- 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
Tree huggers protest Binley Cyclway in Coventry (gilly_t_photography, Karron Gibson on Facebook)“They just don’t want a cycleway”: Campaigners criticised for staging country’s largest tree hug to block “destructive” bike lane plans — while suggesting it could be built by “lighting up” nature reserve
Campaigners keen to block plans for a cycle lane and save 26 trees from felling despite the local authority’s claim that new trees would be planted in their place, have had their “credentials for protecting nature” questioned after it was revealed that some of them had asked for the bike lane — proposed to be built across the driveway — to be moved to the top of a nearby nature reserve which could be “lit up”.
The uproar has been caused due to the construction works for the last stretch of the Binley Cycleway in Coventry, with the 6 km-long route connecting the city centre to University Hospital. However, it would mean that 26 trees on Clifford Bridge Road would have to be cut down.
In August, the council had said that the felled trees would be replaced with 32 new trees and a range of low-growing plants. However, the opposition against the cycleway, which materialised in November last year with a petition and has continued to trickle on in the last twelve months — with even Sir David Attenborough offering his blessing in a bizarre turn of events — reached another headline-grabbing point when campaigners got together to stage the UK’s largest tree hug this weekend.
The BBC reports that a total of 703 people were needed to break the record, but more than 900 people showed up, with organisers saying they were “absolutely stunned” by the turnout. They added that the event demonstrated how people felt about the “beautiful trees”, and demanded an alternative route be drawn up for the cycle lane that was “less destructive”.
However, former West Midlands Cycling and Walking Commissioner Adam Tranter has called their motives into question, instead suggesting that the protest to save the trees could be a smokescreen to deflect from some of the resident’s wishes to simply not have the cycle lane built there.
“I think it is worth noting that previous designs of the cycleway instead narrowed general traffic lanes and moved parking, leaving trees as they are, but these were also ‘rejected’,” Tranter said. “I am afraid, the truth is, they just don’t want a cycleway.”
“To avoid having a cycleway along Clifford Bridge Road, campaigners also suggested to me that we build the cycleway on top of a nearby nature reserve - and light it up - which perhaps casts some doubt on their credentials for protecting nature.”
The UK's largest tree hug in Coventry with 925 people, listed in Alternative Book of Records (gilly_t_photography on Facebook)
The original plans for the Binley Cycleway did not include the removal of the 26 trees. However, Coventry City Council was forced to redesign the scheme three times due to complaints from locals about reduced parking provisions along the road and the proposed narrowing of lanes for motorists.
Tranter added on Twitter: “Earlier versions did retain them [the trees], but they were campaigned against by the same people as forcefully as this revised design. The earlier design could have been built by now and safely and sustainably get people to and from the hospital.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I would build the original design which retains the trees but moves parking and narrows the carriageway. It will, of course, still not please the campaigners.”
Binley Cycleway, Coventry (Coventry City Council)
The tree hug marks another chapter in the long-running battle waged by the anti-cycle lane campaigners. Dawn McCann, a local who helped organise the tree hug and set up an online petition calling for the cycle lane plans to be blocked, had said last year that cyclists will be like “sitting ducks”, under threat from the people reversing their cars into the driveways.
“At the moment cars reverse on the pavement,” McCann said at a council meeting. "When you build the cycle lane, they will have to reverse across a footpath and a cycleway onto Clifford Bridge Road. Even if you reverse on Clifford Bridge Road [into the drive], between parked cars you don’t know if a bike’s coming."
“The visibility thing has been the main thing that the Clifford Bridge Road residents are worried about, I don't know how you get round that,” she added. “If you're reversing out across [the cycle lane] with a bike aiming at you at 30, it doesn’t matter how many times you look, there are going to be collisions.”
Another resident said that the plan to cut down the trees as part of the cycleway’s construction came at “too high a cost” and will “cause irreversible damage to the local environment”.
It all took a turn for the unexpected in September when the campaigners found an unlikely ally in none other than Sir David Attenborough — the veteran broadcaster and environmental campaigner writing to an 11-year-old boy advising him on how to stage a protest to halt the protected bike lane’s construction, remarking that it would be a “shame” if the city council went ahead with plans to cut down 26 trees.
