Forum topic: Revised A105 cycle lane proposals to go to Cabinet next month

Enlightening news in this week’s FLDRA mail out on the A105 Green Lane’s section of the Cycle Enfield programme confirming, “At no time did we say or have we said that we were for or against the proposals.” This seems entirely reasonable given the absence of any member discussion on the matter over the last two years or so and being based on a live issue, with major revisions still being made in response to consultation input, making it difficult to be for or against a (significantly) moving target.


That stance is however at odds with active support for FERAA in its very specific negative stance (and activity) on Cycle Enfield as it stands, and which includes FLDRA:


Action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations.

A calmer, balanced approach from many quarters may have avoided much of the divisive discourse this programme has long suffered from. It does after all have the potential to be a once in a generational opportunity. Residents Association delegates should of course reflect the position of their membership, and if there isn't one, not operate as if there is.

"That stance is however at odds with active support for FERAA in its very specific negative stance (and activity) on Cycle Enfield as it stands, and which includes FLDRA:.....................Action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Sorry Karl, I don't quite understand what you are saying. Which group is the " action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

When you have clarified, in plain English, I may be able to correct any misunderstanding you may have.

That’s the particular group FERAA set up and you are named as being one of – the exact quote is from their very own minutes – essentially to fight against Cycle Enfield, both as an umbrella and as individual Resident Associations. Many of the actions agreed by that group to this end are listed earlier in the chain. However, it seems tricky to do so as FLDRA, or more specifically inappropriate when the FLDRA membership isn’t supportive (see earlier in the same chain). Hope that’s now clear.

No Karl, not clearer at all. I asked you to clarify the following statement of yours and you have not done that.

"That stance is however at odds with active support for FERAA in its very specific negative stance (and activity) on Cycle Enfield as it stands, and which includes FLDRA:.....................Action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Which group is the "action group set up of Linda Miller, Robert Taylor, John Jewson, Paul Mandel headed by Peter Gibbs to press all advantage on behalf of FERAA and individual associations."

Do you mean SOGL rather than FLDRA?

With regard to my participation in FERAA. It has nothing to do with SOGL. I have represented, with other committee members, FLDRA at FERAA meetings over the past year. Furthermore SOGL is not a member of FERAA, It can't be. It is not a residents association

In terms of support for Cycle Enfield amongst the FLDRA membership. Cycle Enfield is not the issue. It is the proposed A105 cycle superhighway that is the issue. Had you been at the AGM on Wednesday you will have heard for yourself, the great deal of hostility, and very little support, there is toward the scheme.

And let me also be very clear, it is not the principle of the scheme that most people oppose, it is the impracticality of it that is the issue.

If I can be permitted to intervene in this personal argument, the smoking gun proving the existence of the action group is the minutes of a FERAA meeting held on 9th November 2015:



Karl's quote about the formation and composition of the action group is taken word-for-word from those minutes.

Paul Mandel wrote:

And let me also be very clear, it is not the principle of the scheme that most people oppose, it is the impracticality of it that is the issue.

It is the principle of the mini-Holland scheme that you are campaigning against, since the idea of mini-Holland is to allow cyclists to go about their lawful business safely by cycling along main roads and accessing shopping centres. Mini-Holland is not about sending cyclists round lengthy diversions.

Basil

Well I can tell you that this FERAA action group has not met. However, All the people named did attend the last SOGL committee meeting along with about five others. So what. At the last FERAA meeting, not one voice spoke in favour of mini-Holland.

As I said we are not against Cycle Enfield. I am a cyclist. I regularly go about my lawful business on my bicycle. I can also tell you that Peter Gibbs is a cyclist But, there is no need to take away road space from other vehicles solely for the use of bicycles, when it is going to leave insufficient capacity on what remains. The scheme will also cause hardship for protected groups. I suggest you read Sue Younger's comments.

"there is no need to take away road space from other vehicles solely for the use of bicycles, when it is going to leave insufficient capacity on what remains.". Conversely, the situation seems very clear in that the planners (national and London levels) and politicians in power (national, London and Borough levels) have concluded that pressures on road space, already causing delays, will increase, health inactivity is too costly, and other points long since highlighted, all come together to make change an agreed path. Only last week Boris has indicated the latest proposed step to take one of the carriageways on the A40 Westway - an extremely car-full highway - and convert it for bicycle only only use, reducing car capacity by 1/3 in the process. How big a signal is needed.
The real challenge is how to optimise change for the benefit of all for change is undoubtedly on its way. Lots of single-issue shouting tends not to achieve that end, even the good bits risk getting lost in the storm.