- 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
news
BMX action (CC BY-SA 2.0 Klaus Friese|Flickr).jpgCouncillor claims planned Surrey Bike Park could attract child molesters
A councillor in Surrey has claimed that a planned bike park near Dorking could attract child molesters.
Mole Valley District Council’s scrutiny meeting discussed last week the council’s plans to outsource management of the BMX track at Ranmore Common, also a popular venue for mountain bikers with extensive trails, to an outside company.
It says that volunteers have helped cut back overgrown scrubland at the site in the past but are no longer able to do so, and the council does not have the budget to carry the work out itself.
The council says a group that runs mountain biking sessions at a local school has approached it with a view to taking on the management of the BMX track and investing in the facility – which will be branded Surrey Bike Park.
Users will pay for access to the facilities, with annual memberships available (Adult £125.00, Public Services (NHS/Forces) £100.00, Youth (Under 18) £90.00, Full Time Student £90.00 and Family 2 Adults 2 Children £305.00).
There will also be day passes for non-members (All day access –standard rate £10.00, After School – standard rate £5.00, All day access (concessionary) £7.50, After school access (concessionary) £3.75).
But Get Surrey reports that Professor Patricia Wiltshire, an independent councillor for Ashtead Common, raised concerns over the welfare of children using the track.
“If you've got adults there, and there will be a lot of adult males, and you have children, we know the problem of checking people,” she said. “They have to be checked because of dangers to children.
“All that sort of thing has to be considered because it could be really quite serious, and you never know it could end up children being molested, goodness knows what,” she continued. “I’m not saying it would but it’s that sort of possibility.
“I don’t think it’s for all ages and genders, I think it will be mostly male and probably quite aggressive males at that,” she added.
The councillor has been accused of making a “sweeping generalisation” by local resident Sarah Meijer, who said: “Saying there is most likely to be aggressive males is a sweeping generalisation,” she said.
“The idea that it would be full of aggressive males on the prowl and the possibility of child molestation was completely unfounded.
“I have always found the cycling community to be extremely friendly, welcoming and supportive.
“I and others were disgusted and offended by the remarks. It is this sort of subtle discrimination that often goes unchecked but needs to be stamped out,” she added.
Some locals, reportedly including members of Mole Valley Cycling Forum, have protested about the BMX track being turned into a paid facility.
But the council’s cabinet member for leisure, Councillor David Draper, said: “People want an adult presence there, they want the ability to repair bikes, they want first aid and they want training, all of which are positive additions.”
Councillor Wiltshire insisted after the meeting that she was reflecting the views of one local resident who had got in touch with her.
“It is unfortunate that my words have been interpreted negatively but I was genuinely trying to save the bike park for existing users to use freely,” she told Get Surrey.
The scrutiny committee voted against the plans, although the ultimate decision rests with the council’s cabinet.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 10 sec ago
RE: Sydney sign - isn't it "walk your (oversized) bike backwards"?
- Cugel 2 min 18 sec ago
Strangely, I've ridden all of those roads/routes you describe (and a lot more in Noerthern England) entirely without a gizmo of any kind, other...
- ktache 34 min 21 sec ago
Effective little things. Even have them on my Good Bike, my least reflectored. Still working through packs of them I got very cheap at Tesco.
- ktache 1 hour 11 min ago
Good picture too. But no squirrel...
- SimoninSpalding 3 hours 20 min ago
You could say the same for foam rollers and lots of other "massage " balls etc. In my experience you know when you get it in the right spot, and as...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 3 min ago
Which bit of "no mathematician here" did you not understand?! ...
- David9694 15 hours 7 min ago
One Stop in Evesham ram raided on Christmas Day by thieves https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/24821392.one-stop-evesham-ram-raide...
- Spangly Shiny 18 hours 22 min ago
Bullseye!
- chrisonabike 19 hours 14 min ago
Shurely "we have to build more housing! But developers won't build 'affordable housing'. And where can we find land anyway (lots of nimbys)?"...
- hawkinspeter 23 hours 56 min ago
I've noticed previously that it can take a couple of hours for the post to show up in the forum posts section, but if it's not appearing at all,...
Add new comment
50 comments
I think the main problem here is the quality of the information supplied in the post.
"Popular venue with MTBers" - "Extensive trails" ??
Seriously? Has someone looked into it?
