The planned final phase of a cycle lane in Coventry – where a motorist was filmed last year speeding along the ‘protected’ infrastructure while undertaking another driver and which locals say could lead to collisions between reversing drivers and cyclists “aiming” at them at 30mph – has once again been the subject of intense scrutiny this week, after almost 1,000 residents signed a petition urging the council to stop the project “immediately” to save 26 trees along the proposed route.
However, Coventry City Council has responded to the petition by pointing out that the 26 trees which would be felled if the plans are approved are set to replaced by 32 new trees and a range of low growing plants, with the local authority also noting that the proposed cycleway is key to promoting sustainable travel in the city.
Earlier this year, Coventry City Council announced a revised set of plans, following feedback from locals which has led to the scheme being redesigned three times, for the Clifford Bridge Road stretch of the Binley cycleway, a 6km-long protected cycleway linking the city centre to University Hospital Coventry.
According to the council, the Binley cycleway was “developed and designed to accommodate the needs of people that do not usually cycle” by reducing concerns about safety and lack of confidence.
The latest revised proposals for the Clifford Bridge Road section mean that the road will no longer be narrowed to accommodate the cycling infrastructure, while more parking spaces will be made available in comparison to the original plan, with a kerb now separating the cycle lane from the pavement for much of the route.
> Residents oppose cycle lane plans that would make cyclists “sitting ducks” for motorists accessing driveways
However, after residents again raised concerns in January about the prospect of cyclists riding into drivers reversing out of their homes, a petition has been launched calling for an “immediate” halt to the project in order to save the 26 trees earmarked to be cut down as part of the scheme.
According to the council, which is holding another consultation on the changes until 12 September, “we will remove a total of 26 trees. But we will plant 32 new trees. The new tree species are a good mix of species well suited to an urban environment. These will be planted with a special root protection system which will help them to thrive in the conditions.”
“It may seem like a step forward for sustainable transport, but it comes at too high a cost”
But Will Delieu, who set up the change.org petition last week, believes the plan to cut down the trees as part of the cycleway’s construction comes at “too high a cost” and will “cause irreversible damage to the local environment”.
“We need your support to save the 26 beautiful, mature trees along Clifford Bridge Road that are at risk of being removed to make way for a new cycle lane,” Delieu wrote.
“These trees have stood for decades, providing shade, cleaner air, and natural beauty to our community. Removing them would not only destroy the green character of our neighbourhood but also cause irreversible damage to the local environment.
“The proposed cycle lane may seem like a step forward for sustainable transport, but it comes at too high a cost. The loss of these trees would have long-lasting negative effects on our ecosystem, local wildlife, and the well-being of residents. We believe there are better alternatives that would not require sacrificing our precious natural heritage.
“The trees not only an amazing habitat for our wildlife, but an environment which our neighbourhood would hate to see gone. These trees have been here for decades. I support sustainable transport, but we need to explore other options.
“We call on Coventry City Council to halt this project immediately and explore alternative routes or designs that protect our trees. Let’s work together to find a solution that supports both sustainable transport and environmental preservation.”
The petition, which was launched last week, has so far attracted over 900 signatures. One of those signatories, Ann Wilson, the vice chair of Coventry Tree Wardens, believes the trees along Clifford Bridge Road are “irreplaceable”.
“These trees and the benefits they provide to local people are irreplaceable,” Wilson wrote. “They should not be sacrificed for a cycleway that is already dangerous, causing traffic congestion, adding to pollution, and is little used.”
The claim that the Binley cycleway is “little used” is a common one among the petition’s signatories.
“Why are they chopping down trees that have been in place for many years for a cycle path that no one uses?” asked Joy Foley. “I’ve literally seen three people on cycle paths since they were made. Total waste of our money. Wise up council, we need trees in our world… Please stop this madness you want to inflict on us.”
Responding to the petition, a spokesperson for Labour-controlled Coventry City Council reminded locals that a public consultation on the scheme is open until 12 September.
“If these plans are approved at the City Services Cabinet Meeting at the end of October, we would remove 26 trees as part of the work,” the spokesperson said.
“It’s important to note however that they would be replaced by 32 new trees as well as a range of low growing plants. Those trees would be planted with a special root protection system which would help them to thrive.
“This section of the cycleway is the final step in joining up the city centre, Binley and the University Hospital. When complete that cycleway will play a key role in promoting sustainable travel in our city.”
> “Our roads will be safer if we all look a bit more”: Cycle lane plans “a recipe for disaster,” say residents – because reversing motorists can’t see cyclists “aiming at you at 30”… due to parked cars on road
As noted above, this isn’t the first time that the Clifford Bridge Road portion of the Binley cycleway has come under fire from disgruntled residents.
