Motornormativity from Warwickshire Tory councillors

Reading Time: 12 minutes

In a County Council debate on a developer-funded £4.4m road improvement scheme coming to Nuneaton, some Conservative councillors – particularly those local to Nuneaton – showed their anti-cycling, motornormative views and positions. This includes another appearance from Cllr Tromans who repeated his unsubstantiated claim that cycle lanes in Europe are being returned to general traffic lanes, something he said in a Borough Council session back in January.

Transcript and timings

Cllr Robert Tromans (Cons) [0:00]

In terms of the usual stuff we get about the cycle routes and all the rest of it, there has never been that modal shift, there isn’t this huge clamour for people to cycle in all sorts of places. You know, we can’t uninvent the car. It may not be king, it may be flawed, but fundamentally that’s how people get around. That, and buses, and walking.

So, the whole “if we build it, they will come” mentality to spending a fortune on cycle lanes that nobody ends up using, and that in various places in Europe I’ve seen them getting extra European Union money to dig up the cycle lane and restore it to the highway because nobody used it and the roads were gridlocked – we need to focus on what the need is, and the need is for improved traffic flow (as we’ve heard from the other speakers), and the need is to make sure that pedestrians are safe. Because that’s how people travel in Nuneaton, that’s how people travel in that area.

This is a great step forward and I think the sooner we get on with it, the better. Thank you very much, chair.

Cllr Clare Golby (Cons) [1:06]

Just to clarify, we’re not jealous of cycle routes. We just don’t have a lot of interest. It’s a fact. We don’t have a lot of interest in cycling. Apart from a small minority of people who hop from special interest group to special interest group, to political parties who have a main focus on cycling, in Nuneaton and bedworth specifically, speaking to Nuneaton and Bedworth, it’s not something that comes up from our residents. They’d like to be able to cross the road on crossings or go from A to B, because as has been pointed out, modal shift is not something that’s occurring rapidly, or there isn’t a want for it.

I mean, we knock on many, many, many doors in our areas, consistently over a long period of time, and it’s never something that comes up, that people want more cycleways, or that they think that the climate emergency is a priority. It absolutely isn’t.

And I’ve said it before, time and time again. I’ve never, ever had anybody on the doorstep tell me that they’re really worried about their carbon footprint. Never. And I’m only representing this view in this chamber, because that is the view that is represented to me from the thousands of people that I represent from Nuneaton and Bedworth. And if I’m representing a view of K2L people – and God love you, if you want K2L, that’s fine, that’s up to you, but that’s not anything to do with my residents and they have no interest in that, so I don’t represent that view in this chamber. Good luck to those that do, but Nuneaton and Bedworth is not.

An example of that is, we have a cycle lane on Weddington road. No-one uses it. Literally no-one uses it. We’ve put cycle loans in and they’re not used. So, it’s not as if we haven’t tested this theory. We have. It’s just not appropriate for where we live, and for what our residents want, and the way that they work.

So, I’ll leave it there, but to say that we’re jealous, absolutely not.

Cllr Marian Humphreys (Cons) [3:15]

I work on the cycle, and I don’t jump from group to group, and I don’t go on a bike. But I do represent the residents that do want to go on a bike. And I am from North Warwickshire and I have worked in Nuneaton when I was working in the community.

The roads I agree in Nuneaton are only wide enough to get cars up and down, and if you had a bike, you would be in danger on some of the roads going on a bike. But just coming out of Nuneaton, you have areas where children would like to go on the road to school, and that’s what I fight for when I’m on the cycling group. So, there is a balance. So, it is that we have to fight for the residents that do want to go on bikes to school or for leisure, and that’s what we’re there for. We’re there for every resident.

Nuneaton isn’t suitable. You’ve got lorries that go up and down the road. You are at risk. And that’s why in the town, in the busy town, they don’t want that area to be a cycle route. But come five miles out of Nuneaton, they do want the cycle routes. And so, that’s why there is that little bit of yes, we do want them further up.

