Bricycles warns Conservatives of being seen as "anti-cycling"

Campaign group Bricycles today warned the Conservative administration of Brighton and Hove that their proposal to demolish the Hove Cycle freeway risks being seen as "anti-cycling" and is at odds with their 2010 election manifesto.

Bricycles is the largest cycling campaign group in Brighton and Hove and is affiliated to CTC, the UK’s national cycling organisation. Bricycles has been giving input into plans to improve cycling.

In a press release titled: "Grand Avenue: from Grand Design to ground zero in 3 years?" Becky Reynolds, Bricycles Campaigns Officer, called on the Council to remedy the problem areas rather than demolish the cycle lane three years after they were installed - at a total cost of installation and demolition of "about £2 million". (more>>>)

Fascinating video of cycle freeway in operation, Utrecht

A fascinating video of a busy junction in Utrecht, the Netherlands, where 33% of journeys are made by bicycle. Note the frequent public transport shown in the background, very rapid connections cross city. Cars are not banned here: people simply choose to travel by tram or cycle. Its easier, quicker, cleaner and safer. A commitment to an integrated sustainable transport system is needed.

(Posted to further the argument in favour of cycle freeways and an integrated sustainable transport plan in Brighton and Hove, and specifically to promote the development of a network of cycle freeways and in support of the Save Hove Cycle Lanes campaign).

Cllr Mary Mears says she's "not anti-cycling" - safety is reason to scrap cycle Lane, but admits safety improved

Councillor Mary Mears

25 February. Earlier today Conservative council leader Mary Mears said the reason for the plans to demolish The Drive Cycle lane was for safety, and she expected the cost to be less than the £1.1m budgeted.

Cllr Mears said: "I am not anti-cycling by any means – I think that the seafront cycle route is a fantastic resource for example and is used by thousands every day. We are also actively looking into the possibility of a ‘Boris Bikes’ type cycle hire scheme here in Brighton & Hove as we fully recognise the health and environmental benefits that cycling can bring.... However, my primary concern as Council Leader has to be ensuring the safety of residents."

These safety concerns are contradicted by the statistics she quoted in her blog.

I checked Cllr Mears blog on the advice of the Council Press Office when I asked for clarification today. Cllr Mears makes 5 main points:
1. The cycle lane was not devised under her administration, it was agreed by the previous (Labour Admin). (It came out of the 2000 Local Transport Plan to promote sustainable transport).
2. She says the lane is not well used though does not back this up.
3. She says the Drive Cycle lane is unsafe. But she contradicts this in the next sentence: "There remain serious safety concerns with the cycle lane. Thankfully, the number of accidents have dropped slightly over the last couple of years but there were still 42 casualties between 2008 and 2010. For what was originally sold as being a safe segregated space for cyclists, to me this is completely unacceptable."
Dedicated readers of this blog will already know that the Argus printed the casualty figures which showed a 20% drop in accidents along the drive since the cycle freeway was built.

“between 2005 and 2007 there were a total of 41 accidents and 52 casualties along the entire stretch. Between 2008 and 2010 this dropped to 32 accidents and 42 casualties’ Brighton Argus

To make matters worse for Councillor Mears' safety argument, this significant reduction in casualties comes over a period when cycle casualties have been rising in the rest of city. This is partly to be expected as cycling increased by 27%, but also due to the haphazard provision of cycling facilities in the city. Cycle lanes disappear in the most dangerous places, in pinch points.

Points 4 and 5 deal mainly the money to demolish the lanes - she thinks it will cost a lot less than £1.1m  and that includes provision for £300k they might not have to repay to Cycling England because she says, "the quango is about to be abolished", and it is a one-off payment.

Mears makes it clear cycling is not something she does. "All of these issues beg the question as to why the cycle lane was installed in the first place. Bricycles stated in their submission to the consultation at the time that ‘Grand Avenue is currently not a difficult road to cycle in for people with average cycling skills.’ And cyclists have told me that this complete segregation is actually counter-productive as it makes both drivers and cyclists less aware of each other, particularly at the road junctions and where driveways cross over."

Cllr Mears does not refer to the argument in favour of segregated cycle lanes - they are there to encourage the less able cyclists, the young or timid in a country where cars have priority on the urban roads (unlike the on the continent).

Cllr Mears says the route is not well used, but doesn't supply figures. According BH Council website: "Monitoring in June 2008 indicates around 250 cyclists per day". This is set against thousands who use the seafront route. But the Drive route was never fully implemented, eg safe crossing at Old Shoreham Road (OSR) not installed, OSR cycle route cancelled altogether.

She does touch on what is probably the real issue for her car driving constituents: cyclists coming at speed down the cycle free-way make it hard for cars to come off the road and into their driveways. They've got to wait for a gap. And if the cycle free-way takes off, with cyclists flying up and down the route from South Downs to the sea, this can only get worse.

So far as being "not anti-cycling" goes - my blog entry of earlier shows that the Conservative admin is at least pro-car and wants to reverse sustainable transport policy. They are happy with cyclists so long as they do not affect the rights of the car.

Cllr Mears has not mentioned what might replace this cycle route, but from what she says, quoting Adam Trimmington's piece in the Argus "it is ‘the wrong lane in the wrong place'" it sounds like she has got it in for the whole cycle lane from the South Downs to the sea. No plans to replace it with any kind of cycle route. Not even sensible talk of making it a mixed use. The wrong lane in the wrong place? What is the right lane in the right place, to give access to the Downs and the sea and connect both with Hove station? We need a cycle free-way.

http://marymears.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/further-comments-on-the-grand-avenuedrive-cycle-lane/

The Evidence: the Conservative plan to reverse sustainable transport in favour of the car

Agenda Item 72(b) Conservative

Many people have responded to my postings off this site with bafflement (Guardian story). Why would any administration want to demolish a world class cycle freeway, flagship of an award winning sustainable transport policy in progressive Brighton and Hove? The uncomfortable answer is contained in a council motion which never saw the light of day - because it was withdrawn in the face of combined Labour and Green opposition on the council. It is Council Agenda Item 72(b) 27 January 2011.

