Competing petitions go before councillors for and against the potential return of the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane.
The two petitions going before Brighton and Hove City Council next week have more than 1,600 signatures which means they have surpassed the threshold to trigger a debate.
A temporary cycle lane was installed in May 2020 using money from the government’s covid-19 Emergency Active Travel Fund.
Conservative and Labour councillors voted to remove the lane in August last year.
After workers removed plastic fronds and burnt off the white lines in September, a guerrilla cycle lane was hand-painted on the road by Hove Recreation Ground before the council removed it again.
Councillors are due to hear from the two petitioners at a meeting next Thursday (7 April) and discuss how to move forward.
Pascale Palazzo is the lead petitioner calling for a permanent, well-planned, high-quality cycle lane for Old Shoreham Road.
He said that the temporary cycle lane gave children the freedom to travel safely but now they face braving “terrifying traffic”.
Mrs Palazzo’s petition said: “We’re a group of parents and children who used the Old Shoreham Road to get to school, work and leisure activities.
“We want our children to be able to cycle to school as it’s good for their physical and mental health, it gives them independence, saves time and money and keeps down emissions.
“We’d also like delivery riders and commuters to get around without risking their lives.
“This can only happen if the roads are safe. New government policy says ‘cyclists must be physically separated from high volume motor traffic’, which means protected lanes on roads like the Old Shoreham Road.
“We want a fast and direct route, as the policy describes.”
A cycle lane on Old Shoreham Road is included in the council’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), which prompted Old Shoreham Road resident Jeremy Horne to start his petition.
The petition describes the temporary cycle lane as a “16-month failure” with few people using the lane.
It also states a consultation carried out in 2021 was “damning”, with 91 per cent of comments reflecting negatively about the lane.
Mr Horen’s petition statement said: “Following the removal, a group of local parents have set up a ‘bike train’ along the Old Shoreham Road to get the ‘thousands’ of children that used the cycle lane to school.
“A grand total of a five children (maximum) have been counted on the opening runs – and additionally, the organisers only run the ‘train’ once a week due to lack of demand.
“Thus proving (as we all knew) that children never used it in their droves (as many activists would have liked us to believe).
“There are better ways of setting up cycling infrastructure for those that do want it, rather than implementing permanent lane closures.”
Each petitioner has three minutes to present their case, and councillors have 15 minutes to discuss how to proceed.
Both petitions are open on the council’s website until Wednesday (6 April).
Brighton and Hove City Council is due to meet at Hove Town Hall at 4.30pm on Thursday (7 April).
The meeting is scheduled to be webcast on the council’s website.
Please sign the petition to remove the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane from the plan! https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=803&RPID=52490794&HPID=52490794
I thought you were supportive of the Bike Train Jeremy, now I know this was taken verbatim from the petition, but it would be jolly decent of you if you could send a correction to the lovely folk at Brighton and Hove news!
How is your 3-child, one – way, once-a-week, good-weather only, bike train the same as you demanding 24-hour per day dedicated, protected, cyclist-only, 3m wide lanes for your kids to go to the bilingual school in Hove Park?
Didn’t I see you and your wife bringing your kids back along Neville Avenue the other week without the “train” of adults that obviously don’t have anything better to do on Friday mornings?
The core of the train rides in all weather and every day of the week. We publicise and run the official train once a week to encourage more and more people to try it out. Just like cycle infra, it’s about inducing demand not necessarily about catering for those that are cycling anyway. Do a little research on the web about bike trains / bike buses or Bicibus, there is a fantastic one in Barcelona that only does it once a week ans they have over 100 participants. Organising a bike train is an overhead, proper cycling infra would remove that completely, for all cyclists, 24/7. Happy to answer any questions about the bike train, come and join us one day.
Might have been me. I won’t cycle on the OSR without the bike Train. Equally I won’t let me kid cycle on Neville avenue unless he’s on the ask of my bike. What’s your point?
Since my wife doesn’t cycle, I doubt you did see me. I do use Neville Ave when both kids are on the cargo bike with me.
From the anti petition –
‘this doesn’t and will never work’
Just goes to show the forward thinking nature of this mindset.
Probably worth reporting that the claim that “91 per cent of comments reflecting negatively about the lane.” is a complete fabrication.
Whoops accidental reply, would be great if we could edit or delete comments.
