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
The Automobile Association.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (supported by the Department for Transport). This is probably an example of "state capture" by the woke.
A Conservative prime minister while in office.
The policy didn't really change when Johnson left office. The Tory DoT was instructing councils to install active travel infrastructure and providing funding for it, even when other parts of government were stoking up an anti-cyclist culture war. It's been one of the few successes of the last government, and yet they kept it under their hats.
But ... and I know this is beyond the DfT, but announced funding was then cut (even that which didn't turn out to be some political sleight of hand e.g. existing monies being shuffled around). And stuff from before like the review of traffic offenses (announced 2014 I believe!) still never happened. And what became of the Road Safety Investigation Branch? (Which could be an important "investigate and feedback" part of a "Sustainable Safety" / "Safe System" improved approach to our roads and public spaces).
Did the DfT stop Highways England enthusiastically filling in tunnels and bridges which (in some cases) could be very useful active travel links? (I honestly don't know - haven't kept up with all these...)
So the Bournemouth-Christchurch-Poole area is going to benefit from cleaner air, quieter neighbourhoods, fewer road deaths, kids getting to school more safely with improved mental and physical health, less dependence on fuel from oppressive regimes, and contributing to a national and global effort to mitigate climate disasters... but a few local motorists are worried it is a big conspiracy, and the council is creating a better community for nothing?
They see excessive roadworks, congestion, lack of car parks, high car park fees, excessive amounts of money spent on cycle lanes, no one using the cycle lanes, no one wants to cycle, people want to drive.
Therefore the money should have been spent on roads and making life easier for drivers.
At least that's how it comes across in the local rag.
All these drivers complaining about congestion - when they're the problem causing it - but it never seems to register with them.
Thats because we are all narcissists that think everything we do is necessary and justified so we need more capacity on our roads and when cyclists impact on that and we aren't a cyclist then its a pretty easy thought to have that cyclists are the problem. If they didn't think that, they would have to accept that they are perhaps part of the problem and should change and few people want to change their habits for something that might be harder.
I've always wanted to take a map of my local town and calculate the percentage of the available public space that's set aside for motor vehicles, in terms of car parks and roads, compared to paths and cycle ways..... and still some drivers think it's okay to park on pavements, double yellow lines etc etc
Copenhagenize did some fun maps which took European cities and then shaded in the car parks, IIRC.
This is an old game. There are "football-pitch junctions" from the now-dormant ADfT.
There are some European numbers here (further down article).
There was a report looking at some particular spaces in Scottish cities, which found a huge amount was roads and car parking (not to mention all the other infra only required because mass motoring). I believe however someone here raised some queries about whether they'd cherry-picked the places a bit and then extrapolated unwisely.
That may be true - but I'm sure the fraction is a LOT higher than people think (if they think about this at all, or would even consider it's something we could make a choice about). Motor traffic is hugely space-inefficient - private motoring wildly so - and that space generally isn't useful for other purposes (as well as being impermeable, costly to maintain and ugly).
Whereas the non-motornormative might see: excessive congestion = driving is a pain the ar5e, so is there an alternative for some journeys? Why yes there is - there's even infrastructure that seems lightly used (ie sod all chance of congestion there). Perhaps one should give it a go rather than simply getting behind the wheel for every journey....? (something about repeatedly doing the same thing & expecting the outcome to be different.....)
Start of half term here, calmness on the roads this morning, it will have been factored in tomorrow so back to the impatience and frustrated aggression.
Pages