In January, resident Dawn McCann launched another petition against the revised plans, which she said was based on safety concerns about the lane’s proximity to homes on the road.
“I think they keep tweaking it to try and fob us off and not tackle the actual issue of safety,” she said at the time.
“No one who lives on Clifford Bridge wants to run cyclist over, nobody would intentionally injure anybody, but the way the cycleway is being designed at the moment, all of those cyclists are sitting ducks.”
Speaking at a council meeting last November, when she first raised the issue of motorists reversing onto the cycle lane, McCann said: “At the moment cars reverse on the pavement. When you build the cycle lane, they will have to reverse across a footpath and a cycleway onto Clifford Bridge Road. Even if you reverse on Clifford Bridge Road [into the drive], between parked cars you don’t know if a bike’s coming.
“The visibility thing has been the main thing that the Clifford Bridge Road residents are worried about, I don’t know how you get round that.
“If you're reversing out across [the cycle lane] with a bike aiming at you at 30, it doesn’t matter how many times you look, there are going to be collisions.”
Meanwhile, Labour councillor Robert Thay also raised concerns about how the scheme would work at rush hour.
“They’re going to increase the amount of cyclists, you’re going to be trying to get out when cyclists will all be piling to the hospital, and you won’t be able to see them,” he said.
“So you will have to reverse back blindly, hoping that there’s not all of these cyclists who are apparently going to be using the cycle path onto Clifford Bridge Road. It’s a recipe for disaster between half seven and half eight in the morning and half four and half five in the evening, because they are the busiest times on that road.”
> Proposed city centre e-bike ban will “discourage cycling and penalise responsible cyclists,” says cycling and walking commissioner
However, West Midlands’ former walking and cycling commissioner Adam Tranter criticised the complaints and simply urged motorists to take extra caution when “blindly” reversing out of their drives.
“When we are reversing, when we do stuff, just that extra look or that extra bit of caution, even though it will feel uncomfortable could be beneficial,” he said at the time.
Tranter also distinguished between “e-motorcycles” doing high speeds and “the average cyclist and a pedestrian”, who travel on a “human scale”.
“Often when cyclists and pedestrians are together there’s a bit of give and take with eye contact,” he added. “You can’t have that level of contact when you’re doing speeds in a car over 20-miles-an-hour, it’s been proven.
“So if you slow the speeds down, if you get people to look and visualise, it’s a bit of give and take and generally from the data it seems to work. The data seems to suggest that our roads will be safer if we all look a bit more.”
> "Traffic on road? Just use a cycle lane": Motorist facing court after speeding through segregated bike lane
And while opponents of the scheme are vocal in their concerns about cyclists riding at 30mph and potentially crashing into unsuspecting drivers, perhaps the most shocking incident to have taken place on the Binley cycleway so far involved a Ford Puma driver undertaking another motorist by speeding along the protected bike lane last July.
The manoeuvre, which Tranter said at the time “could have quite easily had catastrophic consequences”, and led to the driver in question being identified and charged by police.
“In the West Midlands we are very clear that we will not tolerate behaviour that endangers vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. This shocking footage has rightly sparked outrage online and I’m grateful to the police for swiftly taking action,” the former walking and cycling commissioner said.
Add new comment
38 comments
Must have been the same day the headline picture was taken with three people on the cycleway at once. What a coincidence!
For a moment reversing sense and taking their comment as honest / not just "I don't like this so I'll just say stuff that backs my view" (very common for all of us).
Since we're in the UK and this is not some part of Cambridge, or one of a handful of locations in London: it would be quite reasonable to assume the number of motor vehicles passing per day are greater than those for cyclists. Perhaps considerably so.
However that's not a surprise, if the road has no / inadequate cycle paths currently. It wouldn't be so even if it already had because driving and parking is so well entrenched and supported. And there are scarcely any "cycle networks" (suitable for mass cycling) worth the name in the land.
Then there's the well-noted "not seeing the cyclists" effect, plus the fact that say 5 motor vehicles waiting at a junction suggests "reasonable traffic" but 5 cyclists occupy a fraction of the space and look like "a couple" or "only a few". And again in the UK it's normally not the case that those motor vehicles are carrying several people each.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2018/02/08/a-waste-of-space/
Yup, all the others had to take evasive action!
According to the council, the supposedly 'irreplacable' trees are quite literally going to be replaced... and then some.
Unless the campaigner is alluding to the new tress not being the same, in which case pretty much all flora that is sacrficed for new developments is, by that definition, irreplacable. So where is all the outrage against new roads, housing etc?
Brighton's Labour council are running a consultation on adding a bus lane to a major A road out of the city towards London.
"As the road is currently very wide, we are able to install a southbound bus lane without removing any traffic lanes."
