There always seems to be something going on in Dorset when it comes to cycling and active travel, isn’t there?
The county – arguably more than anywhere else in the UK – has been at the forefront of a series of disputes surrounding active travel projects in recent times, as residents regularly voice their outrage at what they see as expensive and under-used cycling infrastructure making their lives worse.
Over the past year alone, we’ve seen hire bike company Beryl pull out of the east Dorset area after drivers claimed that the green bikes were “blighting our pavements”, Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council accused of “eco-vandalism” for cutting down 10 trees to allow work to begin on a new cycleway in Poole, and the construction of a cycle lane in Ferndown blamed for two failing businesses.
That Ferndown cycle lane – which since its initial construction has seen opponents claim it does not represent “value for money”, that “not enough” cyclists are using it, and that more road space should be allocated to drivers because they are “the majority” – also found itself at the centre of a misinformation row in July, after unfounded rumours emerged on social media claiming that several trees will be cut down during the works, claims dismissed by the council as “factually incorrect and negative”.
> “It will completely destroy everything”: Pub owner claims controversial cycle lane construction is costing her business “£5,000 a week”, month after bike lane also blamed for “awful” chippy’s demise
And that’s not all. We’ve seen another cycle lane in Poole make national headlines after upset locals complained to the Daily Mail, Telegraph, and GB News that they had been “blocked” in their driveways by wands installed to segregate the route from traffic – and that they “can’t just reverse out fast anymore”.
We’ve also had a group of motorists threaten to launch a legal challenge against what they described as the council’s “totally undemocratic” decision to permanently close one of the entrances to Poole Park, to prevent rat-running motorists using it as a cut-through.
This campaign even featured claims that the council’s decision was part of a “sinister agenda” also involving the oft-mischaracterised 15-minute cities initiative, 20mph zones, and low traffic neighbourhoods.
And at the end of December, residents in Dorset backed a petition raising concerns about “excessive delays, disruption, and inconvenience” caused by “the construction of extremely expensive and obviously under-utilised cycle paths”.
> "Not everyone has the option to drive": Council addresses backlash over controversial cycle lane projects, including row over 'driveway-blocking wands' and 'Britain's biggest bike lane'
The petition, calling for the Liberal Democrat and independent-run council to “reconsider their current local transport and infrastructure policies” has so far attracted over 2,700 signatures and was given a boost when the Mail published an article on the local anti-bike opposition with the headline: ‘Our council is causing traffic chaos and spending £120m to install 50 MILES of cycle lanes – despite the ones already there barely being used’.
However, the council responded to the petition by pointing out that “not everyone in our community has the option to drive” and that the works are designed to benefit all road users, not just cyclists.
Yes, all of that has really taken place in the last few months.
Of course, since it’s 2025 and all, many of these debates have been fought out on the petty battleground that is social media, where warring Facebook groups of active travel and motoring enthusiasts have taken turns chastising each other through the very modern medium of angry posts and sharing screenshots and links.
And this weekend was no different. On the ‘BCP and Dorset Motorists’ Facebook group – the source of the recent petition – one member, Dave, criticised BCP Council’s “Active Travel Plan” (his quotation marks, not mine), which he argued had led to the local authority “effectively forcing this on our communities with their ‘get on your bikes’ attitude”.
“How many of our councillors actually cycle to work?” he asked. “They all seem good at telling the community to do so.”
“I can imagine them driving into work. Looking around at the mess they have made,” replied James. “While waiting in a slow-moving traffic cue. Seeing nobody riding a bike or even a mobility scooter. And thinking, yeah! What an amazing job we’ve done here!”
> Motorists to launch legal challenge against “totally undemocratic” decision to close park rat-run to drivers to “appease the cycling brigade”
Meanwhile, Geoff pointed out that “there are clearly some parties whose ideology is adamantly against drivers” and that “some people might think the Conservatives to be supportive of allowing a more balanced approach to traffic policy”.
He continued: “After all I believe most people would agree that a reasonable network of single lanes should be offered as long as they don’t restrict the amenity of other groups.
“But we saw that with Cllr Greene last time, he went too far in giving way to the nagging of the cycle cult lobbyists, which has empowered them to demand more and more.”
However, these claims that cycling is being “forced” on Dorset’s communities unsurprisingly received short shrift in that other BCP-based Facebook group, BH Active Travel (I swear, it’s like the Sharks and the Jets, but on Facebook groups, and about cycling).
> Controversial cycle lane wands go viral as furious residents lash out at "blocked" driveways, but local cyclist suggests outrage "overblown" and bike lane bollards only necessary because drivers park in it
In one post from the weekend, BH Active Travel member Robert sought out to “get one or two things straight” about active travel campaigners in the county, and the conspiracy theories spread about them.
“Nobody in this group has ever said that: ‘People will have to cycle everywhere’. Those who claim that is the policy of this group are lying,” he wrote.
“Nobody in this group has ever said that: ‘People will have to give up their cars’. Those who claim that is the policy of this group are lying.
