Cyclists say they are worried about being cut out of local decision making after Labour scrapped the city’s active travel forum without telling them for months.
The forum was previously one of several groups consulted on highways projects, such as changes to the layout of Valley Gardens and Madeira Drive.
But in September, a meeting of the city’s wider transport partnership was told it had been disbanded in May – even though its members were not aware of this.
Other forums for bus users and taxi drivers have been kept. Since May, Labour has announced several schemes including cycle lanes are being paused for review but cycling groups have not heard anything more.
The former vice chair of AITF, Becky Reynolds, said: “Neither I nor the members of the AITF were informed directly that the meeting had been abolished. I view this as very poor process.
“We all gave up our time to assist the council. The AITF provided a means of sharing perspectives and for issues to be notified directly to a responsible councillor. Our local knowledge also helps to improve travel and transport proposals.
“If the work of the AITF is to be included in the transport partnership, we’ll need more meeting time. It is urgent to pick up the momentum on schemes to provide better, safer infrastructure.
“Several much-needed schemes have been “paused” e.g. the A23 where people are at daily risk from outdated road design and potholed roads.”
Schemes which have been paused include a new cycle lane from Fourth Avenue to Hove Lagoon and the final phase of Valley Gardens, which includes a new cycle lane from Edward Street to the seafront.
This week, it was announced only half of a new cycle lane north of Preston Circus may go ahead because of “affordability”.
Councillor Trevor Muten said: “I consider the existing and long standing transport partnership the best place for all views to be expressed by key transport bodies and representative organisations, on transport schemes.
“There were four representatives at the September meeting who were pushing for the reinstatement of the active and inclusive travel forum. As chair, I set out the reasons why we will not be doing so.
“As a new Labour administration, we have increased membership of the transport partnership and will invite more stakeholders to ensure the breadth of views are well represented.
“There will be much wider proactive consultation with stakeholders on new transport schemes and initiatives as they progress, as standard.
“We will also consider holding working groups on specific schemes, should additional feedback on the detailed technical aspects of schemes be helpful. We will keep this under review.
“We are committed to being a listening council. If any group represented does not feel that their voice is being heard, I encourage them to get in touch with me directly.”
Good news the one track mind zealots cycle lobby will not be dictating to the council like they did under their lapdogs the Greens
This city is choked by cars. Roads full, pavements parked on, pollution and noise everywhere. Maybe fewer cars would be a good thing
Maybe fewer Lycra fascists on the pavements, going through red lights and one-way street would be a good solution.
More cycle lanes then? Good idea
I yes of course everyone who upsets you is a fascist.
Get lost fool
Bricycles used to be able to influence decisions disproportionately when Jamie Lloyd was a Green cllr.
The Greens treated residents and democracy with contempt and , quite rightly got booted out.
Poor Bricycles – you’ll just have to stick to fiddling Council surveys and petitions!
Let’s face it, cyclists “groups” make demands (which do not represent the views of most cyclists who also drive) and contribute little in terms of money. Drivers pay road tax as well as residents permits and parking fees. Should cyclists make a contribution to the upkeep of the roads or at least cycle lanes ?
Road Tax was abolished in 1937
It is now known as “Vehicle Tax” but is still colloquially called “Road Tax” – try searching in Google) and like fuel duty, driving licences, parking charges, and Mots, are “taxes” that dont apply to cyclists.
Motorists also need vehicle insurance, breakdown cover, eyesight checks, vehicle maintenance and need to pass driving tests.
Former (thankfully) cycling obsessed councillor Jamie Lloyd made the same pedantic claim as you.
It’s called vehicle emissions duty. Last time I looked, bicycles didn’t have any emissions on which to pay duty.
I got stuck behind a vegan cyclist yesterday, the emissions were out of control
The levy is now based on emissions, but it is actually called Vehicle Excise Duty.
No – it’s called Vehicle Excise Duty and also applies to zero-emission cars over £40k.
From 2025 all EVs will start paying road tax https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-of-vehicle-excise-duty-for-zero-emission-cars-vans-and-motorcycles-from-2025/introduction-of-vehicle-excise-duty-for-zero-emission-cars-vans-and-motorcycles-from-2025
If only VED made up the loss from freezing fuel duty, but it doesn’t even come close which is why motorists are heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
The roads are paid for with council tax, cyclists are not exempt from council tax.
How can the Labour Party NOT listen to shanks pony users first. Disgraceful when kids and poorest aren’t cared about.
Because there are too many sanctimonious, eco-zealot,selfish cycling loons that have penetrated BHCC
Great news. Now some balanced schemes that offer value for pedestrians as well.
Disappointing from the Council. This is the Active and Inclusive Travel Forum. The focus of the article is on cyclists, but the forum was also Active for other groups including pedestrians, and Inclusive for disabled persons through BADGE.
Don’t be daft! The Greens didn’t give a sh1t about the disabled – they were considered to be an inconvenience
The evidenced minutes of previous AITF meetings shows that all manner of disabled group representatives were included in consultations, and the article above shows that it is the Labour administration that is removing this consultation forum.
Don’t let your casual disregard for facts get in the way.
Don’t mention Gardner St!
I don’t have to. The evidence shows that disabled group representatives have been involved in prior AITF meetings and that Labour is cancelling those meetings, thus showing that your claim is nonsense, regardless of how you feel about a solitary instance that can be argued both ways.