“I can well understand your reaction on hearing of the council’s plan to fell the trees you describe,” the 98-year-old told the schoolboy, before suggesting that he contact the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust for help with his campaign. “They may be able to advise you on how to organise a protest.”
Responding to the tree hug demonstration, Coventry City Council said: “The trees advertised for removal on Clifford Bridge Road are primarily in average condition with limited usable lifespan, and some are Ash trees affected by Ash dieback.
“Trees are an important part of moving towards net zero [carbon], and we will plant more trees than we remove.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 42 min 53 sec ago
This for me from cycling Santa this morning:
- wtjs 3 hours 59 min ago
In SE London, psychopath riders are the majority of people on bicycles Oh dear! another festive stealth anti-cyclist ☃️
- wtjs 4 hours 4 min ago
Well, you know the BMW drivers' saying: knock that house (hospital, social housing, care home, hospital...) down, could save 30 seconds on the trip!
- belugabob 4 hours 58 min ago
“It’s all very well to spend millions on facilities but if there’s no money for maintenance, it’s a waste of public money."...
- Spangly Shiny 5 hours 39 min ago
I had the pleasure of owning two of the featured builders here, in my history. When I joined the Army in 1971, I took with me my curly Hetchins:...
- Username 6 hours 44 min ago
Could Siobhán paint it red and noone would notice it?
- Spangly Shiny 21 hours 34 min ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 23 hours 55 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 1 day 43 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 1 day 2 hours ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
Add new comment
23 comments
I reckon the residents should be given some more options:
1. Accept cycleway and replace dying trees with new ones
2. Make Clifford Bridge Road into an LTN by putting a barrier half-way down.
3. Volunteer to upgrade Clifford Bridge Road into an A-Road with preference for LGV traffic.
I am very envious of their car-parking provision - front gardens and protected parking spaces the whole way down. Luxury. The council - which is probably skint - is leaving money on the table - they should enact fee-d parking permits in the area immediately (plus extra charge for the extra amenity the trees provide).
Yes - or:
4. Either give up some of your
paved frontagefront garden (ha) for a cycle path, or accept a narrower road and less car parking (perhaps we keep the trees on one side, and replace / move(?) the ones from the other but the on-street parking goes.Per my other ramble I think the Dutch would (if motor traffic levels / speed were high - which it sounds like) do 1. However they have realised just ultimately they need to reduce motor traffic in urban areas in tandem, so would look at 2. Plus obviously removing the junction with the ring road, which is probably why so much traffic. They'd likely fix better access from said ring road to the hospital also (and/or even - fancy - have rising bollards so the ambulances *could* use this as a cut through, but no other motor traffic...).
They would (at their best) definitely be looking at the whole urban area in terms of a grid of routes and nowadays likely networks for different modes - which might operate in the same space or adjacent, but would effectively form separate routes - with "cut throughs" for motor traffic being reduced.
As Chris Boardman says - we just don't have the space and can't afford the cash to subsidise this level of free parking and driving. It's not really even to save the planet - LAs (and the government) should be coldly looking at the bottom line and applying all these measures and more. Yes, it costs money to fix stuff. But there is (and should be more of) a cost to doing too little, or building rubbish, or doing nothing.
"with organisers saying they were absolutely stunned by the turnout."
Stumped would be a better word, surely...?
".....Adam Tranter has called their motives into question, instead suggesting that the protest to save the trees could be a smokescreen to deflect from some of the resident’s wishes to simply not have the cycle lane built there.
Of course it's a smokescreen for selfish people who don't want to lose their privileges. If those people really cared about trees, they'd be out in force at every road "improvement" but they aren't and they don't.
If the trees are now a smokescreen, it doesn't sound like there's much to save any more.
As much as I enjoy cycling,I wouldn't want to lose the trees. Our local council has put in a new cycle way which is barely used. Also, while I can and do cycle,I cannot walk and have a blue badge. I know how much this loss of parking would impact others in the same situation. A fresh report shows that the construction industry is the most polluting and yet successive governments won't do anything to encourage and make it easier financially,to restore buildings already in existence,why? because housebuilding is this country's only major industry left and is all about growth and pension pots. All the time we concrete over our countryside unnecessarily,I won't feel guilty driving my car, because I cannot use public transport and I daren't use my bike to commute, because bike theft is rife
I too don't like cutting down trees but according to the report the majority are suffering from ash dieback. The plans also state that 32 New trees will replace them which is more than was cut down. As for reversing onto a main road, I think the residents need to read the highway code, it's actually illegal to reverse out onto a main road. Net zero Will never be achieved by ANY country and is often used to block more sustainable projects.