So, we are fighting for cycle routes to get to school for leisure, and that is why we’re there. We’re not there just for one area. We’re there for North Warwickshire. Thank you.

Cllr Clare Golby (Cons) [4:44]

I believe I pointed out that we do have cycleways in Nuneaton that are not used. I believe that I said I represent the views given to me by my residents, which may not accord with the views that you want to push from your side, but that is what I said and that is why I’m explaining this now.

(Cllr Dave Humphries – Chair) That is a point of personal…

Yes, the point of personal explanation is that I’ve just been misrepresented. I stood up and said I represent the views of my residents and I stand by that.

Cllr Justin Kerridge [5:12]

I’m a big cyclist, as you know, and we may have moans and groans, but I’m keen to promote cycling; I’m not keen to tell people they must cycle. I think we should be leaders. I think we should be encouraging people to give it a try, to give it a thought. I’m also very, very conscious of the fact that we are representatives and we have to represent the people who voted us in. So, I understand that argument.

And if it’s been tried and it hasn’t worked, there’s something going on. It could be that what’s been tried just doesn’t fit in to an overall network. That’s where we are. We haven’t had modal shift because it’s still not very pleasant to cycle on the roads. This Council, I believe, is supposed to be aiming towards a modal shift, trying to get people on public transport, and cycling, and active travel. I’m part of this Cycle Liaison Group. I’m very keen to push that as much as possible.

Residents I represented – not all of them – you know, car is king at the moment. But a lot of residents I represent do like the idea of cycle routes, do want to go down that direction.

I’m not going to cycle from where I live to Alcester along a main road, but if there was a decent cycle path, either off-road or on the road, I would certainly consider it. Maybe not in the rain, maybe in the rain once I get used to it.

This Council I think should be leading. This Council should be pushing the idea of cycling. I’ve said that, there we go. Kind of run out of steam. However, I will not go against the local reps in this case. These are the local representatives in their area. If they want this to go ahead, then that’s good. But in general, I just wanted to point out that not all Conservatives are totally against cycling. Not many Conservatives are totally against cycling. Plenty of Conservatives are in favour of it. I know that. We are a broad church. You guys are a broad church.

Before I get into trouble, I’m going to sit down.

Cllr Heather Timms [7:26]

Cycle routes in Warwickshire are really important to us. We have the K2L, we have the A47 at Long Shoot, we have one coming through in Alcester, Stratford, and some in Warwick as well. So, I don’t know what this argument is about. This Council is absolutely committed to active travel in all its forms. We’re also really, really committed to delivering things like the Cycle Buddies, and that is delivered across Warwickshire, the whole of Warwickshire, and that includes Nuneaton and Bedworth. If anybody doesn’t know what Cycle Buddies are, it’s about encouraging residents who may be a little bit scared about particular bits of the route, but somebody who’s an experienced rider will help another one. So, it’s that grassroots change that we’re very much about. And we’re very much about active travel to schools. So, it’s the next generation. I’m not likely to get on a bike at my age; I did do when I was a child. So, that is where I think we need to focus our efforts, and we are doing so.

This particular scheme needs to go ahead and needs to go ahead quickly, and we should all be voting for it, and not having this side argument. Because this Council is totally, totally committed to all forms of active travel.

Cllr Andy Crump [8:57]

I think really, we need to take our residents with us. I’m not in favour of imposing anything on things, and having had three children, trying to impose something on children is quite challenging and difficult. So really, we need to take them with us.

There are many people we’ve not spoken about today. I had a disabled son. He wouldn’t have been able to ride a bike. We’ve got many people with disabilities. With my dodgy hip, I wouldn’t be able to go on a bike now, or if I did, I’d fall off. So, that’d be another road safety incident that I’m trying to reduce.

So, I think we do need to encourage safe and active travel. We need to make sure we’ve got safer routes to school. And some of these schemes, we’re bringing them in. But let’s look at them, let’s look at the evidence, let’s spend the money at the highest need, and then work down our list. Let’s make the most difference, get our priorities right, and make sure we take people with us.

