Business owners complain cyclists still riding in pedestrianised zone despite council handing out thousands of pounds worth of fines

Crippledbiker wrote:

Does the PSPO specifically state "Pedal Cycle"?

It does according to the bit posted earlier.

That means you'd be free to zip around the pedestrianised bit whilst parents hurriedly grab their offspring to stop you running over them.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

Does the PSPO specifically state "Pedal Cycle"?

It does according to the bit posted earlier.

That means you'd be free to zip around the pedestrianised bit whilst parents hurriedly grab their offspring to stop you running over them.

Awesome.

I'll get the cattlecatcher back out of storage...

What kind of a stupid argument is this. As long as there aren't piles of dead pedestrians, it isn't a problem? Is it really that difficult to walk for 5 minutes with your bicycle?

It's like saying: show me the reports of people killed because i parked on a handicapped spot and i'll stop doing it.

It is considered antisocial behaviour, and it should be fined.

kettlenorth wrote:

It is considered antisocial behaviour, and it should be fined.

Cycling in general is not considered antisocial behaviour.  

Riding a pedal cycle in such a manner causing or likely to cause nuisance, alarm, harassment or distress to any other person or causing or likely to cause any other person to be intimidated is antisocial behaviour and is covered under the PSPO.

The question remains as to how many of the fines that have been issued have been issued as a result of over zealous enforcement by PCSO's

kettlenorth wrote:

What kind of a stupid argument is this. As long as there aren't piles of dead pedestrians, it isn't a problem? Is it really that difficult to walk for 5 minutes with your bicycle?

It's like saying: show me the reports of people killed because i parked on a handicapped spot and i'll stop doing it.

It is considered antisocial behaviour, and it should be fined.

Which is great, except that all the research shows that cyclists and pedestrians can share perfectly safely.  It's only anti-social if it's, errrr, anti-social.  The few anti-social cyclists won't change because of a stupid law, they'll either ride off or give a false name, so the sole effect of the law is to ban safe cyclists.  I wonder if anyone has asked how many collisions there have been involving mobility scooters?  And if it's the same or more than bicycles, surely they should be banned.

Careful, careful! Sensible points like these are most deffo. NOT welcome here.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Careful, careful! Sensible points like these are most deffo. NOT welcome here.

Hmmm I'm not sure kettlenorth's point qualifies as sensible.

Lets read see what the PSPO says (it can be found online)

Grimsby Town Centre

1. Any activity or behaviour causing or likely to cause nuisance, alarm, harassment or distress to any other person or causing or likely to cause any other person to be intimidated.
2. Riding a pedal cycle  in such a manner causing or likely to cause nuisance, alarm, harassment or distress to any other person or causing or likely to cause any other person to be intimidated within the area as is shown in blue on the map forming part of this order.

So if I follow the logic of kettlenorth's sensible point...... any activity is considered antisocial and should be fined.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Careful, careful! Sensible points like these are most deffo. NOT welcome here.

OMG!  Another Socrapicyclist sock puppet.

kettlenorth wrote:

What kind of a stupid argument is this. As long as there aren't piles of dead pedestrians, it isn't a problem? Is it really that difficult to walk for 5 minutes with your bicycle?

It's like saying: show me the reports of people killed because i parked on a handicapped spot and i'll stop doing it.

It is considered antisocial behaviour, and it should be fined.

Kettlenorth, or should I say Socrapicyclist; sorry, a bit slow on the uptake.  Just how many pseudonyms does one pseud need?

Any proof to back this up ?

Its not just about absolute risk, it is about making an area work better as a public place. Cyclists change the dynamic of a pedestrian zone, you have to keep a tighter grip on young children, watch out more, it makes the place less relaxed, As a cyclist I would not be keen on unrestricted electric bikes or mopeds sharing cycle lanes that at present ban them, the same spurious argument about the absence of dead bodies might be made. Motor traffic free roads are lovely as a cyclist, and by the same measure cycle free pedestrian areas are equally nice as a pedestrian.