Probably because it's one or more of
Or possibly it's better used than you think, but just looks sparsely used because cycling is more space efficient, allowing more people to move around while still leaving a lot of space, unlike driving, which clogs up the road with large metal boxes.
OK, but how much is the lack of decent cycling facilities already impacting people who would want to travel by cycle if only they were provided?
If you have a genuine need for quick access to parking, it should be possible to discuss with the authority and make relevant specific reserved arrangements for that. But that's not a reason not to remove any parking, which will mostly be used by those who are perfectly capable of travelling a little further to reach their cars, or using an alternative means of travel.
All of this!
Also overlooked is that in the UK it's a matter of trying to get people to cycle a journey instead of driving (or being driven)! So cycling has to be attractive relative to driving that trip. And again - in the UK because most adults do not cycle for transport at all, that cycle trip has to be attractive enough that people will actually take up cycling and keep at it! When they could just get in the car that many of us have - just waiting to be used. And which we will currently use for the next couple of trips through the day also.
That is a massive ask. And as the Dutch discovered - too high a barrier to overcome without also (slightly) reducing driving convenience. This is where "impact to existing motorists" comes in. Because driving is completely normal - nay "we have to drive" - people simply don't realise just how convenient we have made this activity. We're primed to complain if a journey takes a minute longer - when all we have to do is sit there...
This brings up another thing which affects cycling more than driving. People in any mode of transport get frustrated by stop/start, or having to wait without going anywhere. BUT for drivers this involves almost zero extra effort. For cyclists, having to stop is energetically a serious barrier. It's also somewhere where again the Dutch have found there is also an opportunity to make cycling relatively attractive to driving - because where there are just cyclists and pedestrians there is no need for traffic lights. So if we can untangle active travel routes from motor traffic routes they can be faster. (as e.g. Amsterdam and other places have done with "home networks" and "priority networks" - video here, maps in Dutch here. Or in Assen [here], [here]).
Putting in a single cycle lane isn't enough. Nobody just rides up and down the same road again and again. Your need a network of cycling infrastructure for it to make a difference to the number of people choosing cycling over driving.
Sorry, but WTF on some of that?
The UK has the 11th biggest manufacturing economy in the world, and our manufacturing sector is worth just under half a trillion ukp per annum!
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/manufacturing-by-country
On the theft, it sounds like you to get some secure cycle parking at the other end of tour commute. Or a folder.
I think that they're saying they won't feel guilty for driving a car instead of cycling for so long as we continue to build new buildings. Or something…
There's a lot there.
Ultimately, more cycling (and indeed better accessibility for mobility vehicles in general and fixing the law so bikes can be understood as mobility vehicles...) and less ease of driving is going to be to your advantage. Because as you'll know the problem is competition for space (including supposedly reserved spaces) by people who strictly speaking don't "need" to park there - or probably drive that trip.
Is the issue with public transport that it's not accessible, unreliable, infrequent or just doesn't have the coverage? I agree improving that is something we absolutely have to address in addition to massively facilitating active travel and seriously reducing traffic volumes. If we ever manage that would unlock a lot more journeys - cycle to the transport hub, bus/train to near your destination, then cycle again. (See e.g. Dutch stations, with integrated nationwide short(-ish) term bike rental system).
Bike theft is rife - true, but it's patchy. In general this may be fine (e.g. your employer provides suitable parking / there's some near). But it's at least disenheartening (and a major inconvenience getting home). If you have a specially adapted bike (or use an ebike) that can be far worse. I'm probably lucky - I've commuted by cycling for many periods in my life and have only clocked up one bike (and parts) stolen. As it happens not on the commute.
