Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Woman opposing Holland Park cycleway posed as aunt of cyclist crushed to death by HGV

Kate Cairns, whose sister Eilidh was killed in Notting Hill in 2009, says no such relative exists

A woman who spoke out against a cycleway from Holland Park Avenue to Notting Hill Gate at a public meeting last week falsely claimed to be the aunt of cyclist Eilidh Cairns, who was killed on the same route in 2009 as she rode her bike to work.

According to Eilidh’s sister Kate Cairns, the woman told the meeting at Kensington & Chelsea Town Hall that Eilidh would have opposed the scheme – one that Ms Cairns, who said there was no such relative, pointed out on Twitter “would have saved her life.”

Ms Cairns, who after her sister’s death founded the charity See Me Save Me, told the London Evening Standard’s Ross Lydall that the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea’s decision, announced at Thursday evening’s meeting, that it was withdrawing its support for the cycleway, was “unforgiveable.”

She told the newspaper: “I’m absolutely outraged that the local council does not have the vision to protect its residents, tourists and everyone passing through Notting Hill Gate.

“I just find that extraordinary, really narrow-minded and completely unforgiveable for Eilidh’s death and all these crashes not to be enough for them to take action.”

Transport for London’s consultation on the cycleway, which was due to run from Wood Lane to Notting Hill Gate, closed last night. The section of the route running through Kensington & Chelsea are on roads controlled by the borough and the withdrawal of its support effectively vetoes that part of the scheme.

The council said it had taken its action, before the consultation closed, after receiving 450 emails from local residents who claimed the cycleway would cause increased congestion and air pollution and who were also opposed to the removal of two mature London plane trees and a couple of dozen smaller trees.

As a result, only the western part of the route running from Wood Lane – where it will link to a cycleway currently under construction along the A40 to Acton – to Shepherd’s Bush will be built.

There will be no protected cycle route eastwards from there until Lancaster Gate, where the East-West Cycle Superhighway starts.

There is a similar scenario further south in the borough, where the planned cycleway running from Brentford towards the city centre will terminate abruptly at Kensington Olympia where at the border of Hammersmith & Fulham with Kensington & Chelsea.

In a statement sent to the Standard, Ms Cairns said:

People are uneasy about change so I understand objections to this scheme. But there is unequivocal evidence showing that cycling increases health and well-being for all (not just those who cycle) by reducing congestion, pollution and improving the environment for pedestrians. Not only that, research shows cycling boosts business and increases local spend significantly, by up to seven times of those travelling by car. As a Chartered Civil Engineer and Chartered Environmentalist, I have written and reviewed many published papers on this issue. As the founder of the See Me Save Me campaign I have advocated for safer streets for over a decade, responding to government consultations and instigating a change to European law on HGV cab design to reduce ‘blind spots’.

It is disappointing, shocking and irresponsible that LBKC has withdrawn support for a scheme which, had it been in place, would surely have prevented the death of my sister, Eilidh Cairns, who was run down from behind by a fully laden tipper lorry 10 years ago in the middle of Notting Hill Gate whilst cycling to work. She was dragged and crushed in front of traumatised school children, commuters and local shop workers. Is not her death, and a further 275 collisions on this stretch, not enough avoidable destruction for the council to take action? Have our elected politicians not learned to take decisions on evidence rather than play political games?

The London Mayor Boris Johnson & LBKC gave permission to erect a permanent ghost [bike] at the spot of Eilidh’s death, to acknowledge the danger and remind others to take care. Every time I go to clean the bike and lay flowers local people come to speak to me, they tell me they remember that terrible day, and ask if I knew the young girl lay fully conscious, pinned under the wheel of the lorry. It astounds me that 10 years later this still affects the local community, those who did not even know her. I would like the ghost bike stripped, re-sprayed and re-erected in a prominent position in any new scheme. It is a stark, elegant and arresting reminder of the death and injury which creates immeasurable ripples across communities and society when we fail to take action.”

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

11 comments

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes
Avatar
Kendalred replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes
burtthebike wrote:

Excellent article here https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/jun/17/the-depres...

"A campaign based largely on myths". Now where have we seen this before....?

So glad I don't live in The Smoke any longer - well out of it.

Avatar
Chris | 5 years ago
10 likes

450 emails does not equal 450 residents, or even 450 people.

If someone has the gall to pretend to be Eilidh Cairns' aunt then plenty of other NIMBY tossers would think nothing of sending multiple emails, each pretending to be from someone different.

Piss-poor decision making process from the council.

