Cyclists could face £1,000 fine if caught riding in pedestrianised zones

Jenova20 wrote:

"He claimed the council is also looking to 'make improvements to support both cycling and walking as forms of Active Travel'"

 

You're doing it wrong.

They're only looking, not doing.

eburtthebike wrote:

They're only looking, not doing.

I doubt they are even doing that much. It will have been added to the press release in a tokenistic way, as most statutory bodies do.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Maybe the problem is the "Royal" bit?  What others are there?  Ah, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.  In a recent review they came 33rd out of 32 London boroughs + the city for protected cycling infra, 25th / 33 for LTNs.

33rd out of 32, that's quite an achievement.

Because they put the effort in (and here, and here). "yeah - we're only 32 out of 32 if you don't include the city which isn't a borough anyway!"

GMBasix wrote:

Quote:

[Councillor David Cannon, cabinet member for public protection and parking] added: "while most cyclists are responsible, we will use enforcement powers under the PSPO to respond to community concerns and tackle the behaviour of a few who ignore the no cycling signage in these zones, don’t dismount and risk pedestrian safety."

That says they will be enforcing only if people...

1. ignore the signs, and
2. don't dismount, and
3. risk pedestrian safety

Since that is listed separately, it follows that 3 is not an inevitable consequence of 2, therefore 3 must be demonstrated before they take action.  Thank you, councillor, for giving guidance on how the PSPO will be implemented.

NB:  IANAL, but even I know this won't carry any water and should not be taken as legal advice

A good point: since they already have powers to arrest someone recklessly putting pedestrians at risk, what, exactly, is the point of the PSPO?  Except to persecute otherwise perfectly legal, safe cyclists of course.

I was thinking, "f*ck it, I'll leave the bike on the rack and drive through instead"

Just take it easy when youre driving close to pedestrians. At least give them a chance to part like Moses parting the Red Sea before mowing them down.

just cycling through a shared area isnt anti social, but its perfectly possible to cycle anti socially through a shared area.

and its pretty much been a consistent thing in my life experiences that the actions of a few individuals will always result in stronger measures taken against a whole group whether they are responsible or not and not just tackle the individuals.

these zones came up a few months back, possibly as part of the trial, and they dont look wholly unreasonable to say nope sorry you cant ride down there given they seem fairly heavily used pedestrian zones, and youd not be able to ride much more than walking pace.

will it impact cycling in the area ? impossible to say very much depends on where you are trying to get to and from, and whether these routes were the main desire lines.

but Windsor/Maidenhead had 335,000 pound of tranche 2 active funding to spend on schemes in Windsor & Maidenhead, they dropped a set segregated lanes as they only were allocated half the money they bid for, but its maybe more productive for local cyclists to keep the pressure on the council to deliver those schemes, than lose too much sleep on this stuff.

if anything the councils actions here directly give you the leverage to push for proper cycle routes.

Awavey wrote:

just cycling through a shared area isnt anti social, but its perfectly possible to cycle anti socially through a shared area.

From the PSPO Guidance for councils:

"The Home Office's statutory guidance reiterates that PSPOs should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public."

The same point is made several times that PSPOs should only be introduced where there is a real, demonstrated problem, not used to criminalise otherwise legal behaviour.  It also makes clear that there must be wide consultation, especially with representative groups, but there is no mention of them doing that.

"Local areas will of course, need to satisfy themselves that the legislative requirements are met before an order can be introduced, and obtaining clear evidence to support this is important."

The only evidence mentioned is that of a consultation which, if it's anything like most local consultations, is rarely representative, and easily dominated by a few people with strong views, especially if whipped up by the local press.  I think they meant actual evidence like a long list of pedestrians hospitalised after being struck by bicycle riders.  No?  No evidence then.

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.21%20PSPO%20gu...

Thanks for the link to the document, I note that it is recommended to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment if the PSPO will disproportionately affect groups with protected characteristics, perhaps all cyclists should agree to declare themselves to hold such a protected characteristic if stopped. Is the Royal Borough noted for its diversity?

muhasib wrote:

Thanks for the link to the document, I note that it is recommended to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment if the PSPO will disproportionately affect groups with protected characteristics, perhaps all cyclists should agree to declare themselves to hold such a protected characteristic if stopped. Is the Royal Borough noted for its diversity?

I think that's why you never see councils banning antisocial mobility scootering in pedestrian areas...

Awavey wrote:

its maybe more productive for local cyclists to keep the pressure on the council to deliver those schemes, than lose too much sleep on this stuff.

if anything the councils actions here directly give you the leverage to push for proper cycle routes.

I'd agree but given the glacial progress of any change unless it's forced (Covid) or essentially a cash cow anyone in favour of active travel should be pushing everywhere. Also in my experience the last thing that councils do is is "joined up thinking". The "shops" / "civic realm" / "buses" / "cycling" and "transport" responsibilities may be in separate departments that don't coordinate - if they're not actively fighting.

If only there were some way to improve the situation for pedestrians, those with disabilities, cyclists and motorists in one go...

(From a couple of years back): https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/my-cycle-my-mobility-aid-recognising-cycles-mobility-aid

Visions from the future?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/inclusive-cycling-on-tricycles/

Trouble is, there is probably no traffic free alternative. As is typical with UK town cycling infrastructure, it disappears when you get near the centre. Often at a bike rack next to the car park, making you walk the same distance (or further!) to the shops as a car driver and losing the door-to-door time saving benefit of cycling.

And come back to a vandalised or stolen bike.

I had a similar thought. A couple of years back i contacted my MP about parking on pavements, he told me that it was sometimes inevitable. Elsewhere it seems that cycling on the pavements is a fineable offence.