People ask if there is another side to this story, something I haven't told them. I tried to to get the council, or the leadership, to supply evidence of need to close the lane, but they declined (see my story Rubbing Salt in the Wound, below). A Green spokesman says there is no public consultation, traffic demand or other needs assessment. Some residents are concerned about driveways crossing the cycle lane, but these are countered by supporters of the lane. Some say a survey was conducted but this has not been made public. So we are left presuming that we are dealing with a political ideology (out of sync with national Tory pro-sustainable policy) or simply the personal preference and convenience of a small group of conservative councillors whose party won only 37% of the vote in 2007 local elections. But I'm repeating myself.

To the evidence. Over the past year cancellation of cycling schemes could be explained away by lack of money and safety concerns over watered down specs. (The strategic Old Shoreham Road Cycle Freeway scheme and cancellation of the Grand Parade National Cycle Network link). But these didn't necessarily amount to evidence of hostility to sustainable transport and cycling. Yes, I'm coming to that

In January 2011, the Tory admin put a motion to council that would effectively reverse the 11-year-old Local Transport Plan that committed Brighton and Hove to achieve a shift toward 'sustainable transport' - a policy that would improve public transport, cycling and walking facilities, improve the unban environment and promote electric transport. I have a copy of that motion, and I include the link below. Greens and Labour combined to vote the motion down. But the language of Council Agenda Item 72(b) is worth noting:

1. Rule out introducing any further measures which unfairly penalise car drivers under the guise of promoting "sustainable transport".
2. At the earliest opportunity, repeal the provisions in policy CP8 of the Core Strategy (sustainable transport) which promote "car free housing", "fiscal measures" and "modal shift".

If we are repealing the commitment toward promoting modal shift, we are ending moves to get people to change the way they travel. OK, here it is.
Click for Link to Agenda Item 72(b) Conservative Motion 'Promote Choice...
The motion was withdrawn when the Conservatives saw the amendments proposed by thhe Green/Labour opposition
Click for Link to Agenda item 729b) Labour/Green Party amendments.

Save Hove The Drive Cycle Lane next protest meeting 3pm, 3 March 2011, Hove Town Hall

25 February 2011. The next Save The Drive Cycle lane protest will meet outside Hove Town Hall (Norton Road Hove) - 3pm, 3rd March. As well as asking the council to end plans to scrap The Drive cycle lanes, the protest seeks to get change in policy toward cycling. The past year has seen cancellation of two important cycle lanes and in January the administration tried to repeal the council's commitment to "promoting modal shift" in sustainable transport.

Cyclists will cycle to Brighton Town hall, a couple of miles away, to join a multi-platform protest against the Council budget plans. (Stop the Cuts protest will meet 3pm at Kings House, march to Brighton Town Hall for 4pm).

For updates on the planned Cycle Protest, join this Facebook Group:
Save The Drive Cycle Lane
For details on Stop the Cuts:
Stop the Cuts Protest

Guardian takes up the Hove Cycle Lanes story

I'm delighted to say the Guardian online took up this story - I submitted "Rubbing salt into the wound". They subbed out plenty, especially my possibly pernickety (moi!?!) detailing of stonewalling at the BHCC leaders office. But their intro is probably better than mine for an audience that might not have known much about the story.

Here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/feb/23/brighton-hove-council-cycle-highway?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

I've been checking the comments maybe too frequently - a respectable 83 comments. I liked the portentious tone of the last comment I saw tonight:

• DBluge

  25 February 2011 12:20AM
  Cyclists bide your time.. When petrol hits thirty pounds a gallon the roads are going to empty, very fast, and the whole network will be yours to ride on.
  The upper echelons will have to be disabused of the idea that they can swan around in big cars, while the poor cycle and walk. I suspect they will be quite quick on the uptake - once the sky starts to rain bricks.
  Unfortunately even a fast moving cyclist ripping past is likely to incur resentment from the more static members of the populace, so it will be hard-hats all round!
  

Save Hove Cycle Lanes: Rubbing salt into the wound

Protesters outside BH council offices

Conservatives confirmed their determination to demolish a flagship cycle freeway in Brighton and Hove and a “Save The Drive Cycle Lane” protest is launched. Russell Honeyman asks: “Why?”

22 February 2011. Last night the Conservative leader of minority controlled Brighton and Hove City Council confirmed her determination to demolish a flagship cycle freeway in the seaside town of Hove.

In response to my question about whether the plans would go ahead despite protests, Council leader Mary Mears said: “The proposal to remove the cycle lane from Grand Avenue and The Drive responds to concerns raised by residents and users alike … We remain committed to the safety of the cycling fraternity. Unlike some other cycle lanes in the city, the Grand Avenue/Drive scheme is not well used or appreciated. Furthermore its removal will improve traffic flow along the coast road from Shoreham Harbour and across the city.”

We’re talking about something rather more than a simple cycle lane. It is a “European-style cycle freeway”, for the most part segregated from traffic by being set into the pavement behind the on street parking. It was completed in 2008 as the centrepiece of Brighton and Hove’s successful bid to become a Cycle Demonstration Town, with £3million of government funding provided by Cycling England in the glory days of 2005. It is part of the infrastructure that won the Transport Authority of the Year award only last year, when the council was commended for cycling improvements that saw cycling in the city increase by 27% since 2006.

