Back-pedalling on cycle racks bodes well for future initiatives
Regarding your recent 'Cycle rack row' report, I am confused by Councillor Guy Loosmore's claim that 'The decision was that we re-look at this so that we get the right solution. The council has not objected but asked for further clarification, as a result of which we may get a better solution.'
If the council had indeed wanted an opportunity to ‘re-look’ at the proposal, a simple suspension of standing orders at the meeting of May 20 would have given Transition Marlborough, who had been in fruitful discussion with the Highways Authority, a chance to enlighten the council on why their scheme was the best and safest solution for cycle parking in Marlborough. Instead, in an 8-4 vote.
Transition Marlborough’s proposal was abruptly vetoed, with many now infamous reasons given, including a ludicrous claim that cyclists 'reversing' out of cycle parks would present a danger to motorists.
The petition in support of the original proposal now has 217 signatories, most of whom are from the local district. Statistically, we can assume that almost all of the signatories are motorists, since the vast majority of people who cycle also drive a car.
These, then, are local motorists making it very clear that they would be quite happy to lose the two side bays on the High Street that Marlborough Town Council felt a need to defend on their behalf.
There was simply no credible reason for the council to block Transition Marlborough’s plan and no public demand for them to do so.
Councillor Loosmore's statement at least gives me confidence that, when making future decisions about the improvement of cycling facilities in the town, the council will be bearing in mind the huge support that has been demonstrated by Marlborough people for the town to become a less congested, healthier and more forward-thinking place.