- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Surrey residents fume as closed roads trap them during RideLondon 100 (image Prudential RideLondon)Plan to get more people cycling in Surrey gains approval but critics call for curbs on races and sportives
Plans to provide facilities and training for for everyday cycling in Surrey's Mole Valley, which includes the towns of Leatherhead and Dorking and the cyclist magnet that is Box Hill, have been used by some locals to once again criticise the growth in the number of cycling events in the area. Either that or some people really can't tell the difference between a 30,000-rider sportive and kids riding their bikes to school.
On Wednesday, September 10, Surrey County Council's Mole Valley Local Committee unanimously approved the Mole Valley Local Cycling Plan, according to GetSurrey.co.uk.
The aims of the plan include: "encourage the take-up of cycling as a means of sustainable transport" and "promote and encourage cycling as part of a sustainable and healthy lifestyle".
The plan has been warmly welcomed by local cycling groups.
Dan Webb of B-Spoke, a group which provides guided mountain bike rides for 10 to 16-year-olds in Dorking, told the Dorking and Leatherhead Advertiser: "Mole Valley and the wider Surrey county have demonstrated, over the last few years, they've been very cycle friendly and keen to accommodate cyclists in the area and encourage it.
"With all the events like the professional races and Ride100 coming through the area I think they're doing a great job and it's good to see them looking to continue that."
Surrey's cycling strategy was open for public consultation between September and November 2013 and received 3,647 responses including 764 (21%) from Mole Valley, which makes up just 7% of Surrey’s population.
Of those who responded, 68% agreed with the overarching aim of the strategy: “more people in Surrey cycling more safely”.
Mole Valley residents said that they felt that more cycle routes and cycle parking provision and better information on cycle routes would encourage residents to take up cycling. Most agreed with the proposed approach to cycle routes, with traffic calming measures highlighted as the most popular means of improving cycling infrastructure.
Residents' concerns around cycling related to heavy and fast traffic, the inconsiderate behaviour of motorists toward cyclists, lack of suitable cycle routes and cyclists not obeying the Highway Code.
But this wouldn't be Surrey without some Mole Valley residents also complaining about the disruption caused by cycling events, associated road closures and the number of sportives occurring on public roads, and that's mentioned as a concern in the plan.
Mole Valley Local Committee agreed that their recommendations had been included in the report and that it addressed the needs of the different range of cyclists in Mole Valley. They recommended the plan be adopted by Mole Valley District Council.
The plan's eight priorities mostly deal with transport and recreational cycling, but you wouldn't know that given the reactions from some Mole Valley residents reported by GetSurrey.
Cycling racing on the road is not mentioned at all in the plan, but that didn't stop Chris Carlisle, parish councillor for Holmbury St Mary from telling GetSurrey he was worried about races.
He said: “I have concerns about the sheer number of cycling events and organised races in the Surrey Hills area that has escalated since just before the Olympics.
“The way the sport has taken off recently has put the Surrey Hills under real pressure.
"It is a huge number of cyclists in quite a small area often going in opposite directions which is very dangerous.
“The roads around the Surrey Hills are not made for huge numbers of cyclists, who as we all know, do not have a speed limit, so a cyclist can do 40mph when the speed limit is 20, which I don’t think is right either.”
Carlisle has campaigned against the number of cycling events in the area and thinks cyclists should be subject to tax, insurance and registration.
Ian Huggins, who was responsible for last year's notorious 'Stop Surrey Being Turned Into a Cycle Track' petition, also focused on cycle racing.
He said: “Nobody would deny that it would benefit the population to get more exercise or to use bicycles to travel to work or go to the shops. However, the truth is our Olympic legacy has nothing to do with the aims of SCC transport policy.
“We suffer from a massive increase in the number of road races being held throughout the Surrey Hills every week.
“Last year there was 307 race events in the Box Hill area of Surrey and this has had an adverse impact on the local community.
"More than 3,500 signed my petition against making Surrey into a race track, that shows the depth of feeling in the community.”
In 2011 the population of Surrey was estimated to be 1,135,500.