The pro cycle lane petition which doesn’t attack children:
https://democracy.brighton-hove.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=787&RPID=52492088&HPID=52492088
The pro petition doesn’t attack children, (unless you consider the 5 in the bike train). I think what everyone involved needs to understand that the initial temporary lane did not work – I think pretty much everyone is in agreement with that from all sides of the argument and that is why councilors voted to get rid of it. The OSR is a major arterial route so if a permanent lane was to be introduced it should not be at the expense of removing 50% of the carriageway – yes it would be more costly but there is potentially room to get this right and build a permanent lane with a win for all sides. Simply doing what happened before just will not work, (and that would include removing half of the carriageway with a permanent scheme). Despite claims that those against are a ‘vocal minority’ the current petition, consultation and council survey tells us this is not the truth and to ignore the majority is neither democratic or indeed logical. Instead of designing active travel with just the ‘yay sayers’, also involve those who are against it.
It’s a petition to ban cycle infrastructure from a school road entirely, not the beginning of a reasoned debate.
And actually the moat recent consultation, on the LCWIP, showed that 61% of respondents were in favour of a permanent cycle lane on OSR.
The LCWIP is a wishlist/ plan of possibilities dependent on further consultation and funds. That only 61% actually supported some very vague promises and possibilities that also include better pedestrian access is disappointing. It certainly does not give a ringing endorsement of the OSR temporary lane or a future one if it is exactly the same. New thinking is required, don’t cling to a failure.
Did you miss the fact that the original was removed?
Now Jeremy and the signatories want to remove all possibility of it ever appearing again and in doing so make an unnecessary and disgusting attack against those children and parents that are trying to adapt to its removal.
Have your petition against the plan but leave attacks against kids out of it.
It’s not my petition and you are beginning to sound like the Reverend Lovejoys puritanical wife out of the Simpsons: ”Why won’t somebody think of the children!”
The bike train is poorly attended that last statistics for the OSR up by BHASVIC show that around only 5% of the students cycled. Students that want to cycle already do so, (as they have for decades), but the vast majority walk or get the bus as the beginning and end of school are vital bookends. Is a cycle lane needed on the OSR to encourage active travel – possibly, but trying to leverage it by using groups with protected characteristics is disingenuous and fraudulent.
Did you sign the petition Nathan?
No neither. They are both pointless in their aims because the LCWIP is voted in the OSR is in it as a medium target and future plans would need a proper consultation, (add to that Labour will not touch it this side of 2023). I hope now though that the petitions show that this lane is polarising and simply shouting oh its a vocal minority simply is not true.
I have in past written to the Council with regard to cycle lanes to ask why they only listen to the voices they want to hear rather than those who disagree with them. This issue is especially evident in the transport planning department I feel. The OSR has been proven not to work so an alternative plan is needed for cycling in the area.
Probably worth reporting that the claim that “91 per cent of comments reflecting negatively about the lane.” is a complete fabrication.
Actually not a fabrication – selective perhaps, but in the consultation on the specific question as to if you supported active travel proposals on the OSR 91% said no – both sides seem to take specific parts from the consultation instead of taking it as a whole, but it’s understandable as officers were quite rightly criticized for not making results easier to understand. As a rough estimation negative comments are about 65 – 70% in line with the 68% in the initial council survey.
I’ve checked the consultation, there is no 91% figure at all, hence why it is a fabrication.
From the consultation: ”do you support/ oppose relocation of road space to cycling/ walking in the OSR area?” The response was 49 for 510 against – that is a 91%.
There were 3168 individual respondents in the consultation specially with respect to the OSR area. So if 510 people said they were against reallocation of road space, that’s only 16%. The issue here with this question and the decision to use it as a proxy referendum, is that only 17% of respondents answered the question.
Also worth pointing out that he’s quantifying an optional comment box attached to a main question (that they’re conveniently ignoring).
So respondents were not being specifically questioned on Old Shoreham Road, these are simply the responses that happened to mention it.
The main question itself “To what extent do you support or oppose
reallocating road space to walking and cycling in
your local area/ neighbourhood” was answered:
I strongly support this 1833 39.9%
I support this 474 10.3%
I neither support or oppose this 238 5.2%
I oppose this 404 8.8%
I strongly oppose this 1633 35.6%
I don’t know/ not sure 10 0.2%
Total 4592 100%”
Which once again shows that the majority of consultation respondents (50.2%) are in favour of reallocation road space to cycle lanes.
