Fender Lane Farce: When Active Travel Stops Listening and Starts Gaslighting
- Rory
- Jul 4
- 7 min read
Updated: Jul 10
Note (updated 10 July 2025): After viewing the committee meeting on 9th July 2025, I have updated this blog to clarify and correct where necessary. I firmly believe a neutral third-party review of the data would help with clarity and understanding. For the record, I do not believe there is anything nefarious in the Mott MacDonald report—I just think it’s wiser for consultants and council not to mark their own homework.
I’ll be blunt: I’m deeply disappointed by this review. Not because I expected miracles, but because I expected honesty. Instead, Wirral Council has delivered a document that feels less like an objective assessment and more like a pre-written defence.
The review ignores 63% of the public, who clearly said the scheme should be removed.
It relies on data that doesn’t match independent sensor evidence, and fails to explain the discrepancy.
And it was written by a firm, Mott MacDonald, who helped design the very network they’re now defending—a textbook conflict of interest.
Even worse, it sets a precedent: public feedback doesn’t matter unless it aligns with pre-existing agendas. That’s not consultation. That’s gaslighting. If this is how the Core Active Travel Network will be rolled out—built on broken trust, selective data, and contractor echo chambers—then we’ve already lost the public before we’ve laid the tarmac. We deserve better. —Rory Wilmer
Wirral Active Travel Review Report
Wirral Council just announced they’re keeping the Fender Lane cycle lane, despite overwhelming opposition. Their logic? A vague claim about “reputation” and “future funding.” The real story is more cynical: a broken consultation, cooked data, and a conflict of interest that stinks of institutional self-preservation.
Public Says Scrap It. Council Says Ignore It.
63% of consultation respondents said: remove the lane.
Many cited safety, traffic congestion, and that “no one uses it.”
The council’s report says doing so would “risk reputation” and damage the wider cycling strategy.
What they didn’t say? The consultation wasn’t independent, and the review was written by the same consultancy pushing for a borough-wide expansion of similar schemes.
The Numbers Don’t Hold Up
The council claims 110–120 cyclists per day use Fender Lane. But actual data from Merseytravel’s Sensor 8 at Fender Lane reveals the truth:
46 cyclists per day on average, across nearly 2,000 days of data.
Usage in June 2025 dropped to 1,597 cyclists, or just 53 per day—at the height of summer.
Even the peak count on a single day never topped 276.
This is not a success. It's an expensive, barely-used scheme propped up by spin.
Compare that to 12,421 daily car trips on the same stretch of road, and you realise how skewed the priorities have become.
09/07/2025 22:39 Update: The daily average figure I cited in this article was based on data from Merseytravel’s Sensor 8, which had known gaps and inconsistencies — especially in earlier periods. That means the long-term average may understate actual usage. However, even during periods when both Sensor 8 and Sensor 9 were active, the numbers still didn’t align. That discrepancy hasn’t been fully explained.
It’s not about whether the Council’s figure is “definitely wrong” — they’ve published a report via Mott MacDonald, but it doesn’t clearly set out how their daily cyclist figure (110–120/day) was calculated, or how it relates to the raw sensor data.
As I noted in my previous article, I also reported the trend growth rate: +28 cyclist detections per month, with a statistical trend strength of R² = 0.63. These were clearly presented to give a full picture of what the data does show — a steady but modest increase. It’s also important to clarify that these are detection counts, not unique individuals — so regular users are recorded multiple times.
I’m not a statistician or transport consultant — I’m a resident trying to understand what’s going on using the public data available. I’d strongly welcome a fully independent third-party review of the sensor data, methodology, and assumptions used in the Council’s review.
That kind of transparency would help everyone — residents, councillors, planners — to interpret this properly and move the debate forward with confidence.
What Mott MacDonald’s Report Says
Headline claim: 114–120 cyclists per day on Fender Lane after the cycle scheme was introduced (see Table 2.2 of the report).
Basis: VivaCity “Sensor 9” (S9), with reference to annual averages for 2023 and 2024.
Comparison: The report says the pre-scheme average was about 70 cyclists per day (2021).
What the Raw Sensor Data Shows
Sensor 8 (S8, Fender Lane West):
Long-term average (all available data): 46.6 cyclists per day (over 1,995 days).
Peak month (June 2025): 93.9 cyclists per day (with the highest single day at 149).
Sensor 9 (S9, Hoylake Road East):
Long-term average (same period as the report): 35.6 cyclists per day.
There is no sustained period in either sensor’s public data where the daily average reaches the 110–120 figure cited in the report.