The area is roughly 3 acres. I am not sure £125 PA or even £5 conc. would be justified for what would be essentially an outdoor treadmill for two wheels. Even more so if you consder that the "real" popular area with MTBers and roadies is only a couple of miles down the road with the fantastic Leith Hill freely accessible, mixed range of trails...let me repeat for those not familiar with the area: 2 miles down the road there are miles of free trails, in the woods, where people from all over the SE already have tons of fun. Why would they pay to get into a pump track/treadmill with a couple of tracks.
One reason, one could say, is for practising, I guess.
And here is one of the arguments of contention: the developers plan is for what? Has anyone, including the editor and the people commenting seen the plans? Did you look at the costing? What's it going to be primarily: MTB or BMX? What about the kids with their Halfords 16/20" that currently take their new present there to learn to ride with mum and dad? How would this type of usage, which now represents the primary use of the area together (with people simply walking) be managed to accomodate all skills levels?
If one cares to investigate you'd find out that there is no such info in the current proposal; that is one of the resons why a lot of residents are opposed to it. As it stands this project is laughable; the costing is preposterous; it discriminates against the younger and poorer. Anyone would be welcome to come up with a proper plan for improving the site from what it is but this project simply isn't it. Just look it up.
The fact that, on a site like Road CC, only the bigoted, preposterous judgement of one individual that is opposed to the park was hghlighted to initiate a potentially constructive conversation makes me sad and is simply, to quote one of my favourite artists, "a sign of the times".
Now let me go back on the saddle to sweat out some of my grief.
A site that routinely generates it's content by finding cycling-related content from elsewhere and copying it more or less wholesale found a cycling-related story on another site and copied it more or less wholesale. How is that a sign of anything?
First and only post, a verbose pile of anti-cycling prejudice. Did you sign up just to post this crap?
"....that is one of the resons why a lot of residents are opposed to it." A lot; as in yourself, you and your shadow.
"....it discriminates against the younger and poorer." Like you care, you just hate the thought of it being used by cyclists who might actually enjoy it.
Look! Over there! A rock with your name on it! Do the honourable thing and stay underneath it.
If you look at the entire history of the 'proposal' you will see that the proposal on the table is entirely not fit for purpose. The headlise should say 'councillors vote to save local BMX track from privatisation'.
"a verbose pile of anti-cycling prejudice" - So, we have a cyclist (you), virtuous protector of the "cycling fraternity" and a "verbose", "prejudiced" entity of no defined identity, probably a non-cyclist (me), that you want to stone, basically:
"A rock with your name on it! "
Wow! Impressive reasoning skills. I wonder how you relate to all the other millions of non-cyclists of this world.
"Did you sign up just to post this crap?" - Ad hominem fallacy.
"A lot; as in yourself, you and your shadow." - Ad hominem fallacy.
In case though you or anybody else is interested in the actual figures they can be consulted here:
https://www.molevalley.gov.uk/sites/default/files/9-bmx-park.pdf
"Like you care, you just hate the thought of it being used by cyclists who might actually enjoy it." - Ad hominem fallacy.
Bigotry can be evident, as in the case mentioned in the post, or more subtle, as in eburtthebike's reply to my comment. However, bigotry, luckly, does not stand the test of logical reasoning.
Personally I just hope that the decision making process will be less impulsive.
Socrati? Is that you again?
you hit the nail on the head!
Councillor/Professor Patricia Wiltshire has previous
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/10/04/ian-huntley-patricia-wiltshire-sur...
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/internal-investigation-carr...
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/surrey-councillor-says-gay-...
I am an active member of a BMX club. The track is owned by the council, but is maintained and operated by the club. We pay a membership fee, and a fee for coaching, gates practice and racing. It adds up, but all the coaches are volunteers, as are the marshalls etc on race day. However, the track is open and free to use when not in use by the club. We can go anytime we like to ride. It's an amazing facility that everyone can use. We are lucky that we have so many volunteers, that can maintain it to the standard its at. Our club was featured in last weeks BC news email for the work we do to promote the sport to women. Unfortunately a lot of tracks have had to be fenced off and closed to the general public due to vandalism. I think possibly the club structure might be better for the inclusivity of it all, but whatever works. I'm ignoring her bigotory
Me too and my club also uses an open track. If your track is the one I saw mentioned in the BC newsletter, then I've ridden/raced at yours too and I've got some good mates at your club.
There were two lads on electric scooters the other day riding our track. I asked them if they could please stop, explaining the low decks of their scooters tear the tops off the jumps. One did and the other turned full on entitlement, telling me he had every right to be there. I get fed up with people like him and I had to bite my tongue. Luckily his mate took him away.