By the looks of things this will be a single southbound bus and cycle lane so commuters will be able to get to work via bike and bus on time, but not home. And at the cost of removing the existing north and southbound cycle lanes so not quite "without removing any traffic lanes."
One of the most infuriating sights on the road is a unidirectional cycle lane on one side and nothing on the other. Presumably if these planners designed buildings there would only be escalators heading upwards and no way of coming down beyond jumping out of the window.
Are there any UK cycle path schemes that no-one moans about? When are these selfish NIMBYs going to stop thinking about themselves and start seeing the bigger picture? Our cities are gridlocked and choking on car fumes. Many areas were built in the days of ponies and traps. They're just not designed for heavy traffic. One road in my area is jammed solid every rush hour, and our brainless council has just built a new estate that will send hundreds more cars down it every day.
Quite frankly, the best thing that can happen to this country is a prolonged petrol shortage and restrictions on private motoring to cope with it. That, coupled with fair exemptions for the elderly and disabled is the only thing that will get the selfish petrolheads out of their cars.
Answering the second part - "How do we get there from here" is a question, indeed! With so many false starts in the UK over the last century (really) you do wonder.
Of course we actually had mass cycling (in numbers that would be the envy of the Dutch) - by about 100 years ago! The first effort to create specific cycle infra in the UK was to get cyclists out of the way of motor vehicles!
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carltonreid/lets-rescue-britains-fo...
Dutch? Partly "to make a small fortune, start with a large one". Cycling declined some time after it started dropping in the UK and there were some specific features there ("cycle infra" for mopeds) which maybe were involved. A complicated story involving a fuel crisis as you mention, outrage at the growing motoring death toll (and specifically children - the then transport minister lost a child):
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/11/17/how-did-the-dutch-get-thei...
I know less about Denmark / Copenhagen but some of the themes seem similar to NL.
The hopeful one - Seville, a place which genuinely had very little cycling until recently, and now has mass cycling thanks to infra. Politics and a few visionaries seem to be the story - there was a local cycling pressure group but they had very limited traction until the political wind changed (some horse trading needed - a bit like Scotland, the Greens and the Bute House agreement? ). So this one is a little more "top down"?
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/02/07/the-seville-cycling-revolu...
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/13/best-practices-how-seville-became...
Well remember the fuel crisis, 1973. It was an absolute culture shock, like the 2000 fuel protests only more prolonged. The country literally didn't know what hit it. After that we had the oil price hikes which sent petrol prices soaring. Unlike the Dutch we didn't learn from it and look at the mess we're in now. Gridlocked, polluted, petrol prices fueling the cost of living crisis, and if rumours are true they'll be even higher when the Chancellor ends the freeze on fuel duty as well as more trouble in the middle east sending prices up.
The bad news from history is it seems to take a lot of "push" to get people to rethink driving habits. And this also involves authorities - we're talking about changing organisations / organisational cultures, not just individuals.
The positive side is that in many examples people "adapt" and after the fact - when they think about it at all - feel that providing for more active travel and "taming the car" has been a positive change.
The other hopeful thing is that most people walk at some point. Being super-powered walking cycling has the potential to enhance that. Also cyclists - while they are not pedestrians - are closer to pedestrians in some respects. When interacting you're looking at another person, not a metal box, so communication is easier. Both modes are quite manoeverable and speeds are closer than either is to the potential speed of a car. Both modes are vulnerable in collisions (cyclist colliding with pedestrian - both are likely to be hurt) which gives incentive for "good behaviour".
The infra - cycling infra can actually help "shield" people further from motor vehicles. And like walking cycling is quiet and the infra much more space-efficient than that for motor vehicles.
Finally - because it's "low cost, low impact" cycling can grow to some extent (or at least survive...) in the absense of much support - as it has in the UK.
Some folks - particularly some of the odder (vehicular cycling) advocates and those of a more "just don't build new stuff" environmental bent - like to point at Japan. I don't think this is a model we can easily - or most would want - to follow.
For one I think unusually it really does depend on a very different culture and history. For another it relies on the existence of a different style of urban development - essentially we'd have to rebuild all our houses to be much closer together and then traffic calming would then emerge out of pedestrians, bikes and cars all trying to squeeze through very narrow spaces.
However since the details don't seem to be well-known:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jlwQ2Y4By0U
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VFCz7G_jXeI
On your first point - there are things that people don't complain (much) about in the UK - and these are the "nice to haves". Recreational trails. A couple of conditions needed: like any "shared space" this is density-dependant.
So there shouldn't be many cyclists. And either almost no pedestrians or it's pedestrian-dominated, physically blocking cycling. And there are few people "being antisocial" - so cyclists wait / slow, a reasonable assumption if this is recreational.
Bar the odd "they almost pushed me in the canal" and "far too fast" complaint ... then it "works".
