I REFER to the article “Cycle path secured by the sea”. The Argus, September 23rd.
The Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee seems to have reached some strange conclusions. The project did not receive 70 percent support – 34 people from the city’s population reacted positively to the idea, which corresponds to 0.0136 percent.
Councilor Bagen was right. The consultation process was flawed, the questions were designed in such a way that the answers supported the Council’s idea.
The fact that only 48 people replied shows that the Council did not take a proactive approach to involve more people, which in turn rendered the consultation ineffective.
His further assertion that people just don’t care is correct. The usual rowdy bike fraternity remained strangely silent (unless there are only 34 cyclists in town!). I wouldn’t have inferred any support for the cycle path from this.
For Steve Davis to conclude that only 48 people responded because people wanted the bike path extended is bizarre. His logic could lead next May to the conclusion that people want the Greens to lead the council because they didn’t bother to vote for them. Beware!
Nancy Platt’s claim that a culture of hating cyclists stems from just having one bad experience with a cyclist couldn’t be further from the truth. Every day I see at least one cyclist jumping lights, weaving between pedestrians, riding the wrong way on one-way streets, riding on the pavement, behavior the Council would not sanction in motorists, but it ignores cyclists.
The City Council was told that “dedicated road space for cyclists was the solution (to the hostility) because it protected pedestrians from cyclists”, but that is not true, particularly along this stretch of road.
Pedestrians leaving or going to the promenade have to cross a bike path. Those who want to get on the bus or get to their car from a “floating bus stop” have to do the same.
For such a cycle path to be conceived outside of the new Kingsway to the Sea (2,700 respondents were seen at the consultation) is absurd. How will people reach this “green” area without first crossing a bike path? It’s all part of this council’s continued inability to think coherently.
Except for the green city councillors, there is no appetite for a doubling of the cycle lane (extended, sorry). The existing cycle path is sufficient for the 34 respondents who want to use it.
name and address given
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/22691876.brighton-hove-seafront-cycle-lane-consultation-flawed/?ref=rss “Brighton and Hove seafront cycle route advice flawed”