“Nobody in this group has ever said that: ‘You will be forced to live in 15-minute cities and you won’t be able to leave without permission’. Those that claim that is the policy of this group are lying.”
> Why is the 15-minute city attracting so many conspiracy theories?
He continued: “This group exists to safeguard vulnerable road users from death and injuries on our roads and provide a safe environment for vulnerable road users to travel around our conurbation.
“The policy decisions are made by the relevant authorities, and they may or may not ask for the opinions of the group.”
“It’s the standard straw man, put up something untrue so they can castigate you for it,” agreed Malcolm.
“I would normally say ‘ill-informed’, rather than ‘lying’, it’s less confrontational,” noted Luke. “To me, it’s a campaign for personal choice, the motor-centric policies of the last 50 years have in many ways removed the option to safely walk or cycle short distances in our towns and cities. I would say we are campaigning to be given back that choice.”
“We drive cars, ride bikes, catch buses, trains scoot, wheel and walk amongst you and we’re not trying to take away your cars. I don’t know how much clearer we can be,” agreed Russell.
Robert gave being clear a good go in a follow-up post, writing: “I’m thoroughly fed up with the blatant lies being told, by proper grown-ups, about this group. Either they should provide proof of their claims or STFU. It’s like being in a school playground.”
To be fair, the vast majority of school playgrounds feature more nuanced and reasoned arguments than most Facebook groups…
Add new comment
44 comments
G could have won a hatful of classics if he'd left Ineos after his TdeF win. Ah well.
He might also have missed out on four GT podiums. I'm a great fan of him both as a rider and a man but nothing in his record suggests great potential as a one-day rider; he entered thirty-five classics and monuments in his career and won just one. His WC road race record (seven entries, six DNF and one 81st) doesn't exactly indicate someone with great one-day potential either.
Now here's a surprise from road.cc, completely blanking the CX racing from the w/end.
Aye, let's report that Dublin won't feature again in the CX world cup series. And by the way the racing there hasn't been stellar, quite a number of top line racers have skipped it for training invthe limes of Spain.
I know, they should be done under the Trades Descriptions Act, calling themselves cyclocross.cc and then ignoring it. Hang on…
As has been said ad nauseam, this is a general road cycling site covering many aspects of road cycling. Occasionally it will mention cyclocross racing if something noteworthy occurs in that field (such as, just off the top of my head, a major race in the British Isles that many readers might have been planning to attend is cancelled) but it's never claimed to be a site for exhaustive coverage of any type of racing. There are plenty of sites that do provide such coverage. It's beyond me why a small handful of readers continually complain about a lack of cyclocross coverage here; it's like going to a tennis site and complaining that they haven't got any squash or badminton coverage.
The thing is, Cyclocross is connected to Road, and the people running it, especially in Belgium view it as an offshoot of road racing, rather than a proper off-road discipline.
I've often thought pure 'old school' roadies think it's too gnarly for them, but the MTB-ers don't think it's gnarly enough......
Well yes, obviously all cycle sport is connected because it's all done on bicycles, but this site doesn't even claim to be a road racing site, let alone an all-cyclosport site, so castigating it for not having sufficient coverage of cyclocross is pretty silly in my opinion.
Having tried both cyclocross and MTB courses, for riding give me MTB any day, cyclocross is murder!
He looked razor-sharp, and musseled his way to the front, before shelling the other riders, for a victory that really warms the cockles...
Life's a beach for him, I guess.
I went to the shellfish disco, showing all my moves, and I pulled a muscle.
He made it to the finish abalone, picking off some notable scallops on the way - probably earned a few squid too.
Took me several goes to parse this and realise that there wasn't some kind of bizarre personation scheme going on:
Has road.cc asked Lidl for a comment on the record on that Hove bike park/trolley store? I bet it would get sorted, sharpish.
It would also be interesting to check if the planning conditions for the store - which are almost certainly responsible for the cycle parking being there in the first place - stipulate it is to be installed and maintained thereafter. It therefore becomes an enforceable condition which you can use to escalate the complaint.
That Ferndown cycle lane – which since its initial construction has seen opponents claim it does not represent “value for money”
However much it cost, it's bound to be better value for money than any road-building scheme anywhere, ever.
Robert gave being clear a good go in a follow-up post, writing: “I’m thoroughly fed up with the blatant lies being told, by proper grown-ups, about this group. Either they should provide proof of their claims or STFU.
They don't care whether their smears are true or not, they know that people believe what they want to believe, and won't fact check anything they agree with, so spreading lies is useful for them, because some people will believe the lies.
RE: Automated Emergency Braking systems not detecting Hi Viz
Some people have commented about ensuring drivers observe the road properly. When I read the Highway Code about Self-driving vehicles (page 4), I find the future of motorised transport alarming. I quote:
"While a self-driving vehicle is driving itself in a valid situation, you are not responsible for how it drives. You may turn your attention away from the road and you may also view content through the vehicle’s built-in infotainment apparatus, if available."