The route connects with the newly created South Downs national park with Hove’s seafront. It runs for around 4km, southwards from Downs access point at Dyke Railway Trail, to the sea via Hove station. The segregated cycle freeway section runs for a little under two kilometres along Grand Avenue and The Drive, this last section a wide double lane carriage way lined by classic Palladian-style mansion blocks until finally opening out onto Hove Lawns beneath a statue of Queen Victoria. With its rail connection and access to the Downs, the route forms part of strategic plans to improve access to the Downs and seafront as well as promoting cycling in the city.

The Tory administration wants the southern, freeway style section demolished – at the cost of £1.1m, according to budget proposals released 11 February.

There has been a chorus of protest from across the country, and fury from the sustainable transport community. The fury has been building for some time. Since Conservatives gained control of the council in 2007 they have cancelled successive components of the city’s plans for transport improvements, most notably the Old Shoreham Road scheme which was to have provided an east-west segregated cycle freeway linking the centres of Brighton, Hove and Portslade, and Marine Parade which was to have filled in the “missing link” in the national cycle route along the seafront. (click for more...)

Save Hove Cycle Lane: a father shares his daughter’s anger and broken dreams

Cyclists gather before joining the protest

A father shares his daughter’s anger and broken dreams as an “Anti-Cycling” minority Tory administration threatens to destroy another key element of his plan for a “Cycling City”

20 Feb 2011. Russell Honeyman interviewed the man who laid the plans for Brighton and Hove’s award winning Cycling Demonstration Town scheme – and is watching them being destroyed by a minority Tory controlled council.

Stuart Croucher is a quietly spoken professional who seemed cheerful enough in his cycling helmet and high visibility waterproofs. Only toward the end of our interview did he reveal his anger about the impact that plans to close Hove’s cycle freeway (a European-style segregated cycle lane) might have on his family life. He talked about his experiences with his seven-year-old daughter, Josie. He said: “When we told her the cycle lane was to be closed she was really upset that she won’t be able to cycle to the seaside anymore.”

I met Mr Croucher at Saturday’s (19 February 2011) protest against plans to scrap the cycle freeway along The Drive in Hove. He was Transport Planning Manager for Brighton and Hove in 2005 when the city won grant funding from Cycling England as a Cycling Demonstration Town. Cycle freeways were a central element of the scheme. Last year the city won the Transport Authority of the Year award with commendation for improvements to cycle infrastructure in the city.

But a Tory administration gained control of the city in 2007 and has cancelled key parts of the scheme and now plans the latest closure.

Mr Croucher now works as an Urban Designer for Crossrail, designing spaces around London’s new rail link.

I asked how he felt about the destruction of his plans for transforming Brighton and Hove into a cycling city. “I don’t see them as my plans, they were drawn up by a team,” Mr Croucher said. “I understand the arguments in a professional way.”

He hesitated a moment. “But as a citizen of Brighton and Hove I feel deeply angry. It feels as if progress, not just in transport, but also in many other ways, is coming to a halt. Now it’s going into reverse. Seeing the council planning to spend £1.1 million on destroying this cycle freeway when they are cutting essential services across the city makes me really cross.” (more...)

Original Plans for Hove's "The Drive" Cycle Freeway

People have been asking for details of the cycle lane that's causing all the fuss. I downloaded original plan from the council website in case it disappears.

It is clear to see the strategic thinking behind the cycle freeway. At the top, the South Downs, now a new national park. At the bottom, the popular Brighton and Hove Sea front. In the middle: Hove Station, a pretty station with access to mainline train services and with capacity for more traffic.

You can see the connection with the National Cycle Network N2 seafront cycle lane. It has obvious strategic importance for tourism and local leisure travel.

What you can't see is the other major component of this cycle freeway network: The Old Shoreham Road (OSR), which was to have connected the town centres of Portslade, Have and Brighton, allowing 7,000 school children to cycle safely to school. The Tories watered down the "segregated Cycle Freeways" on the OSR scheme - reduced them to painted lines on the road. And then announced the scheme was unsafe and cancelled it!

It is worth noting the Tory admin is not saying they will eliminate the cycle lane. Just remove the 'segregated cycle freeway' bit of it.

This is what the Council Website says about the cycle lane network today:

Cycling



Cycling in Brighton & Hove has grown substantially over recent years. (27% increase recorded in the 2006-2008 period.)

But a large proportion of city workers using a car to get to work drive less than three miles. So there is great potential for increasing safe cycling - and to bring other individual and wider-level benefits.
What the council is doing

As a Cycling Town, the city council is dedicated to promoting healthy and environmentally friendly travel.

There are many cycle lanes across the city, including along the seafront, Grand Avenue and The Drive, Hove to Hangleton, and Lewes Road. Many are part of the national and regional cycle route network.

A north south cycle freeway has been completed and provides a link between the Downs, from the Dyke Railway Trail in Hangleton to the seafront via Hove station. The southern section along Grand Avenue and The Drive (pictured above, far right) is a segregated, motor-vehicle free, European-style cycle freeway. Additional cycle parking places are also being installed city-wide.

Brighton & Hove's popular suite of cycle maps was updated in 2010. A further update will be available early 2011.

The maps include details of local bike businesses, bike hire, training and maintenance providers, cycle interest groups and clubs, information on cycle safety, and much more.

Opinion: Why bother ripping out a cycle lane in residential Hove?

Brighton & Hove's budget proposals link below

20 Feb 2011. People are puzzled over this story and asked for more info about the plans to rip out the Hove cycle lane. The plans are found in the (minority Conservative controlled) council budget proposals made public on 11 Feb - clause 3.11. They still need to be approved in full council on March 3. (Link to the budget PR below)

It's a bit disheartening because the budget boasts mainly of saving £82 million over five years to fund a 1% reduction in council tax. Opposition councillors warning that cuts are causing the loss of jobs in "front-line services" and will pose critical problems for the city. Meantime the budget proposes spending £1.1m on ripping out cycle lanes and £4.5m doing up car parks!

