Times editorial urges standing up to “anti-cycling NIMBYs” over infrastructure plans

A month on a bike - just what the doctor ordered!  Sign me up as the Hattie Jacques figure, "back on your bike, Mr Bigger".  I've been slugging it out with the NIMBYS in a couple of my local newspapers comment column in the past few weeks.

I'll whisper this next point, though: my old boss used to say that if you want to get things done, you've got to be subtle about it - and some of these re-allocations are a bit of an affront to people. Oh, don't me wrong, I want all this to happen and crucially, to remain in place. But, some laid down schemes lack subtlety. Question is, are they getting used? 

I could go on about the various tacks the NIMBYS come in on, "Mr Oh, So Reasonable", peddling an 'each unto his own' message - reality = roads are for cars. Mrs "well, the pollution will be even worse if we have to drive slowly" - yeah, thanks a flipping bunch for that Missus, and of course "will somebody please think of the less able" - yep, we're all disability rights campaigners now.  And for some reason, now we've got all these lanes, we all need insurance and helmets. 

One other point, I forget when there was promised that review of road traffic legislation - clearly, that's gone into the long grass.  I'm at the point where I think this country has lost its reason to such an extent that I think we need to be very careful about what we wish for.

We need solid reasons why mandatory insurance, helmets, cycle lanes, etc should not be put in place. The clamour for these things seems persistent and widespread - there must be a wild, unruly end of cycling that really upsets people, that fuels this, although when pressed, they have to go back months or even years to describe just one incident.  
 

The fact that these things would be disproportionate to need, etc doesn't count as a solid reason. 

youve got more patience than I have debating local paper anti cycling nimby commentators, I get the feeling in ours youd be prying the steering wheels out of their cold dead hands long before they ever gave so much as an inch to cycling.

and thats the point, they can be presented with solid reasons or solid facts till the end of time, road tax,emissions tax, insurance, helmets, hiviz, registration,testing, ban filtering,max speeds,too hilly,too much rain,jumping red lights, its endless , when youve answered one set of  questions, they simply move onto a new set, and keep going & moving the goalposts, literally the same people who claim cycle lanes are bad for the less physically able to use, are the same ones who happily park their cars blocking pavements and then wouldnt even see that as a contradiction.

I dont think those nimbys will ever change their mind that cycling can be a positive for them

probably not

 https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18598498.southampton-city-councils-gree...

Awavey wrote:

youve got more patience than I have debating local paper anti cycling nimby commentators, I get the feeling in ours youd be prying the steering wheels out of their cold dead hands long before they ever gave so much as an inch to cycling.

There was an RAC report about ten or so years ago, which found that drivers exhibited all the symptoms of addicts if you threatened to take their car away.  That's what we're dealing with; car addicts.

Absolutely agree,cars in some peoples lives are way more than just boxes that get them from a to b,youll often hear people say it's their pride & joy,so when you disrupt that link they have with their car through even minor things like pop up lanes or oversized plant pots to create low traffic neighbourhoods these people react exactly like addicts,it becomes deeply personal to them that you've attacked their way of life & they overreact in irrational ways.

And like with many drugs, the high is elusive and the come-down is massive.

For all the sacrifices and investment they, the environment and we, make/ have made to/in motoring, they never seem happy, content, or satisfied. 

I have insurance and wear a helmet they don't have to make it mandatory it's just common sense also the insurance doesn't cost much it comes with my membership of Cycling uk. Motorist seem to think that they own the road because they pay vehicle excise duty and cyclists don't . If we were registered we still wouldn't pay VED because we are a zero  emmision vehicle Don't see many motorists shouting at Prius and other electric vehicles to get off their road because they don't pay VED.

"It's common-sense" - you sound like Mr Oh So Reasonable (see my post above). Hi viz - common-sense...

eburtthebike wrote:

Like the proposed route through Blaise Castle, Bristol.  The Friends of Blaise produced leaflets saying that it was the thin end of the wedge and it would lead to a three lane motorway through the estate.

Or the one through, IIRC, Hengrove Park.  Which never happened because 'Oh won't somebody think of the children!' and cyclists can just ride around the edge of the park (being, the busy roads that the proposed path was intended to get cyclists off...).

Exactly! They've happily defended the "anti cycling" rhetoric of some of their own journalists, so how can they now come forward and complain about anti-cycling NIMBYs??

Making amends for past mis-demeanours?

@brooksby - Because the articles are written by journalists and not all journalists agree on any given topic.

portec wrote:

@brooksby - Because the articles are written by journalists and not all journalists agree on any given topic.

Understood, but I still think my question was valid since they went out of their way to defend their 'anti cycling' journalists' opinions.

And it doesnt hurt to remind them of cause & effect,you cant hold an editorial line that promotes cycling but then also denigrates cycling as a valid opinion,and be surprised your readership or the greater public at large arent then wholly on board with cycling.