Cycling UK has written to Derbyshire County Council to call for the publication of a risk assessment which justifies banning cyclists and walkers from Snake Pass, a decision the council said was “because of concerns over safety”. If no risk assessment exists, the charity says the road should be immediately reopened to active travel users.
The scenic climb, which lies within the Peak District National Park and carries the A57 between Sheffield and Manchester, became a car-free “cycling utopia” after it was closed to motor vehicles at the end of February while repairs were carried out on a small section of the road in the aftermath of landslides caused by storms Eunice and Franklin.
> Snake Pass now “belongs to cyclists” as Peak District climb closed to motorists for at least a month
However, last week Derbyshire County Council confirmed that the pass, which runs for 12 miles from Ladybower Reservoir to Glossop, would also be closed to cyclists and walkers, except for local access.
The council claimed that the road was closed due to fears that “there will be an accident involving a vehicle and a cyclist because of the large numbers of cyclists that have taken the opportunity to go out and ride the road.”
The council also said that the road would be monitored 24 hours a day to prevent people using it.
The closure of the road to active travel users prompted accusations that it was an “anti-cyclist decision dressed up cheaply as health and safety”, with many cyclists pointing out that, without cars, Snake Pass was safer than it had ever been.
Last Saturday an estimated 60-strong group of cyclists protested the ban by taking part in a mass trespass – dubbed the ‘Snake Trespass’ – on the closed section of the A57. Another protest on the road is scheduled for 2pm tomorrow.
> Closure of Snake Pass to bike riders described as an ‘anti-cyclist decision dressed up cheaply as Health and Safety’
Earlier today, charity Cycling UK called on the council to re-allow cycling and walking on Snake Pass if it could not provide evidence of justifiable risk caused by the state of the road.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns said: “In the absence of a risk assessment, the council’s banning of people cycling and walking along a motor traffic-free stretch of road is baffling.
“Cycling UK calls on the council to publish their risk assessment justifying the ban, and if there isn’t any, to open-up the road to these activities for the enjoyment of families and others once more.”
> Snake Pass protest: Cyclists reclaim car-free route
The charity also questioned the council’s apparent newfound concern for the safety of cyclists and walkers on the road, at a time when the danger to them is greatly reduced.
“The Snake Pass has always been popular with people cycling, and the lack of cars has only increased its popularity. Bringing in a cycling and walking ban when these activities’ greatest risk – motor vehicles – is significantly reduced does not make sense,” Dollimore said.
“The council should be looking to manage the greatest risk on the road and taking suitable precautions.
“An outright ban however is not the answer, and should only be considered if the whole 12 miles of the road’s substructure is unsafe, not one small stretch.”
> It’s not just cyclists loving the Snake Pass closure – local residents do too thanks to the peace and quiet
Though the initial Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is set to expire on 22 March, the repairs are yet to be fully completed, with the council therefore likely to extend the ban on road users on the A57.
Cycling UK believes that the ban’s extension offers the council an opportunity to rethink its stance on active travel on Snake Pass, benefitting the whole community.
“If the risk assessment shows there is no danger to walkers and cyclists in using the unaffected stretches of the Snake Pass, Cycling UK would urge Derbyshire County Council to rethink its position,” said Mr Dollimore.
“Opening up a wonderful, if temporary asset, can only benefit the whole community’s wellbeing.”
Cycling UK’s letter to Derbyshire County Council can be read in full here.
Add new comment
8 comments
Locally, I've noticed that small road repairs are much more likely to result in country road closures - gone are the days of a couple of blokes wandering around aimlessly with bucket and spade.
In part it is a real health and safety risk because drivers cannot be trusted to drive appropriately.
The side effect is that routes for cyclists can be heavily disrupted - a 5 mile detour, especially if an unusable major road is involved, is not unusual. We have HS2, and the last road closure was a full 2 metre fence across the road - and nothing else. We walked round after chatting to the cyclists who had arrived at it from the other end.
TBF, most workmen are fine if you chat politely with them - and most road closures do not ban pedestrians, which cyclists can transform into in an instant, which needs a different process to closing to cars, and of course they have to maintain access. We would have chatted on Thursday, but we didn't want to wake the watchman up.
In Milton Keynes, in the TTRO Guidance, they specifically state that pedestrians should be given access at all times. The same expectation of access that should be provided to emergency services.
Not that the council officers understand that when I asked them about it. One even said, well it depends whether there's a pavement or not, there's no pedestrians on that road as there's no pavement!
Thanks for that info. Could be very useful.
While we're all going to be intersted in the council's response, I can't wait to hear what they say about this point from the CUK letter:
"5. How the council concludes that people cycling up or down the Snake Pass are now more at risk now from people in motor vehicles, when motor traffic is substantially reduced, than they were when the road was fully open to all motor traffic"
I'm guessing that it will be "HGVs will not be expecting traffic."
To which the answer should be, "So if I am a cyclist who lives on the road, it is going to be acceptable to be run over accessing my property?"
"So if I am a cyclist who lives on the road, it is going to be acceptable to be run over accessing my property?"
Of course! You're a cyclist and you're in the way of a motorist at his legitimate pursuit of 'to boldly put the foot down'. What other fate can you expect?
I can imagine two axiomatically deduced risks (ie not actually assessed or evaluated wider than a senior officer's decision on the matter):
There is no reason to assume that either group would suddenly abandon sensible road safety rules, although it is a reasonable risk. In particular, the prolific use of signs indicates that signs are quite in order, warning each group of the other, and to continue to enable safe use of the road by limited user groups.
That also then allows an assessment of the use by walkers and cyclists of the specific section of the road that has failed, which could take into account: closed-off construction activities; the likelihood of further collapse; and the suitability of localised detours.
And once they've done that, could they publish the evidence that allowing the cars back again will make it safer once more for the cyclists to return.