We all know about parking around schools. We have parents who park around schools in such a way that’s really dangerous, yet complain about speeding, they complain about dangerous roads. So really, we need to persuade our people to work together. Let’s find something that’s suitable, but let’s spend our money wisely and where it makes the most difference in terms of impact on residents’ lives and impact on road safety.

So thank you very much.

About Eastboro Way

The Eastboro Way/Crowhill Road junction improvement scheme has come about due to the nearby development of the Sketchley Gardens housing estate. The scheme is entirely funded by the developer and costs £4.4m. It’s located just within a 30mph speed limit zone, but Eastboro Way itself is currently a 40mph zone and it is not uncommon to find vehicles exceeding the limit.

The road should provide a valuable link between the Whitestone area of Nuneaton around to St Nicholas Park avoiding the need to go into the town centre, but it’s only the brave who will cycle here, on a fast and wide road with heavy traffic if travelling at the “wrong” time. For pedestrian traffic, there is currently a narrow pavement on one side of the carriageway only. It’s about 1.5m in width with no further buffer to the carriageway, and it affords people walking and wheeling very limited space, particularly with people coming the other way.

There are attractions along the road, the most prominent of which is perhaps the local football ground. There is also a children’s play area, day nursery, and many employment opportunities. Cllr Tromans spoke about people walking to the football along Eastboro Way and considers it sufficient, but given the narrowness of the footpath, that the road is an important connection to industrial sites carrying mixed heavy traffic, and that the road may also be used as a through route from the A5 (via the A47) to the A444 at the south of the town, this is a poor assessment on his part. It shouldn’t need to be said from this evaluation, but this is not a pleasant place to walk, particularly if travelling in a group.

There is space on Eastboro Way for good quality cycling infrastructure and better pavements, perhaps with the exception of where the road crosses over bridges. Here, the short, momentary use of shared-use provision may be a suitable compromise in the absence of bridge widening. Otherwise, such a route could be designed and provided to high quality, fully seperated, and linking up with the A47 Long Shoot scheme that is in development.

Modal shift

On the argument about the lack of modal shift, it’s hardly a surprise. Nuneaton and Bedworth has a really poor cycling network. Bedworth is almost bereft of anything significant to speak of, and Nuneaton comprises a few shared off-road routes, shared carriageway routes, and painted lane infrastructure. The network is incoherent, full of conflict whether with pedestrians or drivers, and dangerous in many places.

Councillors seem to be suggesting that because there is minimal modal shift at present, there is no need or demand for better infrastructure. It’s a reactive position showing a distinct lack of leadership and desire for change. They are essentially expecting people to throw caution to the wind and ride regardless of the local environment and whether they feel safe, only after which could the notion of accommodating riders be entertained and routes built.

The cycle lane on Weddington Road

Cllr Golby cites the “cycle lane on Weddington Road”, suggesting that the lack of cyclists there is evidence that there is no demand for cycle lanes. She says “literally no-one uses it”, though this is provably false – I use it and have seen others doing so. But using this road as an example ignores the fact that Weddington Road is, for the vast majority of its length, covered only by painted-lane infrastructure and has a number of pinch-points which are a particular danger for driver-cyclist conflict. Paint offers no protection, and may in fact make cycling more hazardous by the perception of some drivers that because a cyclist is “in their lane”, they don’t need to move over and provide appropriate passing space. For the small parts of the road that may take riders off the main carriageway, they are given more narrow, winding, shared-use routes with multiple road crossing points, making travel unnecessarily slow and awkward, in conflict with pedestrians.

It’s hardly a surprise that few people may choose to cycle there. I do, but I have the confidence and experience to take the lane where necessary to discourage close passes at pinch points. Still though, being subject to incidents of careless driving is a fairly common occurence on this road, which is technically part of the National Cycle Network but is in no way safe enough for everyday use by all – I certainly do not allow my nine year old to ride there, despite this “wonderful” cycle lane that Cllr Golby is so keen to highlight. This would be an important family route. It connects to Weddington Walk to the north, passes sporting facilities, is useful for nearby schools, and is the main route connecting to the station and town centre.

