Letter of the Week: Forget NIMBYism – it's time to put cycling first

QUOTE:
AFTER cycling into Farnham I have to agree with the campaign for bikes to share the extra road space.

Funnelling bikes in with the traffic does nothing to alleviate the core problem – too many short journeys taken in cars with the resultant congestion, pollution and inactivity exacerbating our health and environmental crises.

But unpleasant and unhealthy as it is cycling through Farnham, it is still the safest part of a journey into town. Our high-speed rural roads, where we have to negotiate close passes and potholes, understandably put people off leaving their cars at home.

While there are never going to be new cycle lanes created between our towns and villages, we already have them in our traffic-free off-road routes – it is just our outdated, unfit-for-purpose, rights-of-way legislation and bylaws that curtail their use.

The status of a right of way has no bearing on its suitability but is derived from some arbitrary historical use.

A conspicuous example is Moor Park. This is a principal section of a traffic-free, sustainable transport route which can take you from Haslemere to Farnham. It has been a well-used cycle route since bicycles were invented – certainly when my great-grandfather lived at Stella Lodge at the southern end.

It was our cycle route to school in the 1950s, as the alternative of the “Waverley Wall� section of the main Godalming-Farnham road was, even with 1950s traffic levels, considered too dangerous and is now verging on suicidal.

In the 1960s it was erroneously downgraded to footpath and is now littered with anti-cycling signs and barriers.

While these are a mild inconvenience for the fitter cyclist, the less fit, the disabled, those with children in pushchairs and cyclists who are put off by the notices have to take their chances on the road – or, as is more likely, take the car.

This route was subjected to a previous example of extreme NIMBYism when gates were erected by the incumbents of Moor Park House in 1897 and then torn down in The Battle of Moor Park – witnessed by my great-grandfather and supported by the local council.

Hopefully it won’t take another Battle of Moor Park to return it to its proper status (which with current legislation will have to be bridleway, as because of an anomaly in the law cycle ways are removed from the definitive map).

This illustrates the necessity of national legislation to legitimise thousands of miles of our existing sustainable transport links, which could be achieved without capital expenditure. Continuing in the current piecemeal fashion, it would take centuries to provide a significant network.

With action now urgently required, we don’t even have an action plan for rural cycling on the horizon. A letter to my Waverley representatives (Brian Adams and Julia Potts) did not even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement while the Surrey representative for my area did phone me and deal with the one aspect which was within his remit.

Our MP Jeremy Hunt, despite many encouraging words on cycling, replied to a previous enquiry – where I had pointed out that Scotland already has cycle access to all traffic-free routes and Wales is now progressing this – with the response that England has different traditions.

It should come as no surprise to our local and national politicians that we now urgently need to move away from old traditions and practices and deal with today’s pressing issues.

If our politicians will do nothing then it is left to cyclists to employ the spirit of the 1897 Battle of Moor Park and the 1932 Right To Roam campaign.

On 09/08/2020 13:49, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
AFTER cycling into Farnham I have to agree with the campaign for bikes to share the extra road space.

Funnelling bikes in with the traffic does nothing to alleviate the core problem – too many short journeys taken in cars with the resultant congestion, pollution and inactivity exacerbating our health and environmental crises.

But unpleasant and unhealthy as it is cycling through Farnham, it is still the safest part of a journey into town. Our high-speed rural roads, where we have to negotiate close passes and potholes, understandably put people off leaving their cars at home.

While there are never going to be new cycle lanes created between our towns and villages, we already have them in our traffic-free off-road routes – it is just our outdated, unfit-for-purpose, rights-of-way legislation and bylaws that curtail their use.

The status of a right of way has no bearing on its suitability but is derived from some arbitrary historical use.

A conspicuous example is Moor Park. This is a principal section of a traffic-free, sustainable transport route which can take you from Haslemere to Farnham. It has been a well-used cycle route since bicycles were invented – certainly when my great-grandfather lived at Stella Lodge at the southern end.

It was our cycle route to school in the 1950s, as the alternative of the “Waverley Wall� section of the main Godalming-Farnham road was, even with 1950s traffic levels, considered too dangerous and is now verging on suicidal.

In the 1960s it was erroneously downgraded to footpath and is now littered with anti-cycling signs and barriers.

While these are a mild inconvenience for the fitter cyclist, the less fit, the disabled, those with children in pushchairs and cyclists who are put off by the notices have to take their chances on the road – or, as is more likely, take the car.

This route was subjected to a previous example of extreme NIMBYism when gates were erected by the incumbents of Moor Park House in 1897 and then torn down in The Battle of Moor Park – witnessed by my great-grandfather and supported by the local council.

Hopefully it won’t take another Battle of Moor Park to return it to its proper status (which with current legislation will have to be bridleway, as because of an anomaly in the law cycle ways are removed from the definitive map).

This illustrates the necessity of national legislation to legitimise thousands of miles of our existing sustainable transport links, which could be achieved without capital expenditure. Continuing in the current piecemeal fashion, it would take centuries to provide a significant network.

With action now urgently required, we don’t even have an action plan for rural cycling on the horizon. A letter to my Waverley representatives (Brian Adams and Julia Potts) did not even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement while the Surrey representative for my area did phone me and deal with the one aspect which was within his remit.

Our MP Jeremy Hunt, despite many encouraging words on cycling, replied to a previous enquiry – where I had pointed out that Scotland already has cycle access to all traffic-free routes and Wales is now progressing this – with the response that England has different traditions.

It should come as no surprise to our local and national politicians that we now urgently need to move away from old traditions and practices and deal with today’s pressing issues.

If our politicians will do nothing then it is left to cyclists to employ the spirit of the 1897 Battle of Moor Park and the 1932 Right To Roam campaign.

The only right of way where it is actually illegal to cycle is on the pavement. So let’s put health, the environment, congestion, pollution, safety and the economy ahead of old traditions, prejudices and NIMBYism.

http://www.farnhamherald.com/article...earchyear=2020

QUOTE:
"...a traffic-free, sustainable transport route..."
ENDQUOTE

It seems that that letter-writer has the same sort of difficulty with
the English language as do the "journalists" at road.cc.