The transport section of the Mole Valley Community Plan 2006-2016 says: "There are more cars per mile of road in Surrey than any other shire county in England1 (1.7 times as high as the second busiest county)".
Perhaps bikes really aren't the problem in Surrey.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- don simon fbpe 3 sec ago
You disagree with something I say and that makes me a cunt, eh? Intelligent.
- RichT84 3 hours 8 min ago
Came here for comments on the Gloria frameset and got one of the most pedantic arguments on grammar and editorial standards ever instead. Road.cc...
- brooksby 3 hours 17 min ago
If they've built a shiny new bidirectional cycle lane and yet more people are seen cycling on the road then something is wrong with the shiny new...
- brooksby 3 hours 21 min ago
Don't forget angry residents' fear that more children will start riding through the park, sowing chaos and fear or something....
- ktache 6 hours 13 min ago
I watched that video too, not as intriguing as the lever.
- mattsccm 9 hours 16 min ago
I have to assume that the cyclist wasn't thick enough to just change lanes without looking. Not a small puddle so I guess that they saw it and...
- Simon E 10 hours 10 min ago
Being a titchy lightweight I find the minimum pressures shown on bike tyres are considerably higher than I would use....
- Simon E 10 hours 24 min ago
Bruyneel saying publicly that Boonen "should shut up" is all you need to know about both Bruyneel and the doping regime at his team. Dirty in both...
- Barraob1 10 hours 36 min ago
I like it because it's a bit different, but it's way out of my price range. Wonder if it will take off, or will we be talking about in 15 years...
- kingleo 10 hours 45 min ago
Cyclists used the roads before cars - it was cyclists who petitioned the government to put a hard surface on our roads.
Add new comment
30 comments
England is a pretty big country. There are a lot of county's that could host cycling events and profit from them if only they would get there finger out.
I do feel sorry for the people of Surrey, apart from the constant events taking place, it's the trail of rubbish and phlegm and the scent of urine and other body waste.
i agree, there are too many organised events in the area. Bloody boxhill. there are plenty of other great climbs, just because people want to get in their sky kit and pretend to be wiggins.....just go for a ride without paying for it, its liberating.
"often going in opposite directions which is very dangerous."
No, er, wait, I go in opposite directions to cars. Cars go in opposite direction to other cars. I think I can manage going in the opposite direction to another cyclist. Unless it's Ladies Team GB, in which case I'm cycling off the road and into a ditch.
“so a cyclist can do 40mph”
The only way I'm doing 40mph is cycling out the back of a plane on a BMX with a parachute on my back. Some weird shit on my bucket list.
Bull fucking shit.
I've scanned the whole report, and frankly it's a waste of paper (or pdf).
It seems to be about twenty pages of mostly pointless attempts to accommodate every local who has ever complained about cycling, and a whole lot of empty promises to "encourage", "support" and "enhance", without any actual actions that would make a blind bit of difference being committed to.
The most obvious thing they could do today in the Mole Valley, is review the many narrow lanes that are still national speed limit. There's not a single mention of speed limits in the whole document.
It looks like any proposals for new infrastructure won't appear until next September, after another year of "liaising with stakeholders."
Everyone involved in putting that together deserves to be shouted at by Chris Boardman, they're bloody useless.
I hate to say it, but there's a lot of truth to that. Of a weekend, the Surrey hills are full of club riders and others on leisure rides. During the week, the number of cyclists commuting or going about their day to day business is tiny in comparison.
It's the opposite of London, but out in the greenbelt it would seem for now cycling really is just golf.
Including time trials, sportives and the like it is in fact possible for there to be that many events. Some weekends there apperas to be one event after another in the Box Hill area.
This is why Surrey County Council asked for legislation to regulate these events.
TTs and races are regulated. TTs are very unlikely to cause disruption as they're either on the A24 dual carriageway or early on a Sunday morning.