I said it was ‘selective’ but although you fail to mention now it is correct, (as are your figures above), and not a falsehood. The consultation was deliberately vague but once again on direct questions on the OSR temporary cycle lane about 68% of the comments were against it and this was in the majority of drivers and pedestrian views. Now this doesn’t preclude any future development but shows that what came before was unpopular and did not work for a majority.
I strongly support this 1833 39.9%
I support this 474 10.3%
I neither support or oppose this 238 5.2%
I oppose this 404 8.8%
I strongly oppose this 1633 35.6%
I don’t know/ not sure 10 0.2%
Total 4592 100%”
Which once again shows that the majority of consultation respondents (50.2%) are in favour of reallocation road space to cycle lanes.
And can you now give us the actual figures for the Old Shoreham Road !!!
You are being as selective as Jeremy, Mart Burt- we can take any one part of the consultation and try and use it to justify an argument: For example How do you feel about the existing temporary lane – 753 positive comments and 3787 negative comments. Bar a few of the blinkered no one believes that the consultation was showing any sign of a majority for the cycle lane and that is why Labour decided to vote against, (they understood it really was not working and carrying any sort of popular opinion). But that is been and done. What is needed is a new idea, a new plan that works for everyone not some sort of lazy half baked temporary lane that upset everyone except some cyclists. Its doable but everyone needs to be involved.
Petitions can be useful in expressing an opinion but they need to be examined carefully. It is possible to sign both in relation to this matter from any address in the UK, so what is the breakdown of Brighton and Hove residents versus those elsewhere, and crucially, are lobbyist groups influencing the numbers?
Hopefully, Councillors will take this into account. The Old Shoreham Road is in the recent LCWIP. Future changes to the OSR, hopefully including well thought out design for all road users and pedestrians, will have to be consulted on again, and informed decisions minus the toxicity of current divisions might lead to a solution for all.
I suspect now is not the time for a rehash of recent decisions.
Exactly, couldn’t agree more Katy
Perhaps the amalgamation of Brighton and Hove all those years ago was not a good idea, although, to be fair, nobody could have foreseen how this would end up, disastrously, many years down the road. I would hazard a guess that people over in East Brighton and maybe even Central Brighton have no interest whatsoever in the ongoing saga of the cycle lane (and probably deplore the Valley Gardens fiasco and Marine Drive fiascos), especially if some people are physically not able to cycle and can hardly even walk on the appalling pavements/surfaces we have over here. We just want to be able to get around, somehow or anyhow and we have far more pressing and serious issues over this side of the city than this long-running debate about a cycle lane. And I daresay, and am sure, that Hove residents have very much more pressing and serious issues than a non-used cycle lane. The decision about the cycle lane has been taken – game over, and could we please concentrate on other more important things.
David Haskell, who is presumably some sort of activist for somebody or something or other (I can’t find out exactly who he is, but he is not an elected councillor, or even a candidate, as far as I can see) pokes his nose/spoon into absolutely everything in the city, but is totally irrelevant, unless he cares to put his head above the parapet and declare who exactly he is and what he stands for and actually stand for office or something. But he doesn’t, so deserves to be totally ignored, as he seems to be.
If this goes on for much longer, I would ask B&H News to split its content into B News and H News, because B is probably sick of the OSR sideshow (not a sideshow for H, I hasten to add), but there is much more to B&H than this.
Hi!
Brighton news here:
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/topics/brighton-2/
Hove news here:
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/topics/hove/
(I have no idea why Brighton has the 2 attached, something to do with how the site was first set up I think.)
I don’t understand any of that, Jo, and I am very happy to have both B and H attached, but at the same time the B and H have very different issues going on, although many of the issues are very common to both. H, for instance, has major development issues and has repelled some of them, but it is still being turned into a development site and is not the great place it was or should be. We have the same thing over here in E Brighton (gasworks in particular, which is a massive thing over here), so that is something that both B and H have in common. But I do think that the OSR cycle lane has become a huge distraction from the bigger picture. I did think of submitting an ‘Opinion’ piece, just as a resident really, but didn’t want my real name up there for all to see and be targeted by activists.
