Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

No safe cycle routes until riders are licensed, insists Holland Park Residents' Association

TfL consultation report on proposed route highlights objections to planned cycleway

A group representing residents of the affluent London district of Holland Park insists that no safe cycling infrastructure should be built there until bike riders are licensed, saying that such routes would encourage “poor cycling behaviour.”

The assertion, from the Holland Park Residents’ Association, was contained in a consultation report published today by Transport for London (TfL) on a proposed cycleway that runs in part through the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (RBKC).

TFL summarised the residents’ association’s objections to the scheme in an Appendix to the consultation report as follows:

Called for traffic reducing and calming measures to be provided in Holland Park, with suggestions for specific measures they would like to be introduced.

Called for greater and more rigorous enforcement of speed limits and commented that they felt cyclists do not adhere to the rules of the road.

Suggested that no cycling infrastructure which might encourage poor cycling behaviour should be introduced until cyclists are licensed.

Suggested that London’s road system should be designed to ensure the safety of a majority of road users, and added that cyclists were not (and would not ever be) a majority of road users.

Suggested that cyclists should therefore be routed on ‘back roads’ and that doing so would make the Holland Park area safer.

Suggested that in fact many cyclists would choose not to use the proposed cycling facilities in Holland Park.

Commented that the creation of new cycling infrastructure would not reduced traffic, and suggested that new infrastructure in Holland Park would inhibit traffic flow and reduce air quality.

Criticised the proposal removal of bus stops and suggested that the scheme budget could be better spent on alternative infrastructure elsewhere.

Critical also that there had been limited engagement with stakeholders prior to consultation and that the proposals should be paused until stakeholders could ‘fully scrutinise and test’ them.

At a public meeting in June, RKBC said it could not support the scheme in its original form, just days before the consultation closed, with local residents who opposed the plans including the motoring journalist, Jeremy Clarkson

In a subsequent video posted to YouTube on Drivetribe and filmed on Holland Park Avenue, Clarkson – who is known to ride a bike to and from his home in the leafy London village – opined that “Bikes can f*ck off.”

> Bikes can f*@% off” says Jeremy Clarkson in YouTube rant

The originally proposed route runs from Wood Lane, in the borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, via Shepherds Bush roundabout to Notting Hill Gate , but RKBC has proposed that it avoids Holland Park Avenue – an intimidating section of road for cyclists, particularly eastbound – and instead runs along quieter streets.

Today, publishing its report, TfL said: “We have discussed the outcomes of the consultation with the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea. 

“The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham has made clear to us that they support our proposals, and we are now working to finalise our plans. We are not yet in a position to confirm the final designs but will update this page with a summary of the changes once they are agreed.

“We have developed a series of improvements that could be made to our proposals in Kensington & Chelsea, and which we believe would satisfy and resolve the concerns that some people had with our proposals.

“We have had initial discussions with the Royal Borough about these improvements, and intend to discuss them with key local stakeholder groups.

“No decisions have yet been made on whether our proposals with these improvements incorporated could be introduced within the Royal Borough, and discussions will continue with the Royal Borough and local stakeholders.”

TfL's proposals include:

New and upgraded pedestrian crossings

Public space improvements along the route to create more welcoming streets for people and communities to enjoy

Two-way segregated cycle track throughout

Changes to bus stop locations, with removal of some, and layout changes throughout, including new bus stop bypasses for cyclists

Making some side roads entry or exit only to help the safe and timely movement of traffic

Removal of some trees in Notting Hill Gate and Holland Park Avenue to accommodate the facilities with appropriate new trees planted nearby

Changes to parking and loading bays and hours of operation. 

Concluding the consultation report, TfL outlined the next stepsent users.” for the scheme on the section through Holland Park Avenue to Notting Hill Gate.

It said: “We have developed a series of improvements that could be made to our proposals in Kensington & Chelsea, and which we believe would satisfy and resolve the concerns that some people had with our proposals.

“We have had initial discussions with the Royal Borough about these improvements, and intend to discuss them with key local stakeholder groups.

“No decisions have yet been made on whether our proposals with these improvements incorporated could be introduced within the Royal Borough, and discussions will continue with the Royal Borough and local stakeholders.”

In answer to the question, “But has the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea not already decided that they oppose the scheme?,” TfL said: “ The Royal Borough responded to the consultation with a position statement which explained that they could not support the proposals in their original form, and which highlighted several areas of concern they had.

“The Borough also made clear that there were several aspects of the proposals that they potentially would be supportive of; and that they would like to continue to discuss the scheme with us.

“The Royal Borough subsequently confirmed that they had not made a formal decision about the scheme, and that they would do so after they had considered the outcomes of the consultation.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

19 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy | 4 years ago
4 likes

Hawkins, would that count as a helmet if he was run over by a left turning skip lorry?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to alansmurphy | 4 years ago
3 likes

alansmurphy wrote:

Hawkins, would that count as a helmet if he was run over by a left turning skip lorry?

I'm afraid not.

