion.
I don't like riding with others though - I prefer the solitude!
LesFrèresCrucy
says...
9:44pm Thu 4 Oct 12
JacquesMeahof
says...
9:45am Fri 5 Oct 12
LesFrèresCrucy wrote:I believe that should be covered by common courtesy, don't go holding your breath on this one though.
Does that rule also apply to pedestrians who walk two or three abreast along pavements and paths and expect pedestrians walking in the opposite direction to give way (either in the ditch or on the road?). Women with push chairs are the worst offenders for this 'crime'.
bernard bof
says...
12:09pm Mon 8 Oct 12
this is a major problem in the town, but how come motor vehicles are allowed to use the pedestrianised areas for delivery etc. yet cyclists are not?
bernard bof
says...
3:24pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Oakley Resident
says...
3:18pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Millions spent in recent years and not a single cycle path in the town centre just a ban on using them.
You can drive a car along the top of town at night but not a bike!
Cyclists are driven off the roads by the fast and busy roads being competely unsuitable for bikes and now we have a vendetta by idiot counillors too.
Blame rests with BDBC.
Cycle paths recently put in around suburbs are useless and not designed by a person who has ever ridden a bike. They seem made to just block your route and get you run over.
Oakley Resident
says...
3:27pm Fri 19 Oct 12
Best_Name_Ever wrote:The new cycle paths are very badly designed and either slow the cyclist down too much with endless stop-start junctions or they make the cyclist cross roads where cars will not be expecting them and put the cyclist in danger.
The Mayor says 'whilst there are a few examples elsewhere of improvements for cyclists (such as along Popley Way), even such schemes have notable flaws' - I agree - no one uses them! On the way home today three cyclists shunned the new cycle path for the busy road, two of them without helmets.
New path along Buckskin. Stop and give way five times in short distance on bike path, once if on road.
Hardly any paths actually go all the way somewhere. Most just are little bits of track that suddenly stop (like the one on Winchester Road that stops when you get to the ring road and leaves you to go around Winchester Road Roundabout and Brighton Hill roundabout on your bike).
Then there is the raliway station. Huge demand for residents to bike there to catch a train. Not a single bike path to get you there!
Pathetic Basingstoke.
Quimbo says...
6:57pm Mon 1 Oct 12