There is no Council led forum for bus users. Meetings are organised and run by Brighton Area Buswatch. I chair them.
Bricycles have got some neck!
All the time Green councillors Davis and Lloyd were on the Transport committee, Bricycles got whatever they wanted! Residents were totally sick of the Greens and voted in their droves against them. People were fed up of the very small cycling lobby getting preferential treatment over the majority of residents and businesses – honest people just trying to earn a crust for themselves and their families, and getting rogered by cycling eco-fascists.
Bricycles – if you don’t like it – move somewhere else
Number of times the article mentions Bricycles = zero. Some people are obsessed!
Agreed it’s surprising how detached from reality the drivist echo chamber has become.
The headline hi lights the actual problem with the committee. Intended to represent all forms of ‘active’ travel it became a cyclists talking shop aided and abeted by former Green councilors. Little discussion on improving blue badge access, bus travel or the most common active travel – pedestrians. Labour were wise to get rid of.
It did feel very much like they were playing lip service to the disability stakeholders. Clearly they value us so much, this article is the way I find out my time & effort was not even worth an email to let me know the AITF was being disbanded, let alone thanking the many people involved for their input.
Reminder that blue badge holders are a minority of people with mobility issues and that we do actually have to do something for the rest, especially if we’re talking about active travel.
Great news for the city, the bricycle lot haven’t got a clue. The 1 way roads being 2 ways for cycling is the most dangerous thing I’ve ever seen and needs reversing ASAP. I’m massively in favour of more bike lanes, but logical ones that make sense and don’t cause traffic jams. It is possible to make everyone happy.
Bricycles have no legitimate view on roads as they don’t seem to understand businesses need deliveries and there are a lot of people who cannot ride a bike due to physical problems or the fact they need to move items to big for bikes.
Viaduct road, can someone have a look at that nonsense any time soon
My bike is my mobility aid, disabled cyclists, like me need proper bike lanes.. Also, look at cities that have reclaimed public space from traffic, tradespeople still get to their jobs, deliveries work fine and the emergency services still function.
Stand on Edward Street at rush hour and watch the ambulances struggling and then say the same thing. You clearly didn’t read my post as I said we need more cycle lanes, but not done at the cost of creating gridlock. It can easily be done. A lot of people are unable to cycle due to physical problems, just because you can doesn’t mean everyone else can.
What cities would these be? Don’t dare Say Amsterdam, they have proper park and ride linked with mass transit like trams, equally it’s flat not hilly so a comparison cannot be drawn.
Bern for example, pretty much all of Switzerland actually.
Also why are you discounting the idea of us improving our public transport?
Active and public transport go hand in hand, it’s motorism that strangles alternatives.
Not all – but some – cyclists use the pavements. As they are on two wheels they are faster than I am when I walk, so some cyclists can become very angry when I am ‘in their way’.
Cyclists should share the road when there is no designated cycle lane, not take over the pavement.
Labour are unwise to be so blatantly anti-cyclist in Brighton. I wouldn’t expect a second Labour council.
We certainly won’t be getting another Green one for a while!
Anyway, isn’t the Green Party going to be bankrupt soon as a result of legal settlements over all that trans gender rights stuff? And don’t mention Sian Berry’s connection to Aimee Challenor!
Hey, someone is once again being disingenuous. This is a consolidation.
There are quite a few online dictionaries you can use for free.
You mean a thesaurus, but no need to change up what perfectly describes the majority of what you comment.
Lol why do certain cyclists think it’s a them or us situation. Just ride your bike and stop moaning. I don’t think anyone will be voting green in the city in a very long time, and judging by the candidate for Brighton pavilion. Don’t think they will have an MP after the next election. Greens = awful judgement, overspending and undemocratic.
It’s an article about Labour excluding active travel from decision making about transport in the city.
There’s much to moan about as a cyclist in the city: mostly that none of the cycle routes are connected and Labour keeps pausing or cancelling every project to fix this.
LP pro car stance just political opportunism, and does nothing to help towards future transport needs.
As soon as anyone mentions they are a disabled cyclist, you can guarantee someone will point out to them that not all disabled people can cycle. Do you also feel the need to point out that not all disabled people can drive or use a mobility scooter ? People with disabilities make their own choices about mobility based on factors like physical ability, personal preference and cost and don’t need to be patronised by the hard of thinking who only consider disability when it suits their own agenda
Ableists getting called out
In the last week a number of work people, including digger, and temporary digger shed, put in 4 new bicycle stands in Westdene (2 days work). They finally weeded to make way for the bike stands, but have put the stands directly in front of the only semi official/safe crossing point for pedestrians, obstructing access to cross the road the shops and vice versa. Absolute incompetence and waste of resource- so until they can think about impact on wider community I’m pleased cycling lobbyists have less influence in this council.
So you think it was the cyclists in the advisory forum that was closed months ago that picked exactly where these new bike stands went?
Becky Reynolds, the former vice chair of the disbanded active travel forum, expressed disappointment in the lack of direct communication about the forum’s abolition. She highlighted the importance of the forum in providing local perspectives, notifying issues to responsible councillors, and using local knowledge https://fairyid.com/ to improve travel and transport proposals. Reynolds also emphasized the need for continued engagement with cycling groups, suggesting that if the work of the active travel forum is to be included in the transport partnership, more meeting time would be required. Urgency is stressed to maintain momentum on schemes aimed at providing better and safer cycling infrastructure.