[Foreword 26/3/2015:

It has become apparent that the Bath Chronicle’s ‘article‘ is blatant sensationalism and, rather than focus on the core objectives of this plan (to enable a 6 year old child to ride from Larkhall to the city centre safely while creating good accessible surfaces for all), they headline with “Cyclists want to move parked cars on Great Pulteney Street, Bath”.

The Great Pulteney Street proposal is ONE MINOR PART of the overall plan; it would create a buffered separate cycle lane, keeping bicycles off the pavement and away from people walking. This idea has, however, resulted in people suggesting on the Chronicle’s Facebook page that “pavement ‘cyclists’ should be ‘clotheslined'” and that we “do not ‘deserve’ any of this”.

This kind of planned provision should be celebrated, not derided. It’s pretty disappointing, in this day and age, when the provision of good, safe, traffic free routes, which not only help children cycle to school but give people the option of choosing to leave their car at home and embracing a healthy transport option, is placed within the Bath Chronicle’s chosen framing of the debate. Even if the newspaper took a “neutral” stance they would, by default, side with the status quo; the way the debate was framed, however, was anything but neutral.

— Adam Reynolds, Cycle Bath Chair]