Much of the cycle lane is in Tory heartland but the Greens are pushing hard and Goldsmid was taken by the Greens at the 2009 by election. Maybe this cycle-lane-crushing move is to shore up the core Tory vote by acting tough on cyclists. (My personal opinion, I hasten to add, but car parking is identified as a core concern in B & H).

Yellow Bear in her post mentioned 'safety issues' about drivers turning off The Drive into their driveways. Drivers have to cross the cycle path to get to their houses. A steady stream of cyclists might make it hard to turn into your driveway. Also, cars parked on the kerb might obscure the cycle lane which is set into the kerb. It's partly about old habits - cars have to check to see if cyclists are coming from a place they hadn't before - and partly it's badly planned.

A layman's speculation into how to remedy the situation follows. Allocate a parking place on the kerbside alongside each driveway, for drivers to pull into and observe the cycle lane, before they cross the cycle lane. Another solution that comes to mind would be to make the centre of The Drive into a segregated cycle freeway. That would have been really revolutionary. OK, cyclists would have to join it at junctions using the cycle stop lanes. But if it was wide and car free all the way from the South Downs to the Coast - what a pleasure.

(IMO) The Tory administration is pro-car or maybe simply anti-change, and cycle and other sustainable transport plans (Valley Gardens Project) over the recent years have been so half-hearted they have partly failed or been cancelled: Old Shoreham Road, Madeira Drive, Marine Parade and now the Drive. This amounts to a serious reversal of the schemes that got the "Cycling City Status" and the "Transport Authority of the Year Award" last year.

Link to Council Budget PR with link to PDF of the budget proposals

Text of clause 3.11

This year’s transport funding is entirely from capital grant providing the council with real additional cash to spend on capital. A grant topslice of £1.503m is proposed in order to maintain corporate funds at planned levels. Without investment in these corporate funds there is a risk that the council will create additional revenue pressures, (for example through backlogs in maintenance programmes), or fail to deliver planned savings (for example through better use of technology to drive efficiency savings). In order to improve the visual impact and traffic flow along this important north – south corridor including access to the A27 / A23 from the A259 /210 Shoreham Harbour it is proposed to remove the cycle lane along both sides of Grand Avenue and The Drive. An indicative cost of removing the lanes including changes to the signalling is £1.1m to be funded by a further topslice from LTP grant. Detailed costings have yet to be undertaken and any residual funds would be given back to the LTP. There is a low risk that up to £0.3m grant funding may need to be repaid.

This story originally posted in response to enquiry about where to find the plans on Yellow Bear's Flickr video: link here
http://russellhoneyman.blogspot.com/2011/02/cute-video-about-save-hove-cycle-lanes.html

Lovely little video about the "Save Hove Cycle Lanes" campaign

A woman with the most miniature camcorder made a compact (one and a half minutes) and succinct video about the campaign and released it on You Tube before I even managed to finish writing my blog. Way to go!
Click

The Drive cycle lane protest picks up speed

Councillor Ian Davey leads the protest ride

19 February 2011. Cyclists braved rainy weather today to protest against the planned scrapping of the flagship “Cycle City” protected cycle lane along The Drive in Hove.

The plans to scrap the cycle lane, at a cost of £1.1m, were revealed in Brighton and Hove City Council’s budget proposals, made public last week. The plans have provoked protests from across the country, including from Sustrans, the charity that promotes sustainable travel in the UK.

Despite the dismal weather around thirty cyclists gathered at the corner of The Drive and Cromwell Road in Hove at noon. Councillor Ian Davey, Green Party spokesperson for Transport led the group on a cycle ride down the threatened cycle lane to the King’s House council offices.

Councillor Davey said: “I’m so pleased so many people came out in the rain at such short notice. This is just the start of this protest. The Conservative administration led by Councillor Mary Mears will have to withdraw this proposal if they want get their budget passed by the council. We have every hope that Labour will vote with the Greens to overturn this budget when it comes before council for approval on 3 March.”

The Conservatives have minority control of Brighton and Hove City Council and suffered a previous defeat in full council at the hands of Green and Labour councillors.

Tony Green, membership secretary of cycle campaign group Bricycles, was at the protest. He said: This cycle lane was part of a scheme to provide safe cycle routes across the city. The Drive was to link the seafront with Hove Rec and Hangleton and ultimately it was to improve access to the South Downs, which is now become a national park. That linkage was never completed.”

Mr Green said: “There have been questions about whether these lanes cause safety problems for cars trying to access driveways. If these are genuine concerns, let them be addressed. Don’t just remove the lanes.”

On Wednesday 16 February, Brighton’s Argus newspaper published data it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that revealed both numbers of accidents and reported people injured have dropped by 20% since The Drive cycle lane was installed in 2008. Specifically: “Between 2005 and 2007 there were a total of 41 accidents and 52 casualties along the entire stretch. Between 2008 and 2010 this dropped to 32 accidents and 42 casualties”.

Alex Phillips is Green Party Councillor for Goldsmid in Hove

The Drive runs through Goldsmid, whose councillor, Alex Phillips, won the ward for the Green Party at a by-election in 2009. She was at the protest collecting signatures for a petition to save the cycle lane. She said: “At a time of cuts to frontline services, leaving vulnerable people to fend for themselves, it’s not right that money is used to get rid of this important and well-used cycle lane.

“We launched the petition a few days ago, aiming to get a full council debate on the subject. Already we have 1,200 signatures, many online. Brighton’s status as a city of sustainable transport is of national interest, ”she added.

Brighton & Hove council’s transport team picked up the Transport Authority of the Year award at the National Transport Awards in Manchester on 15 July last year. It was commended for cycling improvements that saw cycling in the city increase by 27% since 2006.