I’m not an activist of any kind, just an elderly person who can’t get around much, and angry/frustrated about very many things that are happening in the city. I came here nearly 20 years ago (retreating from a horrible town which was going totally unrecognisable and alien) and, at first, Brighton was great. I was reasonably fit, enjoyed exploring the city etc, no interest whatsoever in local politics, because it all seemed OK. Unfortunately, over the last maybe 10 years, as I have got more dilapidated and the local politics have gone as they have done, then I wish that I was anywhere but here.
Nothing to do with you and Frank really, but maybe you could just do a bit more opinion (preferably from non-politicians or activists with axes to grind) rather than straight reporting.
If you just want Hove news, click on the Hove news link. And if just Brighton, click on the Brighton link.
I think the last thing the world needs is more opinion . . .
Brighton has hills. Some roads are flat, others are not. This means that electric bicycles would need to be more common. Along with having on-site parking at companies for parking and charging with security. On the street where someone can steal it does put you off. Electric scooters should be legal, but the rules and laws for bicycles should be enforced for anything that has two wheels. By talking to cyclists or the like, they just assume that’s it and do it again next week. Fines need to be implemented and understand what makes a bicycle legal. (tyres, both brakes, rear reflector, correct coloured lights, aimed appropriately) is a start
So what are the benefits of delivering the LCWIP proposals?
Assuming the OSR lane was to be reinstalled as it was, lets take a look at those on BHCC website:
Supporting the economy, by providing safe alternative travel options and addressing congestion.
Doesn’t address congestion as we already found out. 0-1
Enabling short journeys by making cycling and walking safer, more convenient and accessible to all;
1-1
Improving health and quality of life, by enabling people to be more active in everyday life;
No, residents had loads of concern’s about health and quality of life due to the increased congestion and pollution due to a closed lane.
1-2
Tackling climate change and improving air quality;
No, complete opposite. 1-3
Creating safer streets and more pleasant neighbourhoods;
No, again complete opposite. 1-4
Enhancing the tourism offer of the area;
Not sure tourists could possibly gain anything from this area.
1-5.
and Preserving and enhancing the area’s world-class natural environment.
Seriously, world class, Old Shoreham road ?
1-6
Mart, you’ve made the fatal mistake of applying your scoring to the temporary lane design. The LCWIP does not detail any designs, it’s a strategic plan of intend covering the next ten years. It’s disingenuous to apply the failings of a rushed design to a future configuration which will have much more time and consultation to get it right. Think of the section along Hove Rec for a start. That’s ‘oven ready’!
Ben, thanks for your post, no fatal mistake made. I made the comment that assuming the lane was reinstalled as it was.
Is that a mistake, as it’s highly unlikely to reappear as it was. I’ve spoken to some of the transport officers and a permanent lane will be properly designed, the advantage this time is that fact there is an experiment with real world results to draw from. So it is a mistake to make that assumption. It’s wildly misleading. Also, the section along hove rec did not cause congestion because there wasnt two lanes in the first place. So none of your scoring applies here either. Another mistake on your part.
Hi Ben. Thanks again for the reply.
As I said if the lane reappears as it was, the criteria fails on the points I raised.
From experience we already know, properly designed isn’t within the ‘Greens’ grasp. I highlight, 7 dials, Brighton station and Elm Grove to name just a few that needed extensive reworking. And the VG plans had to be looked at and altered before that was signed off.
And talking of O.S.R, previously a proper study some years ago told us the problems we would have along this stretch, this information ready avalible but not taken on board by the powers that be.
The experiment as you say will give some factual evidence, but we already knew what the problems would be from previous studies, so it was no real surprise.
I agree the section along Hove Rec wasn’t congested, but that wasn’t the area concerned. The problem being the major Junction at Charlton Terrace etc.
You criticise me for making imo valid points. As it was, the points raised were valid and factual. If the lane was to be installed, those are the points that would render this project pointless.
As you say there are no plans to look that, so one has to look at what went before and highlight those problems and hope planners will take on board those problems.
If there’s to be a complete rethink, those same points still need to be considered. Much needs to be done and proper planning and traffic management is required on this project, especially around the Carlton Terrance Junction.
Unfortunately, I don’t think the current administration have the capabilities of implementing such a scheme, even after consulting experts on various other projects, advice not taken on board and they do whatever they want, then scratch their heads when it goes wrong.
I’m not Anti Bike, in fact think the way forward is finding alternative modes of getting around, but not all cycle lanes are in the best interest or in the right places or designed very well.