Using this idiotic logic shouldn't we just ban kids from leaving the house? Can't have everyone's rights being infringed because something might happen otherwise.
Seconded!
If it saves one child™...
So ... here we have a neglected facility that the council wants to let someone else take over and run because they don't have the resources to do so, but others don't want that to happen because the proposed new managers want to generate the resources to look after it properly by asking users to pay to use it.
Do current users of the site want to pay to use it or lose it forever? That seems to be the choice.
And, yes, I did choose to ignore the facile, sexist nonsense about child molesters. Thank you for asking.
"I don’t think it’s for all ages and genders, I think it will be mostly male and probably quite aggressive males at that,” she added."
Professor Patricia Wiltshire, you are an idiot sexist, and should immediately resign.
Someone who associates cyclists with being agreesive is likely a bad driver. I've never experienced any agression from any cyclist ever, whetehr I've been walking, cycling or driving. But a certain type of driver has a perception that all cyclists are foaming at the mouth.
It's probably because they're the ones that risk peoples life and knock them off, then are surprised tehy get sworn at....
"ooooh, those cyclists are all over the road, I had to swerve several times before I hit 'im"
"I first noticed the angry faced lycra-clad tour de France wannabe as he bounced off the bonnet of my car"
"They're sooooooo angry all the time"
But a certain type of driver has a perception that all cyclists are foaming at the mouth
It's not just cyclists! I went to a Magistrates' Court for the first time last Monday. The security staff, severely overmanned, insisted on confiscating my cycling helmet. It couldn't just stay in the bag like my bike tools and suspect waterproof jacket- it had to stay down in reception! Presumably, a self-incriminating member of the above-noted FATM faction, might leap at the bench and attack them with the terrifying expanded polystyrene weapon. Reminds me of the Fosdyke Saga (anecdote for the elderly only) where they're discussing Hara-Kiri with a 'kitchen imprement' and a Fosdyke says 'it's going to be a long, messy job with an egg-whisk, mother'
Considering that the site has been neglected and has had idiots on quad bikes and dirt bikes ripping up the trails, I think the offer by the MTB crew to take over the facility is a really good one. I'd heard of these trails but never ridden them. I wouldn't mind doing so though.
The councillor has a screw loose.
When I was a kid the 'stranger danger' we were warned about always came from dirty old men in cars, so I propose that no more car parks are built in case it leads to a rise in paedophilia.
Who is going to protect these children from uncle Derek ?
If only there were stats on the over whelming group of people who do abuse children.
Reminds of a letter. "I am no longer able to give my neighbour's son a lift to hockey due to new rules. However, after our respective matches have finished, I look forward to standing stark bollock naked next to him in the shower."
If I was the SCC safeguarding lead, I would have a word here as this sort of intervention is unhelpful and only distracts from where the real issue and work is.
Why on Earth is she playing this card here - it's desperate stuff.
And her 'defence' is that one person raised it as a concern.
Does that mean that no filtering is required? I mean mob rule has occured due to people failing to understand the difference between paediatrician and paedophile.
Other things that should be closed because they attract a high concentration of children, and thus may attract child molesters like lions to a waterhole:
Don't forget maternity hospitals
Better not build any more play parks in the country in that case. We should close down legoland and stop wilkos selling their pick n mixes while we're at it. No more playing fields for football.
Unless you lock kids up inside whenever they're not at school then nonces will find a way to prey on them. Focus on protecting when they're out having fun rather than limiting them.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/ex-horley-councillor-david-...
Not as though the council don't have form in the area.
Council staff have to be trained in safeguarding and protecting vulnerable people in their care and facilities. This council property is now being discussed to be transferred to private property so I suspect the discussion was on making sure they know their responsbilities in that area. (Although as they already work in schools, they should be upto par as schools wouldn't associate with them otherwise).
However her 'agressive men on bikes' totally overshadows the valid point she had made.
The track is actually pretty local to me - hardly anyone knew it was there until there was a question of putting it in private hands. I'm sure if the proposal was to build tennis courts on the site we wouldn't beeing NIMBY BS like this.
It's not maintained, is pretty rough (used to have loads of broken glass mashed into the surface) and is not far short of out & out dangerous. But yeah sure, won't somebody please think of the children!
Me too! Whereabouts on Ranmore is this?
https://goo.gl/maps/wAK8zFusvmAJgyLj7
Pages