No Transparent Method for Council’s Figures
The report does not provide the calculation or raw figures behind its headline average.
It’s not clear if summer peaks were used, whether figures were annualised with imputation, or if sensors were combined.
Even at peak times, the highest monthly average in 2025 is 94 cyclists per day—well below the headline figure.
Possible Reasons for the Discrepancy
The report appears to use a single post-COVID year (2023/24) as its “after” period, without comparing to a true long-term or pre-pandemic baseline.
There is no discussion of data gaps, downtime, or possible double-counting between sensors.
It’s unclear whether their “average” includes or excludes periods with missing data.
Why This Matters
When key decisions are based on headline statistics, those numbers need to be clear, traceable, and reproducible. If the published sensor data shows consistently lower cycling numbers than those used to justify the scheme, that gap should be explained.I’m not suggesting bad faith—just that, as things stand, the data does not align and the method is not transparent.
A Constructive Solution: Independent Review
If the numbers used to justify the scheme can’t be reconciled with public data, the answer isn’t to argue—it’s to open the books. I strongly recommend that Wirral Council or the Combined Authority commission an independent third-party review of the sensor data, the methodology, and the calculation of headline figures for Fender Lane.
This would provide transparency for residents, clarity for decision-makers, and confidence for everyone—regardless of their view on active travel. Who Wrote the current Review?
Enter: Mott MacDonald, the consultancy who wrote the technical assessment that Wirral Council is relying on. Sounds neutral?
Not even close.
Mott MacDonald designed the wider Core Active Travel Network (CATN) plan for Wirral.
They produced the technical report, consultation analysis, and even the final approval documents for CATN.
Their business? Delivering active travel schemes like Fender Lane.
That means the firm that says, “This scheme is great and should stay,” is the same firm that profits from schemes like it being kept, extended, and replicated. This is a classic mark-your-own-homework setup—and Wirral Council doesn’t even blink.
Note: “Conflict of interest” in this context refers to the consultancy's dual role in both designing and later reviewing related infrastructure schemes. No assertion of misconduct is made.
The Liscard PSPO Debacle
While Fender Lane is being defended in the name of “active travel,” over in Liscard the council is preparing to ban pedal bikes, e-bikes, and scooters from the town centre under a new PSPO due to “anti-social behaviour.”
Let’s repeat that: one part of the council is banning cycling in town centres. Another part is ploughing ahead with cycling routes through the same area—against public will.
Even Labour councillors now say there are “no plans for cycle lanes in Liscard,” contradicting CATN documentation entirely. The policy incoherence isn’t just laughable. It’s fatal for any trust in the strategy.
Logic Bombs
Let’s break down just how flimsy the council’s logic really is:
Claim | Reality |
"Removing the lane would cost £66k" | But it already cost £204k to install—and it’s not working. Cutting losses is smart, not wasteful. |
"Cyclist numbers increased" | From ~70 to ~110 per day? That’s barely a ripple. |
"We risk our reputation with funders" | Ignoring 63% of the public is far worse for reputation—and democratic accountability. |
"It supports our 15-year CATN vision" | How? When the public is turning against it, councillors are walking it back, and the data shows failure. |
Bottom Line
This isn’t about cycling. It’s about integrity. Fender Lane is a symbol of how strategy loses touch with the people. The consultation was a fig leaf. The data is being misused. And the consultants who helped build the policy are now validating it to protect their own role. Wirral deserves cycling infrastructure that works, connects, and earns public trust—not just ticks boxes and keeps consultants fed. Time to bin the bollards, listen to the public, and go back to the drawing board—this time with honesty and independent oversight.
Correction (10 July 2025): I wrote: “Usage in June 2025 dropped to 1,597 cyclists, or just 53 per day—at the height of summer.” This was based on my initial analysis of Sensor 8 data, but on rechecking the full dataset, I found that the actual daily average for June 2025 is 93.9 cyclists per day (across 17 recorded days, total 1,597). The “53 per day” figure was incorrect—likely due to incomplete data for some days, or a calculation error on my part. The key point remains unchanged: even during the busiest recorded summer month, the average falls well below the council’s headline of 110–120 cyclists per day. However, for accuracy, the June 2025 figure is closer to 94 per day, not 53.Disclaimer
This article reflects the author’s interpretation of publicly available data, official reports, and media sources as of July 2025. Sensor figures cited are from Merseytravel datasets and analysed independently. Any errors or omissions are unintentional and open to correction upon evidence. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of any affiliated organisation or partner. Public consultation figures, policy statements, and council positions are cited from council-published documents and news reports with references available on request.
Comments