People like David Haskell, will use the ‘Attack on Children’ card to make a point that he thinks will help his case. In fact, his argument goes against him as well, with the increase in congestion there’s a problem now of those same ‘Children’ breathing in exhaust fumes from stationary traffic. So while it will be safer for cyclist to use a dedicated lane, the health problem increases.
OSR, the section I’ve highlighted is a serious issue that needs very careful planning and expertise to solve, I don’t think the ‘Greens’ can deliver on what they brought us previously.
Nathan, to your last point, I wish there were more measured voices like yours. You recognise the temp lane was flawed but that shouldn’t preclude any future design. I’m with you, how do we bring everyone else along for the ride
It’s simple firstly admit the temporary lane didn’t work and actually listen to the majority with their concerns. Secondly when in the future there is funding for a cycle lane do not make the same mistakes and do not simply reduce half of the carriageway. This bit is difficult because the transport department is generally lazy and is happy to reduce lanes to save costs. Also talk to everyone for and against. I noticed in the recent A259 consultation comments Bricycles asked for both sides of the carriageway to be reduced to one lane, why? What does that have to do with cycle infrastructure? That shows a clear anti car rhetoric which needs to be balanced. I cycle 22Kms a day to and from work 5 days a week but I also drive and do use the OSR for my major food shop, Homebase, the tip etc. I can see both sides of the argument and we need more people that do. Oh and thirdly don’t use this ‘student corridor’ reasoning – more bike lanes are good but leverage a cause with groups who have protective characteristics stinks.
@Mart, we must have exceed some kind of reply limit so hope you will see this. Nicely argued but again, the thrust of your argument is through the lens of the temp designed (put in by Labour I might add). Your points are all valid but the LCWIP does not detail any design so its misleading to simply apply the old design failures to a future, as yet, undefined configuration. It’s clear to me and I would hope to the council, that the strength of opposition to the lane (whilst in balance with the pro-lane group), needs to be addressed if there’s any hope of providing safe, segregated cycling along the OSR available for everyone now and in the future 24/7 365. And your point about the Greens might be redundant, since we have no way of knowing who will be in charge from 2023 or indeed the term after that. At least having the OSR featured as a strategic route enshrines this in the plan, omitting it because of a past flawed design would be a big mistake. If NASA had given up when Apollo 1 failed at ground level we probably won’t have landed on the moon and all of the technological advances that have come since – I realise that a tad hyperbolic but you catch my drift.
Hi Ben, nice having a sensible debate.
Yes I was aware that labour put in the lanes and to some extent, agreed somewhat to it’s installation as a ‘Temporary’ during lockdowns, I was a little surprised with the Madeira Drive installation. That is my neck of the woods and tbh, not really needed and imo, still isn’t.
Fair enough LCWIP doesn’t highlight any plans so in fairness we should wait until they’re published.
My only hope, is that a consultation will take place with the results taken into account.
Lets hope the ‘Greens’ won’t be in charge, it’s not just the cycling problems, but generally the poor mis-management at basic tasks, rubbish and recycling being top of my list…
I’m not saying we should write off any ideas for OSR, just we need to be very careful that it is right and planned well, as you say Apollo 1 failed so onto no2.
@Mart, agreed that the problem areas were Charlton terrance and Olive/Stapley Road (my neck of the woods incidentally). That needs some serious consideration to figure out how it might work. Pavements and central reservations perhaps. In my mind, work should start in phases, starting at the Hove rec section – it is part of the conversation, as it’s part of the road. If the OSR was omitted from the LCWIP, it would make this section very difficult to resolve and tap into much need Gov funding. Then tackle the Cemetery section up to Oliver Road then take the hardest part last after a few years of design and consultation. Just my opinion I’m far from an expert, but I hope to get close to this as it unfolds.
Ben.
I agree with you, this area needs to be done in phases. I entirely agree with Hove Rec, realistically, a lane could go in straight away. Then the cemetery area.
The problem then is Charlton Terrace, Olive Road etc. I’m no expert either but imo, there should be a complete ban on right turners with exception of buses or Traffic lights there or a roundabout further up. A couple of ideas but as you say, this is the one that needs more detailed workings to make it right or at the very least, acceptable for the majority as we know not every body is going to agree.
Anyway Ben great having a debate with you, look forward to doing so again.
thats what you call gobble a duke as balldrick would say