I must admit to having mixed feelings about the number of sportives and the fact that they aren't regulated. Too many people seem to have hit upon the idea of charging people to ride on public roads in order to make a quick buck. Turn up at a local club and they'll take you for a nice ride in sensible sized groups and also it's a place to learn how not to ride like a nob.
totally agree with the knob comment....
join a club, learn some skills and learn that your paid for meander round the lanes (otherwise know as a sportive) is not a race....
As racing secretary for the nearest cycling club to Box Hill I would love to hear about these 307 races on my doorstep. Then again, perhaps "Box Hill area" means Western Europe?
As far as I know there is only one road race (The London Surrey Classic) that uses Zig Zag Road. There are a number of sportives (which are not races) that do, but as it is a private road, the organisers have to pay the National Trust to use it, which goes towards upkeep of the road surface, which is damaged by cars not bikes.
Most TTs in the area are on dual carriageways and are finished before 9am at weekends. There are no open TTs that use the Zig Zag and only a handful of club events as far as I know.
I agree that sportives need to be regulated though, and in fact, so do British Cycling.
BC also thinks that increasing sport cycling will somehow make utility cycling better, and their call for sportives to be regulated only came after a clash in Yorkshire between a sportive and a divisional road race, BOTH which were registered with BC and in their events calendar.
BC needs to learn their arse from their elbow frankly.
Why so you think organised bike rides need to be regulated? Do you think club runs should be regulated? How about a group of friends out for a spin together or a family trundling down a canal path? Would you regulate motor events such as the large groups of motorcycles which ride around the dales on a weekend? what about classic car rallies, car owners club get togethers, 4 x 4 convoys driving between green lanes? What would be your criteria for regulating an event? numbers, paying to be there? just being on a bike? Should the little charity fundraiser than rides the near deserted lanes around here on a Saturday morning in November need permisson from some bureaucrat at the BC office who thinks cycling should be confined to riding round in circles, indoors, and with the velodrome climate control set just as he likes it? How much would regulation cost? What would the money be used for? Should everyone who takes part in a sportive be a BC or club member? Is there any benefit to regulation or is it just the natural urge of clubsecretaryofficialdom to have more people to wander amongst with a clipboard ticking boxes and feeling important?
Why did you feel the need to descend into ad hominem at the end?
A lot of effort goes into organising a road race, including notifying the police well in advance, booking NEG moto marshals, commissaires, etc, putting up signs around the course to notify residents and users of the roads in advance, and these days, meeting residents' groups to explain the format and how we try to minimise impact.
If I have done all that (for no profit) and the police find out a sportive is running on the same roads, or possibly even other roads nearby, they will tell me to cancel the race because they can't tell the sportive organiser to do so, no matter if the sportive was first announced months after my race was in the calendar.
The number of large sportives in Surrey is causing problems for road racing and time trialling as people confuse them with sportives, as you can see by Huggins's comments, despite road races and TTs having been run here for years without really being noticed.
Of course I don't think club runs should be regulated, nor small charity events (which are also being affected here by the large commercial events). Number of riders probably should be a criterion for whether permission or notification is needed. As for cost, it shouldn't be much: road race entry fees are much lower than most sportives (commercial ones at any rate) and there are fewer riders to share the costs plus motorbike marshals and ambulances, etc, to pay for.
Just to back this up, not sure about your lot but I've been to talk to Mole Valley Police on behalf on our club to explain what we do and what we're up to. For the club run, group sizes are kept to a reasonable size, each group has an official leader (which covers the BC affiliation insurance requirement as they are a club official) and that leader will make an effort not to cause unnecessary problems.
If you get 3,000 people riding a route, unregulated, unaccompanied then yes there could be issues. 5 mates riding together ... less likely (except that someone is going to be Billy No Mates at the back).
I'm sure veteran car rallies like L2B do liaise with police.
British Cycling and cliquey clubs do not own cycling and have no business telling people where or when they can ride, who they ride with or what they wear whilst doing it.
BC and clubs need to get used to lots of ordinary people riding bikes and enjoying riding without any need of the approval or regulation of their organisations.