Councillor Davey said: “If they go ahead with spending a million pounds scrapping this cycle lane it will be the transport laughing stock of the year and it will be bottom of the class for cycling.”

The 2011 budget proposals, released Friday 11 Feb, revealed the plans to remove the cycle lanes. The reason cited was to “improve the visual impact and traffic flow along this important north – south corridor including access to the A27/A23 from the A259/Shoreham Harbour".

Councillor Davey said: “I wonder if Councillor Mears has consulted local residents about whether they will welcome this road becoming an artery for heavy vehicles on their way to Shoreham Harbour.”

Councillor Davey asked those who support the campaign to sign the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43064.html .

Conservatives plan to put transport into reverse in Brighton and Hove

Conservatives councillors - who have minority control of Brighton and Hove City Council - "are shifting transport policy firmly into reverse,” a Green councillor said of the council’s budget proposals released on Friday, 11 February 2011.

Brighton & Hove City Council’s budget for the coming year boasts of reducing council tax, and announces cuts of over £34 million, involving cuts to front line services. Yet the budget proposes spending £4.5 million on improvements to car parks, and £1.2 million removing the protected cycle lane along the Drive, Hove, which was part of the city's flagship "Cycling City" scheme.

Green Transport spokesperson councillor Ian Davey said the Conservative administration was "wasting public money on ill thought out transport projects".

Councillor Davey said it was only three years since the council spent over half a million pounds of public money on installing the cycle lanes. "Now they plan to spend more than twice as much taking it out. At the same time they are planning to spend £4.5million on doing up car parks. In good times such expenditure would be questionable. In times of austerity this proposal is grossly irresponsible. The Tories clearly do not have a coherent vision for transport in this city. Their ill thought out proposals, combined with their cuts to staff numbers including those in road safety, will only worsen the problems of traffic congestion, air pollution and road safety that blight this city. They are shifting transport policy firmly into reverse.”

Cyclists plan action against cycle lane closure in Brighton & Hove: Sat 19 Feb 2011

Green Councillor Ian Davey announced a "mini action" to protest against the planned closure of the Drive cycle lane - cyclists and others will meet on  Saturday 19th February at 12 noon.

Councillor Davey said: "Support the campaign to stop the scrapping of the cycle lane on The Drive in Hove. Join us at the corner of The Drive and Cromwell Road for a mini action. Don't forget your bike."

He also asked those who support the campaign to sign a petition at
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43064.html .

Brighton and Hove city council is controlled by a minority Conservative administration that over the past year has cancelled a series of pro-cycling initiatives in the City, including the strategic Old Shoreham Road Cycle Lane Scheme which had funding from Cycling England.

The administration's 2011 budget, released Friday 11 Feb, revealed plans to spend £1.1m removing the cycle lanes. The reason cited for the removal is "In order to improve the visual impact and traffic flow along this important north – south corridor including access to the A27 / A23 from the A259 /Shoreham Harbour".

A press release issued by Green transport spokesperson Cllr Ian Davey and Goldsmid ward councillor Cllr Alex Phillips said the Conservative administration is wasting public money and increasing danger to road users and residents.

Cllr Davey said: "They claim to be responding to residents' safety concerns, yet casualties have reduced since the cycle lanes went in. Widening the road will increase both traffic speed and volume. The Tories are encouraging its use as a route to and from Shoreham Harbour. Much of this traffic will be heavy vehicles. The proposals will make this road more dangerous for all road users and residents and rob families of a safe cycle route to the seafront."

The Drive cycle lanes are protected lanes that divide cyclists from motor traffic. They were part of a long term project to increase sustainable transport and cycling in the city, and were part funded with money from Cycling England. Cllr Davey said: “These cycle lanes were put in by the same Conservative administration in 2008 at a cost of over £600,000. To spend nearly twice as much now taking them out again is sheer madness."

Green ward councillor Alex Phillips added: "With the council strapped for cash for vital services, there are better ways to spend this money.”

Zimbabwe "slashing" food crops in urban areas

Pic: zimbabwesituation.com

I haven't made many reports on my home town, Harare, because my reporting can hardly be dispassionate: I am upset about the destruction of the economy and subjugation of Zimbabwean people by the ruling elite personified in Robert Mugabe. But this news snippet ("Senior council employees orders slashing of maize", as reported in The Zimbabwean) serves to exemplify all that is hideous in the state of Zimbabwe.

To outsiders, it might be difficult to understand what "slashing of maize" is. But residents of Zimbabwe know this means the destruction of illegal maize crops in the urban areas. Workers are dispatched by the city council, armed with long slashing knives, to "slash" (cut down) maize crops that have been planted by poor people on every bit of unused land in the city. The practice was started in colonial times to keep cities neat and to prevent riverbank cultivation which might lead to erosion. It's done at this time of year when the crops are just reaching maturity and almost ready to harvest. Maize (also known as corn) is the staple food of Zimbabwe, having replaced traditional millet. It is ground up and cooked to make sadza, a porridge that is eaten with tomato and rape relish.

In 2000, militias loyal to Mugabe invaded commercial farms and food production fell. Emergency food aid was sent to Zimbabwe, but many went hungry. Poor people started planting maize in the cities, and the city councils didn't order the crops to be slashed, since it was a matter for survival for poor city folks. But Mugabe's men see the cities as centres of resistance to their rule, and used bulldozers to destroy urban dwellings. Many people were forced into hidden lives in wild spaces, eating what they could grow. In 2005, I saw the pitiful sight of people living in storm-water drains, making clothes and shoes from discarded plastic bags. They needed to remain hidden from sight, lest they got picked up as vagrants and taken to rural camps for re-education, a violent process out of sight of western media.

So the news that the crops are being slashed in Harare means to me that an assault is being made on the last hiding places of Mugabe's victims.

