You can probably guess how the ranters of local Facebook pages reacted to this, Wokingham Borough announcing plans for a speed limit to be reduced from 30mph to 20mph to “support a new walking and cycling route” which the local authority will begin construction on at the end of the month.
A consultation on the proposal, which saw just 166 people respond, found 114 people were opposed, the council’s executive member for active travel, transport and highways stating that adjustments had been made based on the consultation but, even with opposition, the “evidence is quite clear of the benefits of 20mph speed limits in the presence of vulnerable road users”.
“It certainly will make the route more attractive, easier and safer for vulnerable road users, and will encourage more people to walk, cycle and wheel instead of driving when doing this journey, and therefore reduce congestion for people who choose to drive through the route,” he added.
Given the 40+ ‘angry reacts’ and 285 comments on Wokingham Borough’s social media post, it’ll be a surprise to nobody that the comments section has descended into a frothing round-up of criticism for the proposal, however… the council has come out fighting.
Not content to leave Facebook ranting unanswered, the local authority is responding to residents’ comments and dropping a few microphones in the process. One local said she “loves how motorists pay for the roads AND the bike lanes, only to be rewarded with a 20mph speed limit. Meanwhile, the cyclists get a free ride. Unbelievable.”Â
To which, James from Wokingham Borough replied: “Hi Tereena – motorists don’t pay for roads or bike lanes any more than anybody else does. The vehicle excise duty that motorists pay goes into a general pot for all public services, and there hasn’t been a road tax since the 1930s. In any case, many cyclists are also car owners so there isn’t a straight distinction between the two groups. Even where you have cyclists who don’t drive, they pay for projects like this through income tax. James”Â
James has had his Weetabix. Next up was someone asking, “How about repairing existing – appalling – roads?”
To which James pointed out: “We do as much as we can to maintain and repair the roads, within the financial constraints we face. However, the money being invested in this project is from a dedicated Government fund that’s set aside for improving walking and cycling links, so this scheme isn’t using money that would otherwise be spent on maintenance. James”
A third local suggested the changes will make the existing road too narrow and would increase the risk of collisions. Yep, James took this one too: “Hi Attiq. The cycleway is taking space from an existing verge, not the road, so that won’t be an issue. The original proposal was to take road space and make Woodlands Avenue one-way, but we redesigned the plan based on people’s concerns that this would be too difficult for motorists. James”
One final one, although we could do this all morning: “What an absolute joke…..So now arrest the morons that dont [sic] use the lanes.”
Right on cue: “Hi Keith. Most traffic enforcement issues, with a small number of exceptions around parking and moving traffic offences, are for the police rather than us. However, it isn’t an offence to not use a cycle lane where provided, although cyclists should not be using a footway if it isn’t shared-use with cyclists. James”
James’s relentless batting away of comments section whinging was so prolific, someone even asked, “Who is behind this Wokingham Borough account?” We’ve told you four times… it’s James! The comment also questioned if it was their place to “defend political decisions”.
“All we are doing is explaining how the various processes work and the strategic rationale behind the scheme from a corporate point of view – as we’ve done during previous administrations, though again not with any connection to them politically. It’s the basic function of all local authority comms teams and we’ll continue to do so regardless of any future political landscape. James.”
While we’ve had a bit of fun with that, perhaps the place to end is by asking whether councils should follow Wokingham Borough’s lead here and be more front-footed in explaining and defending active travel projects, rather than letting hundreds of negative (and often false or misinformed) comments rack up on local authority social media pages?