“The visibility thing has been the main thing that the Clifford Bridge Road residents are worried about, I don't know how you get round that,” she added. “If you're reversing out across [the cycle lane] with a bike aiming at you at 30, it doesn’t matter how many times you look, there are going to be collisions.”
Doesn't look that steep a road to me
The highway code states that reversing onto a main road shouldn't happen. So why do these residents think that that is an excuse?
If it was steep they would be doing 52!
60.
Well, surely that's obvious, isn't it? Their objections were nothing at all to do with 'protecting nature' - that was just a fig leaf to cover the fact that they didn't want to lose parking and didn't want to encourage cyclists there.
I bet if they were planning on taking the trees down to widen the road these people wouldn't give a monkey's.
If only there were something else which could be removed, to find that space...
Well, they're not asking for more trees to be planted in the road...
Equally I bet "fewer cars to save the trees" gets theoretical support until people are asked to drive their own one less.
The solution?
Just from maps this does seem like it would be a useful through-route for cycling, and it seems there aren't good "quiet side streets" which would give any kind of direct route for cycling in this area. (Nearest other "connector" is a main road 500m away - that would be at the limit or beyond for for a Dutch "cycle grid" I think).
For cars - not far away is the (wide, "fast") ring road running parallel...
I wonder if the Dutch would remove the junction with the B4082 and the ring road junction here, and split Clifton Bridge Road so that it was not a through-route for motor traffic but permeable by bikes. That should reduce a lot of the motor traffic volume. You'd only drive on the southern or northern sections if you lived there. (This is exactly the redesign choice made by some Dutch cities - you have to drive out to the ring road, round, then back in again for short journeys across the city. Or, you know, bus, cycle or walk...)
One issue I can see is that there might be complaints that now you can't quickly access the hospital from the south. That would no doubt be seen as an "impossible" in the UK. I imagine the Dutch would have looked at a junction for traffic direct to hospital from the ring road back in the day...
Otherwise - if you want the trees you can keep them, but you have to have a narrower carriageway (so through traffic slowed by turning cars - no doubt not acceptable as "dangerous"). And / or give up some of your
drivewaysfront gardens (obviously being such nature-lovers, they couldn't do that...)The section being talked about is the southern part of Clifford Bridge Road from the B4082 to the B4027. A cycle route of sorts already exists on the Northern bit past the hospital.
Closing the B4082 is not an option as this is the main access route to the hospital from the A46 roundabout. When the new hospital was built there should obviously have been a direct link from the A46. From Rugby it is usually quicker to use the B4027 than the A428 and A46, as the A46 roundabout with the B4027 is a pinch-point and often grid-locked. The lack of hospital provision in other areas means UHCW has a wide catchment area and reaching it by road is the only option.
It seems to be a case of completism, building a sub-standard cycle-route just because there isn't one there already. Clifford Bridge Road is busy, but traffic is fairly slow and I've never felt unsafe cycling on it. For a lot of people a dedicated cycle lane might be preferable, but only if it's done right in the first place.
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an urban location, with places, connections etc.) there would seem to be need for a cycle route! Maybe some of those people are driving *because* - unlike you or I - there is just no way they'd ride in that volume of motor traffic.
I don't know whether this is the most sensible place for a cycle route right now. (In the UK we are very prone to make stuff "where possible" e.g. not where most needed as that would conflict with motorists, mean expensive works or disruption etc.) Obviously a good review would examine who is travelling, how far and why - taking into account the wider urban area and propose a network-level plan.
As I said - in this case it sounds like there's a road issue of "fix the hospital access" also.
Unfortunately for the UK getting over the tipping point of making interventions and people just saying "but you made it worse to drive" is probably the work of several generations. We definitely have a "where to start" issue. Perhaps Seville can show the way? First start with a small, city-centre network - not particularly great quality but good enough (e.g. separated where needed, handles junctions, not shared with pedestrians) and a connected network.
One thing we've learned is more space for driving = more driving and after some time even more gridlock. Another is that almost without exception where cycle infra is proposed in the UK people confidently say "I'm in favour of cycling (I'm a cyclist myself!) but this is not the right place..."
Meanwhile in NL it would seem that the opposite is true. Almost everywhere with lots of traffic turns out to be the right place for cycle infra. And somehow they still have lots of people cycling and they're generally in favour of more...