This struggle is far from simple. Mugabe's men should not be seen as mindless thugs: they started out fighting for their idea of the unspoiled Zimbabwe they imagine their ancestors lived in.  In this sense they were once fundamentalist visionaries, fighting colonialism and global capitalism. But like most fanatics, they seem to be creating a living hell in their fanatic zeal, and they have become corrupt.

I wonder what will become of the families who are depending on the maize crops planted in the urban areas. Many of these people have nowhere to go: rural Zimbabwe is populated by traditional villagers with established clan relationships represented by totems, and dominated by links to the ruling party. The poor city dwellers are referred to as "trash" by the ruling elite, and they often don't have connections with the countryside - they may have migrated from Malawi decades ago, or lost their ties with the countryside for many other reasons. With western media and aid agencies being chased from the rural areas it is very hard to know what hardships are being faced by these disenfranchised people. Ordinary people do not resent the maize planted on every unused scrap of land in the cities. It is an increasingly psychopathic ruling elite that has ordered the maize to be slashed.

Senior council employees orders slashing of maize

611,000 sign petition to ban bee-harming pesticide

Honey bee in flight w pollen bag. 

Campaign group AVAAZ today re-launched a petition to ban the use of Nicotinyl pesticides in USA and EU. Campaigners trying to save bees from extinction say Nicotinyl pesticide - produced by Bayer - is killing the bees. Over 611,000 people had signed the e-petition by 13.24pm (UK).

Bee colonies have suffered mysterious plagues in several countries over the past fifteen years, since the pesticides were introduced. Bees are important fertilisers of plants in the natural world, impacting biodiversity and food production.

Up to now the UK government says there are many factors that might cause bees to die - it might be something other than the pesticides, since been numbers have been in decline for some time. Today, I looked at reports cited by the bee campaigners. They present convincing evidence we should stop using these Nicotinyl pesticides until they are proven safe by independent research. In my opinion, when it comes to introducing toxic chemicals into the food chain, our policy on should be "safe not sorry", rather than "suck it and see"!

Below, I give links to websites where you can read the story yourself. Most convincing is the detailed overview given by the UK Soil Association. My summary of what the reports say: France, Italy and Germany have all banned Nicotinyl pesticides. They noticed large numbers of bees dying off after Nicotinyl started being used in 1994. They then undertook research which showed that bees were harmed by Nicotinyl. They then banned the Nicotinyl pesticide. After that the bee colony deaths stopped. This last report from Italy 2009.

Independently funded research has now started in the UK - fifteen years after the potentially poisonous pesticide started being used. The research is known as the Insect Pollenators Initiative (IPI) and was launched June 2009. How long will we wait for them to report? What if their findings are inconclusive?

AVAAZ is organising a petition calling for an immediate ban, link below. Entitled "Global Bee Emergency Act Now!!" it calls on USA and EU leaders: "To immediately ban the use of neonicotinoid pesticides until and unless new independent scientific studies prove they are safe. The catastrophic demise of bee colonies could put our whole food chain in danger. If you act urgently with precaution now, we could save bees from extinction."

LINKS

Bee decline could be down to chemical cocktail interfering with brains
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/chemicals-bees-decline-major-study?INTCMP=SRCH

Bee briefing
http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RXLEm9WXrHk%3D&tabid=439

“Nicotine Bees" Population Restored With Neonicotinoids Ban
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/05/nicotine-bees-population-restored-with-neonicotinoids-ban.php

EPA memo reveals concern that pesticide causes bee deaths
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=79910

AAVZ save the bees petition
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/save_the_bees/?cl=901463534&v=8137

Girls v Riot Police in London

Girl v police, London, 10/12/10, BBC

I'm a feeling bit cross at the policing of the current protests in UK. In central Brighton Thursday (9 Dec 2010), I was passed by seven or eight police vans with sirens wailing. Someone said "it's the students". I walked down to the clock tower to take a look. A small group of young people was surrounded by a lot of heavy-looking police, who seemed to be manoeuvring around in files and lines enclosing and compressing the group, who were being addressed by a well spoken, young-looking girl. As I approached the students, three riot police stalked toward me, the lead one pushing his unshaven, grimacing helmet-clad face toward mine, staring me out. If he wasn't in a police outfit, I would think he was about to assault me. I said: "What's going on here, mate", in a matey but assertive way. He relaxed an iota. "It's the students," he affirmed, gesturing with his head. "Am I allowed to listen to them?" I said. His eyes hardened again: "You can listen," he said, and moved back to a position in front of a shop overlooking the scene, all the while keeping an eye an me. More police shuffled in behind me. It was scary. Did I want to be enclosed with the students (and any unsocial elements also enclosed)? Or was I going to be a good citizen and go off on my business? I moved about avoiding the police, and listening for a while on the edge of things, but the meeting was already breaking up.

This is all very different to the policing of the 1980s when I was student and joined protests against grant cuts, on the Westminster Bridge. Then, the police were passive and impassive, behind barriers or watching the protest, responding to aggression rather than initiating it. If the hot-heads wanted to, they went to the front and fought with police, leaping over barriers to do so. The peaceful protesters could go home.

This new policy denies the possibility of peaceful protest. Police seem to initiate physical confrontation by "kettling", enclosing and detaining the peaceful together with violent protesters (who, in these times, might be street people or people with 'issues' who have been released into the community from closed care homes). It is no wonder that protesters get scared - or angry. And no wonder that "innocent bystanders" such as the the Prince of Wales, who probably supports the protesters but can't say so, get caught up in violence far from the scene of the protests. If kettling of peaceful protests continue, peaceful protest may disappear and be replaced by hit and run actions of a more angry, direct nature.