I am a member of the CTC as well as the IAM and RAC. The first to support a cycling charity that does a lot of good advocacy work for cyclists, the second because I get a massively reduced car insurance premium and the third for Breakdown cover. They all represent their members in various ways and they allow government to consult sensibly with people that are experts on various aspects of road use and have a view that the government ought to be aware of.
Don't join if you don't want to. Don't follow any of their advice if you don't choose to. Do your own thing, that's fine. But they have every right to represent their members and to lobby for their interests, they have every right to offer advice to their member and other road users (who have every right to ignore it).
If the fact that an increase in large sportives being usually for profit private business ventures (nothing wrong with that) are resulting in councils like Surrey seeking extra powers to regulate all mass cycling activities such as club TTs and club runs then that will have an impact on the freedom with which local clubs have operated responsibly for about 100 years in some cases. That regulation is a legitimate concern and interest for BC (as it sets a precedent for other counties) for the CTC and for local clubs represented by BC.
I don't know where you came across the idea that because you don't like what people or organisations say or do that they have no business saying it, but it's extraordinarily self absorbed.
It isn't what they say that is the problem, it is what they wish to do, which is to take on power over cycling activities which are presently beyond their control. It is not self absorbed to want to resist becoming part of some power grab by a body unhappy that so much of the growth of what it sees as its own sport is taking place outside its jurisdiction. BC has no more right to tell me when and where I can ride my bike or whom with than British Athletics has to tell me whether I can go for a run tonight. BC and the clubs should keep their grubby hands off of my cycling
One thing to be aware of for the next 3 months or so: water mains work means that Pebble Hill Road will be closed. I strongly suspect that will mean an increase in cars on Box Hill. This could lead to interesting interactions.
Anyone interested in joining a "car sportive" in the area? Get 3,000 cyclists to drive round a route in their cars - displaying club colours of course.
“Last year there was 307 race events in the Box Hill area of Surrey and this has had an adverse impact on the local community."
That's a race every day for 10 months. Really????
Merely an observation that calling people names is not likely to get them onside. No matter how light hearted is intended to be.
NIMPR is better Not In My Private Road
Mr Freespirit1 really cannot let a good anti-cyclist story go by without sticking his oar in can he?
Time for a new hobby for him perhaps.
Have you been barricaded in your house by cyclists recently?
Mr Stevenson really cannot let a good story go by without using the phrase NIMBYs can he?
Time for a new word for him perhaps.
Headline now changed 14:20.
Many thanks.
There does seem to be a lot of sportives in Surrey.
I'm not anti-sportive by any means, but those roads are over used, and I do feel a little sorry for the local residents.
Quick edit of Chris Carlisle's comments
“The way the driving has taken off over the last few decades has put the Surrey Hills under real pressure.
"There are huge number of cars in quite a small area often going in opposite directions which is very dangerous.
“The roads around the Surrey Hills are not made for huge numbers of cars, as we all know, most rural roads do not have a speed limit, and where they are in place they are routinely ignored which I don’t think is right either.”
I cycle to Dorking From Farnham and back most days 20 miles each way. it takes me 20 - 25 mins longer each way than when I take my car. That's mainly because I regularly pass vehicles in Puttenham that I see pass me again 7 or 8 miles later. The things clogging up the roads are the cars most times going in opposite directions to each other. I tend to ride past them.
If roads not made for the 'large number of cyclists' then they probably aren't right for the large number of motorists either...
There are plenty of other places welcoming cyclists with open arms, like the New Forest. erm....
I'm not aware of the number of races increasing. Sportives, maybe.
Oh - I tell a lie. I am putting on an extra TT next year.
"It is a huge number of cyclists in quite a small area often going in opposite directions which is very dangerous."
Stupid cyclists need to make up their mind which way they are going. Maybe it's time to come up with a system where cyclists going opposite directions can pass each other without hitting each other, like IDK the bigger bike bunny hops the smaller bike.
No, you mean those white broken lines in the middle of the road. They do that job quite well. I think that's what the residents driving 2 tonne metal boxes use.
I wish all of society was so comfortable from a social and environmental point of view that the only concern people have is how many cyclists there are on the roads. Get a f*cking grip.