Cyclists protest against bypass plan

Brian Lashley

September 18, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (52) | Previous | Next

Jonathon Atkinson (r) takes part in the protest

CYCLISTS got on their bikes in protest against a controversial bypass.

The event was organised to highlight the fact that bikes and people should be catered for on roads, not just cars and traffic.

Riders set off from Glossop train station on the four-mile route, which stopped near Swallow's Wood, Tintwistle.

Opponents of the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass say the wood is threatened by the proposed 3.5 mile road which would take motorists away from the congested roads of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, and link Tameside with the A628 Woodhead Pass to Yorkshire.

Organisers of the bike ride said the aim was not to stop traffic but to make the presence of cycles on the road more visible. Jonathan Atkinson, event leader, said: "It was a few of us in Glossop who all cycle who thought of the idea.

"The idea was to say `we cycle - we don't want a bypass'. We want more cycle lanes and investment in safer roads, not a bypass.

"Something like £200m will be spent on the bypass. Everyone agrees we need something to be done, but why don't they spend that on things like cycling which is not only good for your health, but good for the environment?

"So many people cycle in the area and it's quite a dangerous area to ride in, yet a little bit of investment could really turn things around.

"The Highways Agency say there'll be more traffic in the area if the bypass is built so the roads will be more dangerous."

The public inquiry into the Mottram-Tintwistle bypass is set to resume tomorrow after it was dramatically halted when the Highways Agency admitted it had got its figures wrong.

All the traffic evidence it has put before the inquiry, which has been running since June, will now be reviewed. The Highways Agency's `fundamental' mistake came to light as it was preparing to answer a question from an opponent of the scheme. The agency told the inquiry, at Stalybridge Civic Hall, it had made a `significant error' in its estimation of how much traffic would use the road by underestimating journey times on the A616 trunk road.

As a result, evidence about air and noise pollution, water quality, engineering and drainage will also be reassessed.

| Submit Comments | Comments (52) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Chris, Irlam (18/09/2007 at 10:39)

This shows the idiocy of the anti-roads movement....these cyclist's lives would be SO much easier & safer if this bypass were to be built so why are they against it?

Massive amounts of traffic would be removed from the Mottram & Glossop areas!

I suppose a cycle path across the area would be OK but a much-needed relief route would not be OK?

Lets face it, to these sorts all roads = bad.

come-on-city (18/09/2007 at 11:54)

Chris, Irlam

Read the whole article and not just the headline.

Their lives would not be better it would be worse as the Highway Agency have admitted. The amount of traffic would increase, without any improvement for them to cycle on the roads.

come-on-city (18/09/2007 at 11:55)

How many times do you hear that a bypass is constructed and then a few years later they need another because the bypass is gridlocked.

Good to see the MEN taking a completely bias view with their language 'it will take them away from the "congested" roads of Mottram!'

Is there any evidence for this? Or is it just what a town planner says?

Because the Highways agency say it would create more congestion.

The Catcher, In The Rye (18/09/2007 at 12:15)

If the views of thousands of motorists regarding the Manchester Congestion Charge, why would a few cyclists think they are going to have any effect.

I would not allow cyclists on the road. They are selfish, idiotic and dangerous.

Black Flag (18/09/2007 at 12:35)

Catcher, many cyclists are selfish, idiotic and dangerous, but then so are many drivers, so by your logic, nobody should be allowed on the road.

The Catcher, In The Rye (18/09/2007 at 13:31)

Black Flag: but motorists are (usually) insured. Cyclist cause accidents, blame everybody else then suffer no consequences.

You need to stop trying to employ clever logic to everything. You may not have noticed but logic is only theoretical where humans are concerned.

marc (18/09/2007 at 13:36)

sounds to me like the cyclists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. the bypass is going to direct traffic away from the area they use - how is this a bad thing?

Black Sabbath (18/09/2007 at 13:38)

I was informed by the HA that over 70% of traffic would be removed from the A57 through Mottram on completion of this bypass. If that is the case come-on-city how can you say that this road will make things worse? Where possible traffic & people should be kept away from each other, this is why cycle lanes on major roads are a mad idea & very under used.

Black Flag (18/09/2007 at 13:49)

Cyclists are just as liable as motorists for any accidents they cause on the road. The reason that motorists are required to hold insurance is that you can cause much more damage to life and limb with a car than you can with a bike.

Logic is what brings you to the correct conclusion. If you've got no reason to hide the truth, you've nothing to fear from logic.

The Catcher, In The Rye (18/09/2007 at 14:10)

Black Flag: you could you the no reason to hide argument about a national DNA database burt I bet that's something else you object to.

Problem is with logic, if you coldly use it alone, you rarely deduce a solution or remedy which satisfies anybody but the pedant.