What are people protesting about? Our rulers - mostly old men whose education was paid by the state - have decided that young people who have no money must pay up to £9,000 per year for university education. £9,000 a year? A class of ten will be paying £90,000 a year. Average wage in UK is £24,000. University professors now earn over £80,000 a year. So we have a privileged elite deciding to make the poor pay for access to education. Why? Is Britain really so poor it can't to give its citizens an education? We can afford Trident and invasions of Third World countries to secure mineral rights. Meanwhile displays of ostentatious wealth reach ludicrous proportions in diamond brassieres, luxury cars, and the like. As the privileged demand more materialist consumption they need more policing and arms to maintain their position. I can't see how the situation will get better until we end the pursuit of greed, and aim for a simpler Britain and less extravagant standards of living.

My experience in Brighton was really nothing, a squall at the edge of the hurricane. Take a look at what happened to some girls in London yesterday. Scary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm

The future Brighton: Motor City or Green City?

Pic: sustainablecitiesnet.com

City launches public consultation over Local Transport Plan
Brighton & Hove has launched a public consultation to discuss the future of transport. It seems to avoid asking the crucial question: should we to prioritise sustainable transport or not?

Most people say they would would prefer to use fast public transport, but private motor car is simply safer and easier to use in Brighton & Hove. Our streets are clogged with polluting cars, while public transport takes way too long and cycling is unsafe on many routes. We are stuck thinking there is no way ahead. Yet some European cities have shown there is a different way.

We need a policy decision to change things for the better, and we now have the chance. On October 29, the City Council opened a public consultation to discuss its forthcoming "Local Transport Plan". This will close on December 10. The Plan is the strategy document that will define how planners will develop infrastructure for roads, buses, cycling, rail and other ways of getting about for the coming decades.

Sitting on the Fence: Green City or Motor City?
I answered the on-line Plan consultation questionnaire. I found it frustrating. I mean, who needs to be asked: "Should we create safe and attractive streets and places that everyone can enjoy?" Surely everyone's the answer to that is: "Yes!"

The real question that needs to be asked is: "Do you want sustainable transport? Should Brighton & Hove to be a Motor City or a Green City?"

The City needs to make a fundamental decision: should the Plan give priority to sustainable transport, as has been done in other cities? My opinion is we do not want to continue to prioritise motor transport, for reasons of air pollution, personal fitness and safety, let alone climate control and global warming.

We need a bold policy decision to rearrange transport priorities resulting in fast public transport and safe cycling. At present, buses take over an hour to travel a few miles from one end of the city to the other. Cycle routes are crowded out by traffic and children have to cycle to school on the pavement. This needs to change. Priority needs to be given to sustainable transport. This is not rocket science. Look at any number of cities in Germany, Netherlands, Denmark. Cycling is an important component, but the key is fast, reliable public transport.

At present people jump into their cars to make short journeys to the shops, beach, school. When people find their car is less convenient, they will use fast buses, or safe, fast, cycle routes. We can develop tailor made solutions for our city - buses or trams for steep hills, beachfront rail, etc. At this stage, planning is more the key than money, but in later stages investment in pubic transport may help revive the city economy.

But policy half measures and lip service to the vision of sustainable transport are strangling public transport in Brighton at present.

Brighton's claim to being a city of excellent cycling and public transport: lip service
Take a look at Old Shoreham Road by Hove Park during the rush hour. School kids struggling to cycle along "pedestrian only" foot paths while aggressive drivers push and shove their cars along the narrow roadway. Public transport is at a standstill. It takes an hour by bus to travel the few miles from Aldrington to Patcham. Fifteen minutes by car. The solution seems obvious. If everyone uses cycles or public transport, it will be safe and fast to get to work on the bus or bike.

The council is effectively controlled by a Tory minority, and they are pro-motor car. The 2009 public consultation about the Old Shoreham Road Cycle Lane showed the public wanted a cycle lane, but the public also warned the scheme as planned was unsafe. The Council was suggesting that 7,000 school-kids would use the Cycle Lane to get to school, but the lane was simply lines painted on the road amid heavy traffic. Traffic simply ignores these painted lines in most other parts of the city. The public wanted the scheme improved to include protected cycle lanes. This would mean reducing room for motor cars. Cars would have to use the bypass, taking longer to get about the city. Rather than improve the scheme, the Council scrapped it.

You only have to read the text below, from an academic paper, to see why Old Shoreham Road (OSR) scheme could not have succeeded: "separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections" are needed. The paper was from 2007. So why did Brighton planners put together a scheme that would fail because of safety? Was it planned to fail, by a Tory controlled council who need to show lip service to sustainability but don't really believe in it?

Local Transport Plan: opportunity for a real sustainable transport plan
Brighton & Hove should become the city of excellent public transport and safe cycling that it claims to be. Others have blazed the trail for us. The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made public transport fast - the route of choice - and cycling is a safe, convenient and practical way to get around their cities. The key to achieving high levels of cycling appears to be the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily travelled roads and at intersections, combined with traffic calming of most residential neighbourhoods. Extensive cycling rights of way in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are complemented by ample bike parking, full integration with public transport, comprehensive traffic education and training of both cyclists and motorists, and a wide range of promotional events intended to generate enthusiasm and wide public support for cycling. In addition to their many pro-bike policies and programmes, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany make driving expensive as well as inconvenient in central cities through a host of taxes and restrictions on car ownership, use and parking. Moreover, strict land-use policies foster compact, mixed-use developments that generate shorter and thus more bikeable trips. It is the coordinated implementation of this multi-faceted, mutually reinforcing set of policies that best explains the success of these three countries in promoting cycling. Compare with the marginal status of cycling in the UK and the USA, where only about 1% of trips are by bike.

Sounds to good to be true? I didn't make it up. The paragraph is paraphrased from a 2007 academic paper called "Making cycling irresistible". You can download the paper from
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a790578015~tab=content

Sustainable transport could become a flagship of policy in Brighton if the council had the vision or the will. Will it alienate motor car users? I think most of them would welcome viable alternatives to car transport, especially if it is promoted properly. Will it cost money? Not necessarily - significant engineering work might be needed on schemes like OSR, but mostly it is a matter of road use policy and planning.