I assume that section was included with the intent of "future proofing" the Highway Code. It does only apply to "Self Driving Vehicles" as approved as such by the Secretary of State for Transport - currently no vehicles have been approved.
I can understand the gut reaction is to find that future alarming, and based on the current state of self-driving cars/smart assistance features, that would be an understandable reaction. But, on the other hand, when sufficiently developed, I can believe that eventually self-driving cars will be safer than human drivers, and keeping the emotional, irrational meatbag well away from the controls would be a good thing. There's no shortage of evidence to indicte that the vast majority of crashes (and all the death and destruction that follows) are the result of human error and entirely avoidable.
Unfortunately when something does go wrong * people may find the process of "who is to blame" even less consolation than normal (not much). As in ... now people kill others with their cars, but sometimes they are punished, some even by a number of years in prison. I very much doubt that will be happening in a future of robotaxis.
The other aspect is that even if "much much safer" their may be some side effects which - if people think about them - they wouldn't be comfortable with. Without necessarily signing up to the full dystopian vision presented I think the NotJustBikes video on the subject does cover some likely "negative externalities".
I suspect he's right that in fact without some strong positive measures right now (this tech is already out there, in use) the "market" could quickly ensure people and their governments will end up with little effective control of their public spaces and these may be transformed for the worse. (And good luck those countries who don't already have public support for active travel (mass cycling) and the nicer places that can deliver).
* When not if, as it will ... even if it's much better than now, engineering + humans always means something goes wrong.
What is lacking in the development, that makes these vehicles unsafe?
Self driving vehicles are already being introduced in the USA.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/68777656
And in the UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/self-driving-vehicles-set-to-be-on-roads-by-2026-as-automated-vehicles-act-becomes-law
And I think Teslas are already Self-Drive ready?
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-2CB60804-9CEA-4F4B-8B04-09B991368DC5.html
One of the big questions is: If you are injured in a collision with a car in full self drive mode, who do you sue for compensation? The Driver, or Elon Musk?
One Saturday in May 1988, I managed to avoid colliding with two very young children, who ran out from behind a parked car. They would have undoubtedly suffered sever injuries, if I hadn't acted when I did.
I avoided this collision because I detected a small amount of movement in the shadows I could see under the vehicle, and instinctly started braking, before I actually saw what caused the movement.
We are years away from this technology that can actually detect and predict outcomes such as this. Yet this is the level of technology that is required to replace a human.
I would suggest that while this is the level of technology required to replace humans performing at their best, I doubt most would have spotted what you did. In practice, a system that only performs at, say, 60% of theoretical human capability (numbers made up, obvs) could well still represent an overall improvement in safety - particularly as the human drivers get more and more distracted by social meeja or even the touchscreen controls for their vehicles.
Re AI systems for automatic hazard detection / braking. You need to remember that "AI" is simply chunks of code processing data. It's not inherent;ly smart and neither are the programmers (I was one for 40+ years...). More to the point, it will likely be young males (IT is massively oversupplied with spotty opinionated game playing nerds) in a lowest cost provision (probably in a non-UK location with little to no knowledge of UK driving conditions) who code this stuff. If you have any optimism at all, park it.
Lets not forget the two Boeing 737 Max's that were in AUTO PILOT mode that nose-dived into the ground!
Dorset probably has the highest gammon per capita of anywhere else in the UK.
Esso Fuels - their "one less drive" campaign.
Oil companies are happy to promote environmental schemes they don't think have a chance of impacting their bottom line. If the majority of councils built infrastructure that actually made cycling more pleasant than driving, that page on the Esso web site would become a 404 error quicker than you can say, "no longer aligns with our duty to shareholders." Just as they backed solar and wind back when nuclear power was the greatest threat to their dominance, but are scaling back their investments now that renewables are price-competitive.
Same reason gambling companies support "gamble aware". If you don't want regulation and oversight then you give the impression that you are self policing and care about your victims. Of course, the reality for fossil fuel companies is that most of them would happily burn humans if it kept their profits high but hey, "we care about cycling and the environment fellow humans"
Come on ... even the security at a major oil conference (eventually) realised that this was untrue when the Yes Men announced this (in the guise of ExxonMobile)!
Or Drinkaware being funded by the Portman Group, which is funded by the alcohol manufacturers?
I suspect it's a bit of what mctrials23 says (showing willing for less regulatory hassle), also a bit of "not wanting the show to end" too soon. Some of the organisations are looking to plan for other things than just fossil fuels. But it may be that some of them say "we're an oil company - that's it, so we'll drink the last drop at the same rate or faster than now, without plans for tomorrow". Bit like what seems to be happening in the US just now e.g. people essentially saying "the future can take care of itself; why shouldn't we have a good time right now?"
Actually ... all these folks complaining that a minority are taking over and that there are some covert actors working to limit their driving ... are correct!
There is a massive conspiracy afoot.
And I can reveal some of the extremist minority organisations behind it:
Pages