| Topic: | Response to Cllr Sam (might be TLTR for some!) | |
| Posted by: | Ed Saper | |
| Date/Time: | 29/05/21 10:58:00 |
| Councillor Sam: “We are not anti-bike or anti-car we are for a balanced approach to London's transport ills and specifically those of this borough." I took a look at the last manifesto on your website and the only policy relating to cycling is: "We will require TfL to introduce cyclist appropriate road schemes but we will not support anything that adds to traffic congestion and air pollution e.g. CS9." Cycling gets a mention as part of your air pollution policy which also includes opposing the ULEZ, so one of the few measures you’ll take to limit pollution relate to prioritising cars over bikes. I don't know when in 2019 you published the Walking & Cycling Policy, but in September 2019 you were the third signatory on the petition to reject the cycle lane: "We deplore the way that TfL has ignored the clearly expressed views of the residents of Chiswick and urge Hounslow Council to reject TfL's proposal to build a segregated two-way cycle super-highway (CS9) along Chiswick High Road." I note that your position shifted a bit in May 2020 when your new cycling policy indicated a wish to "move on from the controversy in Chiswick about Cycleway 9 and find a new consensus”. The cycling consensus includes: - Removing the temporary cycle lane and doing another consultation (what was wrong with the last one?); - A stripped down C9 if there’s support; - Civil enforcement officers to police cyclists; and - Car parking. If the Tory manifesto cycling policy is to remove the cycle lane because it gets in the way of cars, if you sign petitions to remove it, if your arguments are that bikes increase air pollution but you won’t countenance any measure that might reduce car pollution, then I'm really struggling to understand how you're not at least pro-car! It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that you're "anti-bike" when you align with The OC and complain "we know the members of the pressure group that Hounslow Council are listening to amount to less than 0.1% of the Borough's population. This is about as far away from democracy as one can get." This is a talking point that is frequently made by those associated with The OC - e.g David Riley's post: "LCC local branch Hounslow Cycling and friends and associates do not represent real cyclists nor society widely in Chiswick, let alone Hounslow or across London. It represents less than 0.1% of society, but a 0.1% that thinks it should dictate to the 99.9% of society and that is not democracy." You’re well aware that The OC isn’t just about lobbying against cycling infrastructure, many of its members really don’t like cyclists - particularly their sanctimonious moralising about how they’re “saving the planet” and how they refuse to follow the rules (which you’ll fix with an army of enforcers!). Not that The OC doesn’t sanctimoniously moralise itself about the needs of poor people, disabled people, children, elderly people etc. and then accuses all cyclists (“shame on you”) of not caring about these groups. We've got a car, we've got bikes - we tend to ride them to skip the traffic, get some exercise and take the kids to school. I don’t identify as a pedestrian if I decide to walk to the supermarket instead of drive and I support the provision of safe pavements (not that I would think about it!). But on this forum and in this debate, you are a "cyclist" and part of the "0.1%" if you choose to use a bike for some journeys and want safe cycle lanes. (And now also a hypocrite for having a car and of course answerable on behalf of all cyclists!) Tribal political movements are defined just as much by those they exclude as include. The local Tories are currently part of the OneChiswick anti-cyclists / pro cars tribe and since I'm excluded from joining The OC, you have signalled that I’m also excluded from The Tories - I’ve got the message and am trying to “get over it”! |