Cllr Humphreys made some good points. She highlighted that on some roads in Nuneaton, cyclists are in danger from motor traffic. She noted heavy traffic flows including lorries. Unfortunately though, she seemed to do so whilst simultaneously writing off the borough for better infrastructure, saying the roads are too narrow for anything other than motor traffic, and that the focus should be on locations roughly five miles out, to enable people to cycle to school and for leisure.

There is, of course, plenty of opportunity for better infrastructure in Nuneaton and Bedworth, that would run right through both towns and protect riders of all ages from the dangers of that heavy traffic. It requires political commitment and leadership to enable that choice, something which is sadly and all too evidently lacking in a number of the borough’s and county’s elected representatives.

Urgency

We can also look at the urgency of providing better cycling infrastructure compared to the clear desire by councillors to get the junction improvement scheme underway as soon as possible,

Cllr Timms insisted that Warwickshire is “totally committed” to all forms of active travel, and listed a number of schemes being planned across the county as evidence of this, including the A47 Long Shoot in Nuneaton which has been a major subject of this blog for some time. That scheme has been in development since prior to February 2021 when the initial plans were released to the public for consultation. It has been subject to delay after delay with no evident urgency behind it. Similarly, the Nuneaton-Bedworth-Coventry scheme has been planned in some form since August 2018 – nearly five years ago – and still remains in the design phase with no clear indication that anything is to be built any time soon.

There is a clear lack of urgency in building the cycling schemes that the county has planned. Yet, when it comes to an expensive general roads improvement scheme designed for driving (albeit developer funded), with the only indication of support for active travel being the provision of pedestrian crossings, councillors are keen to get things moving as soon as possible – including Cllr Timms who spoke about how the scheme needs to “go ahead quickly”, and Cllr Tromans who said “the sooner we get on with it, the better”.

So, whilst it’s great that Warwickshire has a number of high-profile schemes in the pipeline, the glacial speed at which it develops them must call into question the commitment that the local authority and its councillors have to active travel. If it truly were “totally committed” to active travel, all new road schemes would be designed with good quality infrastructure with a view to building out a comprehensive, cohesive network. This is surely the best and most cost-effective way to go about it, not solely relying on high-profile retrofit schemes. Those are important and necessary of course, but as noted in the latest Fiets Podcast, if the road is being dug up anyway, it would make sense to provide for high quality active travel infrastructure at the same time.

Local priorities

Cllr Golby insists that active travel is not a priority for the residents she represents in Nuneaton, but I wonder about this. Are those residents asked, and if so, what is the question? She also states that the climate emergency is again not a priority, but that sounds dubious given the increasing urgency and coverage of the crisis. Maybe these are not issues that people speak of unprompted or specifically framed in terms of cycling, yet it’s easy to find people commenting about clogged up roads, new housing adding pressures on an already congested road network, the issues of some drivers’ behaviours at school run times, and general road safety. Active travel infrastructure helps with all of these, and the climate crisis too.

To be fair to Warwickshire Conservative councillors, not everyone appears to be quite so car-focused. Both Cllr Kerridge and Cllr Crump seemed to demonstrate more reasoned positions, and it’s important to highlight that because this isn’t specifically an anti-Conservative point. If such views were aired by other parties, they’d get similarly critical coverage. However, it is the case that it is local Conservatives, primarily those in Nuneaton, who appear to hold car-centric views, who fail to show leadership, and a vision for a better borough – despite the national Conservative government’s push for more active travel in recent years (the latest short-sighted funding cuts notwithstanding).

This is also not anti-car or anti-driving. Whilst I want to see fewer driven journeys, the car will remain an important mode of transport for the immediate future. It’s not about preventing people travelling through driving if they wish to do so. It’s about enabling the choice and providing equity on the road network which is there for everybody to get about, not just those who can and want to drive.

If there is a demand for better walking, wheeling, and cycling throughout the borough, residents need to speak up and insist upon it, because it seems without pressure from votors, certain Nuneaton and Bedworth councillors will continue to stick to the car-choked status quo.