Note: the Local Transport Plan
Brighton & Hove City Council's new Local Transport Plan (LTP) will set out how it proposes to maintain and improve the city’s transport network. It will outline priorities for transport up to 2026 and how to achieve them. Producing an LTP is a legal requirement and must be completed by April 2011.
The plan will include a 15-year, long-term transport strategy and a short term, three-year delivery plan of specific schemes. Brighton & Hove’s plan will be supporting the five national transport goals: supporting economic growth; tackling climate change; promoting equality of opportunity; contributing to better safety, security and health; and improving quality of life.
The Public Consultation was opened 29 October and closes 10 December 2010.
For more information, and to complete the questionaire, go to: More on the Local Transport Plan

Jack's shamanic symbols

I made a new post for Jack's Shamanic Art blog. His latest work uses silver, copper and agate to interpret shamanic ritual. Will do more with the video when I get time. For the moment it uses a slide show, imported into iMovie and slowed down.
Impressive work - click here to see it.

Geldof should tell the whole African story

Reality of Ethiopian civil war

On 3 November, the BBC World Service apologised to Bob Geldof for implying that Band Aid money might have been diverted to buy weapons. In my opinion, the apology obscures a kernel of truth that would promote positive debate on the African crisis.

Bob Geldof should own up to the problems of distributing aid money in Africa. Transparency and an accurate portrayal of what is really happening are needed if we can hope to solve the problems. Glossing over the truth preserves a romantic view of the relationship between Africa and Europe that may actually perpetuate bad governments.

The BBC apologised for a series of reports claiming money raised by Live Aid to fight famine in Ethiopia was spent on weapons, saying it had no evidence. The claims prompted a complaint from Band Aid Trustees including Bob Geldof.

An edition of Assignment, broadcast on the World Service last March, initially reported (unspecified) aid money had been diverted by a rebel group to buy guns. That story was followed up online and on programmes including From Our Own Correspondent and the BBC News which went one step further and named Live Aid and Band Aid as the source of the misdirected funds - although they had no further evidence.

The BBC's additional reporting misrepresented the original story by identifying Band Aid. That is a great pity, because the World Service made an important point: cash and other aid provided to African governments, or to opponents of these governments who are involved in armed struggle, inevitably supports arms and war, directly or indirectly. Bob Geldof didn't deny Band Aid supported armed rebel controlled organisations. He simply says the BBC can't prove the money was spent on arms.

Look what happened: the people who were funded by Live Aid and others went on to win the war in Ethiopia, and are now becoming tyrants themselves. This message is valuable: chucking money at starving Africa isn't solving the problem. Famine relief must happen (maybe better managed and administered than Live Aid) but solving the problem involves looking truthfully at it, not glossing over it as Bob Geldof does in dealing with the BBC article.

Bob Geldof says there is no evidence Live Aid money went to fund arms. Because of British libel laws, the BBC has to give in to him because they cannot definitively prove the truth of their claims in court, even though people who worked in Live Aid say it is inevitable that some money was diverted. So the kernel of truth has been obscured: when we support one faction in a civil war, we should take responsibility for the consequences.

Africa has big problems including colonial legacy, African dictators and European arms traders. Live Aid and Live 8 are wasted opportunities, because the media extravaganza should be focussed on revealing the truth about Africa, not wallowing in romantic imagery of gallant Europeans saving starving Africans. If Bob Geldof focussed on revealing the power struggles that are behind destabilised Africa, we would see a disturbing picture of big business and arms dealers and ruthless African dictators taking power by force of arms for the sake of controlling mineral reserves. International business, including business controlled by Europeans, benefits from and interferes in this process. Wars are started and millions die. It is dangerously simplistic to blame the problems on drought or on capitalism as Geldof seems to do. In doing so, he provides cover for the criminal rape of Africa to continue. I hope in future he will focus attention on the reality of African government, e.g. in Ethiopia, Burundi, Rwanda, and DRC, and provide more intelligent analysis than he has done so far, lest he be seen as contributing to a cover-up.

Well done to World Service for trying to tackle this issue, shame to BBC for misrepresenting the original reporting in such a way as to render it libellous, and to Geldof for failing to tell us the whole story. Why do they do that?

Notes
1. The apology broadcast on the World Service said: "Following a complaint from the Band Aid Trust, the BBC has investigated the programme. The investigation has concluded that the programme's evidence did not relate to money raised by Band Aid and Live Aid. However, the programme gave the impression that large amounts of Band Aid and Live Aid money had been diverted. The BBC wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for this misleading and unfair impression. The BBC also wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for a number of reports on television, radio and online which went further than the programme itself in stating that millions of pounds raised by Band Aid and Live Aid had been diverted to buy arms. The BBC had no evidence for these statements, and they shouldn't have been broadcast." The corporation also apologised to Geldof after it "unfairly" said he refused to comment on the story because it was too sensitive.

2. According to Wikipedia: Aregawi Berhe, a high-ranking TPLF (rebel) commander living in exile in The Netherlands, told German radio Deutsche Welle that "the rebel movement, TPFL, had received the money under false pretences – through its development arm, the so-called 'Aid Association of Tigray' (MARET). But MARET belonged to the party. So after the aid from donors and aid charities was collected, it was made available through the budget of the party's central committee – for logistics and financing of the resistance."
Wikipedia on TPLF

Shamanic art: Sesothu initiation ceremony

Today I was asked to set up a blog for a friend who wants to promote his exhibition of shamanic art - paintings he made of his experiences at Sesothu initiation ceremonies in South Africa. This is the result: http://shamanicjack.blogspot.com/