There's a right and a wrong way to carry a mattress whilst cycling and that is not recommended. Below is how it should be done - note the wearing of a helmet

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 4 years ago
1 like

hawkinspeter wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Hawkins, would that count as a helmet if he was run over by a left turning skip lorry?

I'm afraid not.

There's a right and a wrong way to carry a mattress whilst cycling and that is not recommended. Below is how it should be done - note the wearing of a helmet

Very useful, I shall use that method next time; without the helmet as it obscures his vision to no farther than a metre beyond his front wheel yes

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
5 likes

This driver was licenced.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to ktache | 4 years ago
2 likes

ktache wrote:

This driver was licenced.

This cyclist wasn't

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTZMjcbyi3M

 

Avatar
Philh68 | 4 years ago
4 likes

I know people imagine all kinds of things to be afraid of, but roaming gangs of cyclists must be a new one.

Avatar
RobD | 4 years ago
6 likes

Well I don't have a problem with licensing bikes, after all we wouldn't want poor cycling behaviour.

I presume that as I own a car license and this also covers me for moped/scooters that I'm already licensed, and I also presume that as we also wouldn't want poor driving behaviour, additional speed cameras, red light cameras and mobile phone use cameras will be installed in the area?

Avatar
brooksby replied to RobD | 4 years ago
6 likes

RobD wrote:

Well I don't have a problem with licensing bikes, after all we wouldn't want poor cycling behaviour.

I presume that as I own a car license and this also covers me for moped/scooters that I'm already licensed, and I also presume that as we also wouldn't want poor driving behaviour, additional speed cameras, red light cameras and mobile phone use cameras will be installed in the area?

Absolutely.  I mean: motor vehicles and their drivers all have to be licenced, and I've never ever seen poor driving behaviour.  Oh, wait a minute... 

Avatar
Organon | 4 years ago
0 likes

I recommend not pissing directly into the wind.

Avatar
alan sherman | 4 years ago
3 likes

I think I was too subtle for you.

Avatar
nadsta | 4 years ago
0 likes

We could just name call, but they're entitled to rally around whatever idiotic short termist cause they choose to. 

I think it's less to do with a small but influential group of denizens in a given borough and more to do with whatever regs exist that govern cross borough infrastructure. Somehow the power needs to shift away from small minded locals bending the ear of their councils and towards TFL.  If they can get Crossrail projects built then a bit of cycling infra for a mile up Notting Hill can't be that difficult.

In the meantime I'll continue to issue daily FU's to Westminster, Hampstead and Kensington & Chelsea boroughs as I dodge left turning skips, black cabs and buses on their roads.  

Avatar
burtthebike | 4 years ago
8 likes

Have they considered the money to be made by running tours of the area?   Never mind Jurassic Park, come and see the dinosaurs of Holland Park.

Frankly, I'm a little more than tired of these rich, entitled, selfish snobs making decisions about the safety of the rest of us.

Avatar
alchemilla | 4 years ago
6 likes

They just don't get it, do they? 

"London’s road system should be designed to ensure the safety of a majority of road users, and added that cyclists were not (and would not ever be) a majority of road users."  No interest in the safety of more vulnerable road users, cutting congestion and pollution, and enabling more people to use the streets.

Climate crisis?  What climate crisis?

Avatar
srchar | 4 years ago
7 likes

All the usual knee-jerk anti-cycling shit then.

Always amuses me when people pretend to be concerned about local air quality and in the same breath say they want to make it easier for people to drive and harder for people to cycle.

Avatar
alan sherman | 4 years ago
1 like

I think they have a great proposal. Use the back streets. By making a route of back streets cyclists only (no car parking or deliveries either) and making junctions with car routes so cycles have priority, there could be some excellent safe infrastructure that works for the majority. The minority that live on the back streets will be proud of doing their bit for the safety of everyone!

Avatar
CyclingInBeastMode replied to alan sherman | 4 years ago
2 likes

alan sherman wrote:

I think they have a great proposal. Use the back streets. By making a route of back streets cyclists only (no car parking or deliveries either) and making junctions with car routes so cycles have priority, there could be some excellent safe infrastructure that works for the majority. The minority that live on the back streets will be proud of doing their bit for the safety of everyone!

No, back streets means longer and more disjointed journeys whilst motorists continue to have direct and uninterrupted journeys by comparison, this is one of the main reasons why people choose cars over bikes/walking. Added into which cycling past more parked cars/driveways etc makes it even worse because you're having to slow even further and concentrating even harder for hazards.

Sorry but this is motorist thinking, keep them out of our way.

Avatar
dodpeters | 4 years ago
14 likes

and no more road building or upgrading until motorists stop killing people.

Avatar
Russell Orgazoid | 4 years ago
4 likes

Do they not want cyclists to be safe or not want a route? It seems unclear.

They will welcome more Chelsea tractors with open arms.

Avatar
brooksby | 4 years ago
6 likes

Oh good grief. Define NIMBY again...?

Latest Comments