Of course this is OK because it doesn't "take any road space" and in no way affects drivers. Plus usually these are at least part-funded and built by charities so find favour with authorities!
“If you're reversing out across [the cycle lane] with a bike aiming at you at 30, it doesn’t matter how many times you look, there are going to be collisions.”
Probably better if the riders all did > 50. Then they'd be safely out of the way before the reversing vehicles reached the road. No one does 30 anyway except for small children and old grannies, who are expendable.
Although... the real safe option is for cars to be reversed into their driveways.
I seem to recall reading somewhere about not reversing on to main roads, but things were different then.
I find it bad enough driving forwards out of our driveway. Because of the walls on either side you can't see what's on the footpath until you've driven some distance onto it. Reversing out would be lethal.
“If you're reversing out across [the cycle lane] with a bike aiming at you at 30, it doesn’t matter how many times you look, there are going to be collisions.”
Ah, so it's the cyclists' fault, but of course.
How do these drivers contend with pedestrians "aimed at them"? Let me guess, they rely on the pedestrians being responsible for not "getting themselves" run over.
Trickier question; how do these drivers negotiate reversing into the road itself? The chavvier ones probably execute a 3-point turn on the mud bank that used to be a grass verge (if they haven't parked their other cars there already). But the others? I dare say the vehicles are travelling faster than the "30" they believe cyclists are doing on the cycle path.
Here's my hunch - they make it their business to stop an look properly, because now it's in their own selfish interest.
An 'environmental' petition; all signatories should be declaring their ecological footprints so we can see any double standards.
Looks like residents need to re-read Highway Code:
201
Do not reverse from a side road into a main road. When using a driveway, reverse in and drive out if you can.
202
Look carefully before you start reversing. You should use all your mirrors
check the ‘blind spot’ behind you (the part of the road you cannot see easily in the mirrors) check there are no pedestrians (particularly children), cyclists, other road users or obstructions in the road behind you.
Reverse slowly while checking all around ooking mainly through the rear window
being aware that the front of your vehicle will swing out as you turn.
Get someone to guide you if you cannot see clearly.
I've never understood people reversing off drives into traffic. Much safer to reverse onto the drive and drive forwards into the road.
It's pretty straightforward (if you'll excuse the pun) - it's a normal human psychological tendency to present bias. When they park, what's more valuable is the convenience right now - they're not really considering what happens when they next leave. And when they leave, they just have to reverse out, and don't relate that to the original decision to park forward.
And they are already comfortable with endangring pedestrians as they reverse out. Presumably hitting them doesn't scratch the paint, so not worth worrying about.
But unless the council does something very crazy, the reversing drivers will have to reverse over the footpath before they reach the cycle-path, so they'll have better visibility by then. If it will be unsafe when there's a bike lane, it's unsafe now and they shouldn't be doing it. At the very least, get one of those convex mirrors.
Ah but those pedestrians are not "aiming at them" at 30, or hiding around the parked vehicles...
The standard of driving being what it is, I'd say that many drivers feel more confident reversing out of a drive than into one?
For a few years now, it's been standard practice for forces personnel to ALWAYS reverse into a parking space and drive out of it.
I live on a street in Wales with a 20mph limit. Of course nobody but me and the odd bus driver adheres to it. I couldn't imagine the risks involved in reversing out of my drive.
Re-read? Giving them undue credit surely?
The obvious solution is to keep the trees and turn the entire road into a cycle lane, imagine how wildlife habitats would thrive
Ah, but that would be change - why are you forcing that on people who don't want it? We all want the change to happen before we move to some place, so we can just choose those places which are "well connected" (easy to drive and park) AND "nice places" (they left a few trees - and maybe there's already a cycle "facility" for the kids as a bonus).
There's so much nonsense in what's being used to justify objecting that it's hard to know where to start. But personally the 'we don't want a new bike lane because I want to protect air quality' is right at the top.
And bikes doing 30.
I'd say few people want to see trees cut down, but I am aware that lots of people do want them cut down if they have sap that might make a car look dirty, or pollen that might make a car look dirty, or birds might sit on them and do poos on the object of their affection.
But nice as those trees look now, and it's fair to say that replacing a mature tree with a young tree is a downgrade, it's not long-term or irreversible damage, so long as the trees are planted sensibly with a plan for looking after them while they become established. Once established they'll probably be an improvement.
I'm not sure if something is really "irreplaceable" if it can be replaced but the replacement will probably wither and die because of vehicle pollution and people in two-tonne cars driving over the saplings.
1. 'Is little used'
2. 'They’re going to increase the amount of cyclists, you’re going to be trying to get out when cyclists will all be piling to the hospital'
Can anyone spot the fundamental flaw in their reasoning?
Pages