Council rubbishes concerned residents' claims new cycle route will attract crime and increase insurance premiums

For me, this is the pertinent bit...

"For the residents of these houses the significantly increased traffic will make it difficult to manoeuvre off their driveways safely, especially with cyclists travelling at speed. The increased traffic will no doubt also bring greater potential for crime and subsequently higher insurance premiums for residents," one told the local press.

...that, and the fact that the district involved is called Springfield - Doh!

There's always the NIMBY argument that you wouldn't be able to carry all your tools if you were a tradesman and had to use a bike in an LTA; in that case why is Essex worried about more criminals as they also wouldn't be able to carry away their loot if they were all riding bikes.

Hasn't it occurred to them that the crime they're worried about i.e. burglary is usually carried out in these areas by folk who have traveled from other areas by car or van. Perhaps therefore they should be canvassing to have the surrounding A roads and dual carriageways closed down.

We live in such strange times where people feel completely safe to talk absolute crap in public without a modicum of self-consciousness or fear of being ridiculed. I mean, in what world would a crossing and a cycle path lead to more crime. 

Is someone seriously arguing "The increased traffic will no doubt also bring greater potential for crime and subsequently higher insurance premiums for residents.”

Last I checked, pedestrian footfall was one of the biggest deterrants to crime going - it turns out most criminals don't want witnesses; Witnesses might tell the police about them, or worse, call the police while they are committing the crime!

Motor traffic has no measurable deterrent effect (drivers are too busy not crashing to notice crime); IIRC cycling has some, but it is difficult to separate from other factors (Read - good places to walk and good places to cycle have a strong overlap...)

Isn't this hate speech? It's basically saying "all cyclists are criminals". i.e. demonising a group based on a collective activity? 

Essex resident, "I want a green space to park my Range Rover in, as I have always done".

The usual presumption that all cyclists are poor (and therefore probably criminals).  They don't say it, but the subtext seems to be "We'd actually like the council to fit tall fences around our street, ideally with a gate and a security guard, to keep 'the wrong sort of people' away".

A cycle route would definitely improve that green space.

I saw NIMBY at the top of the article and thought that's a bit harsh, people may have justifiable concerns that should be addressed. Then I read the article and I still don't think it should say "NIMBY residents", it should say "bloody stupid residents". Hilarious that they think providing a road crossing will increase crime, one can just imagine the local villains meeting down the boozer to plan their next robbery, "What if we take some shooters and do over one of them big houses on Acacia Avenue?" "Yer, nice one, some of them gaffs will have some good loot in 'em...hang on though, won't we have to cross a busy road to get there? There's no safe crossing point you know." "Good point Dave, we'll have to think of something else."

Good work by the council in opposing the local nutters

Sure, they're concerned about the safety of children. That's why there are 4 parked cars obstructing pavements in the Essex Live photo. 

A great example of the discordant thinking that is motornormativity.