Avatar
kil0ran | 5 years ago
6 likes

Utterly despicable and highly predictable. I can't see any recourse here unfortunately, I don't think such decisions can be referred to judicial review? 

Avatar
MrGear | 5 years ago
6 likes

I don't often need to do it, but I tried to plan a safe and simple to navigate route from Westfield to marble arch the other day and I literally couldn't do any better than ride up Holland Park road. It was deeply unpleasant and I can see why it would put off less experienced cyclists faced with the same choice. RBKC need to sort this out and provide a safe West/East route before they have more blood on their hands.

Avatar
Robert Hardy | 5 years ago
12 likes

Whilst not as distasteful as claiming to be a victim in a disaster, nor fraudulent like those misrepresenting themselves as victims to seek financial recompense, deliberate misrepresentation and impersonation in an official public forum with the aim of undermining a scheme aimed to make the roads less dangerous to vulnerable road users seems to me to be a rather more serious infraction and I would hope considerable effort is expended to identify and expose the person responsible.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
16 likes

The fact that someone is prepared to pretend be the relative of a dead cyclist to oppose a scheme for cyclists is utterly astounding, and a demonstration of just how wedded to their cars the average driver is.

I'm assuming that the 450 emails have been checked for the veracity of the opinions stated in them, and the address where the person lives.  If even a couple are found to be fake, the council should immediately withdraw their opposition and live up to their inviolable duty to take care of the life and limb of the people living and travelling through their district.  Given the fake aunt incident, I'd lay a fiver on more than a few being less than honest.

I have wondered why the msm hasn't picked up on this astonishing story, of the Grenfell Towers council again putting the lives of innocent people at risk, someone pretending to be a relative, then I remembered; it's only cyclists.

Avatar
jova54 | 5 years ago
13 likes

While not in the same league as claiming to have been in the twin towers on 9/11 or Grenfell in 2017, this is still a pretty scummy act by this women.

While I doubt anything will happen it would be nice to think that a charge of mis-representation could be brought under the 1967 Act.

Avatar
Jem PT | 5 years ago
12 likes

Many have long suspected that Council consultations were sometimes a sham. For KRBC to withdraw support for this scheme before the consultation had even finished pretty much confirms it.

I commute along a section of the road which would have had a cycle lane, but now won't. I shall now make a point of cycling along the middle of the lane in the 2-lane road to make as much disruption as possible.

Avatar
StuInNorway | 5 years ago
8 likes

So their decision is based of 450 NIBMYs, who with their lack of any professional qualifications in the field of road design, traffic management, road safety, etc etc, but who probably almost exclsuvely drive "Chelsea tractors" the scheme is shelved because these people with no actual training in the field "believe" it might cause more congestion . .  well if they got out their 2 to 3 ton boxes and used a bike to the local shops for example then maybe there would be less congestion.
This is the same scheme that was slated as it would mean cutting down 2 mature trees which are today in a poor condition and likely to be felled soon anyway before they all over, and would result in far more new trees being planted, but those 2 trees are VITAL to the community.
The scheme that claims people will stop shopping there, despite similar schemes in many other areas showing the opposite is true. (Admitedly, if the shops are entirely reliant on the NIMBYs in their 4x4s then they might see a drop in footfalls if they can't park their oversized brat transportation devices less than 20m from the shop door)

Avatar
brooksby replied to StuInNorway | 5 years ago
12 likes
StuInNorway wrote:

So their decision is based of 450 NIBMYs, who with their lack of any professional qualifications in the field of road design, traffic management, road safety, etc etc, but who probably almost exclsuvely drive "Chelsea tractors" the scheme is shelved because these people with no actual training in the field "believe" it might cause more congestion . .  well if they got out their 2 to 3 ton boxes and used a bike to the local shops for example then maybe there would be less congestion.
This is the same scheme that was slated as it would mean cutting down 2 mature trees which are today in a poor condition and likely to be felled soon anyway before they all over, and would result in far more new trees being planted, but those 2 trees are VITAL to the community.
The scheme that claims people will stop shopping there, despite similar schemes in many other areas showing the opposite is true. (Admitedly, if the shops are entirely reliant on the NIMBYs in their 4x4s then they might see a drop in footfalls if they can't park their oversized brat transportation devices less than 20m from the shop door)

Didn't we just all take that as read?

The worst is the idea that someone actually thought it was acceptable to pretend to be Eilidh's aunt, to try to co-opt the death of someone to justify their Chelsea Tractor survival campaign.

Latest Comments