Collected nimbyism

Here's a collection of some of Woking's most idiotic bicycle-hating nimbies, for your collective enjoyment:


http://dianasmith.mycouncillor.org.uk/2010/10/24/local-committee-20-october-fishwick-island-doomed/
"The decision on the signs at Brookwood was to replace three of the more obtrusive, which a local resident objected to being able to see from her garden on the far side of the canal bank, with markings on the ground."

(presumably all the passing motor vehicles are deemed aesthetically pleasaing)

--
This dog walker complained about the towpath being widened and improved to facilitate safe offroad cycling, but for some reason seemed to think whether or not the cyclists were wearing helmets had any impact on HIS safety:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2020120_walkers_oppose_towpath_plans

"There is a road that runs parallel to the canal that they could use. Even in its current condition we pedestrians experience cycles racing along it with no warning bells, no lights and normally not wearing any head protection. "

Thankfully he wasn't listened to, and neither dog walkers nor cyclists are forced onto the 40mph main road instead of the pleasant off-road towpath.

---
"I would like to know why the cyclists of Woking, adults and teenagers, refuse to adhere to the “cyclists dismount” signs all around the pedestrianised areas of Woking town centre. I am utterly fed up of dodging speeding cyclists through the area.
It is only a matter of time before a child or elderly person is injured by these inconsiderate people."
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/letters/s/77886_get_off_your_bikes_please

The reality of course is that I can find no evidence of any one being injured by a cyclists in Woking, whereas deaths and serious injuries caused by motor vehicles are in every weekly newspaper. It is sad that there is so much misdirected anger.

---
Here are some others who should think carefully about who is really putting them at risk:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2081753_safety_fears_over_next_shared_cycle_route

Pictured are some members of 'Surrey Disabled People's Partnership', who are campaigning against off-road shared cycle/pedestrian routes, which could provide vulnerable users such as school children a safe route to school, without requiring the use of a 3-tonne 10mpg 4x4 tank as is very common in Surrey. One is wearing a Guide Dogs 'Say No To Shared Streets' t-shirt, in spite of the fact that that campaign refers to the removal of kerbs from pavements mixing pedestrians with motor vehicles.


The reality is of course that pedestrians are many times more at risk for motor vehicles mowing them down on the pavement than they are from cyclists.


And the same story here: http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2077929_woking_town_centre_gets_permanent_cycle_routes


---
Councillor Liam Lyons  (Liberal Democrat, Mount Hermon West) ludicrously suggests that cyclists, which as a whole weigh less than the average pedestrian (although they are usually moving faster), are comparable with 44-tonne lorries
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2079490_woking_town_centre_revamp_plan_approved


suggesting that having the library open onto a pedestrianised area used by cyclists is equally hazardous as having it open onto a road:


"“You could potentially step into the path of a moving cyclist and you don’t get the chance to see who’s coming."
“It sounds the same to me as the opening of a door onto a public highway."

---

Another nimby who was thankfully ignored:


http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2043861_cyclists_to_get_the_run_of_footpaths

“However, running a route through the town centre defies both logic and belief.

“The proposal is akin to setting up a smoking area on the forecourt of a petrol filling station. As long as lunatics are running the asylum, sensible and really safe cycling in Woking will still be a pipe dream.”

“And what will happen when there are events and markets in the town? There are a number of issues that need to be raised.”

Mr Thorn, 73, said cycling on pavements was already a problem in the town centre, especially in areas such as the Victoria Arch.


The reality of course is that when there are events and markets in the town cyclists go round them. Running bike routes through the town centre is of course essential, because the town centre is where most people need to go, whether to work, to get on a train, to go shopping or for leisure activities.

The cyclists on the pavement under Victoria Arch are of course only there because the cycle lane is illegally narrow, steep, unreasonably circuitous on its route south, and encroached on by juggernauts and other through traffic.

---

Another nimby, who amused me greatly but for whom I unfortunately don't have a link, complained that the cycle signs, which instead of saying 'St. Johns 2 miles', say 'St. Johns 12 minutes'. Said nimby complained that this would encourage 'racing' by cyclists, and would be treated as a target rather than a guideline.