Try reading a bit about Lord Denning, even you might learn something

The Catcher, In The Rye (18/09/2007 at 14:15)

Black Flag: "Cyclists are just as liable as motorists for any accidents they cause on the road". To pursue costs from a cyclist, I have to go to court. To pursue costs from another motorist, I go through the insurers.

Mr Manchester (18/09/2007 at 14:25)

Unicycles would be a happy medium in this bitter dispute.

whynot (18/09/2007 at 14:33)

The ride took place along the A57 from Glossop via the A628 to Tintwistle. The bypass is forecast to actually INCREASE traffic on most local roads other than those the A628 and the A57 Hyde Road. So, one of the arguments for the bypass is that it will enable the provision of walking/cycling by reducing traffic, but on this main route from Hollingworth to Glososp -- already unsafe for both walkers and cyclists -- where traffic is forecast increase, this promise does not stack up: how does more traffic make it safer? Cyclists have as much right to be on the road as motorists-- many cyclists (myself included) are also motorists, paying our taxes to use the roads. The fact is cycling benefits the community AND motorists, reducing congestion on the roads, reducing pollution, and improving health. The Government should be paying people to get on their bikes! not encouraging petrol-headed Clarkson fans to run us off the road by keeping the cost of motoring at a price that does not reflect the damage it does to the environment and public health.

ace, manchester (18/09/2007 at 14:33)

These dont represent most of the cyclists that i see around the towns and cities? these have reflective arm bands and safety helmets .Most of the cyclists that i see cause so many problems on our roads .they cross traffic lights on stop they use the pavements when it suits them they cut cars up and pull out without looking. they need to have registration numbers on and at least a basic insurance to be on the roads..

whynot (18/09/2007 at 14:38)

The Catcher, In The Rye: have you ever had to claim money from a cyclist causing damage to your or your vehicle, or is this just anti-cyclists nonsense? Nowadays many cyclists ARE insured. The roads are so dangerous (thanks to kind, considerate drivers such as I assume you NOT to be) that you'd be mad not to be covered. Then there's the risk of having your bike stolen/vandalised, so another reason to pay for cover. Tarring all cyclists with the same brush is a nonsense. There as many different types of people on their bikes as their are models of cars on the roads. Take a chill pill. A nice bike ride might just be what you need.

Black Flag (18/09/2007 at 14:50)

Not quite Catcher. That only works if the other driver's insurance company is prepared to accept that their driver was at fault. Otherwise, you would be in the same situation as with a cyclist who didn't admit liability. Your claim is always against the driver, not the insurance company.

Black Sabbath (18/09/2007 at 14:57)

Whynot, since motorists contribute over 50 billion pounds to the country every year through taxation I would say they already pay their way. What do cyclists pay towards the upkeep of the roads & pathways?

David, Manchester (18/09/2007 at 15:25)

Cyclists need cycle lanes to separate them from the traffic. Like most cyclists I also have a car and so I do pay tax and a lot of it, but we don't get the protection that you get in other cities. Getting people onto bikes will cut oil consumption and make people healthier. They will only do it when there is an extensive network of cycle lanes.

The Catcher, In The Rye (18/09/2007 at 15:29)

I'm afraid cyclist are starting to irritate me like all the other 'minorities' who want special treatment at the expense of the majority.

Black Flag (18/09/2007 at 15:40)

Black Sabbath, the majority of roads and pathways, other than motorways and major A roads, are maintained by local authorities, which are funded by a combination of council tax and general taxation, both of which cyclists will contribute to.

Andy, Wythenshawe (18/09/2007 at 15:49)

The Catcher, In The Rye = Jake Long .

Cyclists are using the perfect green machine, motorists are destroying the enviroment on a local and global scale.

come-on-city (18/09/2007 at 15:55)

Black Sabbath, you called me on this.

"HA say that over 70% of traffic would be removed from the A57 through Mottram on completion of this bypass."

But the article says the HA is having to review because they got their figures wrong. The traffic volume would increase.

Black Flag (18/09/2007 at 16:09)

Creating a bypass (unless you make it a toll road) will draw in more traffic. People will see more opportunity to commute between Sheffield and Manchester which will increase traffic. Developers will see opportunities to build retail units, commercial units and houses beside the bypass, which will add even more traffic.

The Catcher, In The Rye (18/09/2007 at 16:19)

Andy:

Jake Long ????????????

whynot (18/09/2007 at 16:23)

How about checking the facts? The National Park are objecting because traffic through the National Park will increase, local groups WAIT (Langsett) and Save Swallow's Wood (Mottram/Glossop) are objecting to the traffic increases in their areas, and there's a guy from Denton along with the Greater Manchester PCT objecting because air quality will deteriorate (because there will be more traffic). There's loads of info out there. See for yourself: http://www.persona.uk.com/mottram/other_parties_docs.htm

()

Report

News