I don't get why you think pedestrians need to be in constant fear of cyclists. There's really no need to keep a tighter grip on young children etc. as cyclists have no desire to run over kids - they just want to get from A to B swiftly and easily. Yes, a small percentage of people are idiots, but if someone is being abusive and dangerous to others, then that's what the police are for - it doesn't matter if they're on foot, or a bike. Similarly, motor traffic isn't always a problem for cyclists on the road (ignoring noise and air pollution for the sake of argument), it's the dangerous, careless motorists that need to be stopped or educated.

The problem here is that well intentioned, careful cyclists are being unfairly criminalised despite the PSPO specifically addressing the cyclists that 'cause alarm'.

Clearly worried about a wayward pedal scraping their shin !

Careful cyclists should be ok and take up less space. However the reckless ones stick out and that's what people remember, so I do make a point of walking.

Have you never known a toddler? It's not about the cyclist's intentions, it's about those of the toddlers! But its more than that, it's about the difference in care that you have to take in a shared space and the difference in the experience that results, the freedom to look about you up at the buildings, when you enjoy that space as a pedestrian.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I do get that feeling about this forum - men with no children who don't understand the nuclear family or general society. It just shows what an edge case cycling still is generally and how it must diversify.

Ah, I was wondering when you would pitch up in support of Robert, Nigel - a match made in "As a keen cyclist myself" heaven. It's so nice for you to have a friend, one suspects they are few and far between.

The ability to procreate - which is hardly a high bar - confers a better understanding of general society? Surely even you are capable of taking a look around at some of the people who have children and the ways they behave and seeing what an utterly fatuous statement that is?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

You've been doing so well in your last few posts in writing without adding superfluous abuse. Sad to see you slipping into your old ways.

I dispute the use of the word superfluous, when somebody writes such appalling fatuous right-wing, sometimes far-right wing (e.g., President Trump is the greatest American president ever), drivel on this forum, of which is your latest example is the claim that most people on this forum are males without children and that's why they don't understand wider society like you do, they deserve all the abuse they get as far as I'm concerned.

There's that problematic personality type again Rendel.

Abusing people just because they think differently to you is not the best approach to life.

Doubling down.

At least you've abandoned all pretence now.

You're nothing but a sad little troll.

There's that problematic personality type again Rich.

Abusing people just because they think differently to you is not the best approach to life.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I do get that feeling about this forum - men with no children who don't understand the nuclear family or general society. It just shows what an edge case cycling still is generally and how it must diversify.

With a young kid myself I totally get it.

I'm male, married to a woman, with two teenage kids and a dog.  Does that mean my opinion actually matters? 

No, you need a cat too.

brooksby wrote:

I'm male, married to a woman, with two teenage kids and a dog.  Does that mean my opinion actually matters? 

On this comment thread, or in your house?

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm male, married to a woman, with two teenage kids and a dog.  Does that mean my opinion actually matters? 

On this comment thread, or in your house?

On this thread. I already know that my opinion doesn't count in the house... 

Have experience of it too. Still disagree with you 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well that would depend if you have the life experience of walking with a pram and an inattentive toddler in a shopping centre, with the odd hooligan belting it past on a bike.

Something which I've experienced, which is why I have the empathy required to understand that this ban on cycling in pedestrianised zones is completely warranted.

I'd also imagine it's terrifying for elderly people, which let's face it we will all be one day. It's all about putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a few seconds and understanding others' concerns.

As someone who regularly walked into and through the shopping area in my town not an issue I had, unlike pavement parking forcing me to walk in the busy road due to lack of space. Which was a regular occurrence. But I did see plenty of people managing to cycle responsibly around the high street.

But it seems like you want to penalise all cyclist for the actions of a few rogue cyclists. The problems with this are 1) the problem cyclists will ignore the rules anyway. 2) we don't apply this collective responsibility to any other group. We don't see signs "33 people killed by drivers in this road in three years, cars are now banned here". We see signs "33 people killed on this road in 3 years, please drive more carefully" (if it wouldn't be too much trouble old chap. )

Still if the way society works is that pspos can be issued against an activity based on a few people doing it irresponsibly I suppose I can look forward to the private car being banned just about everywhere, and maybe I should sell mine now before the market for used cars collapses.

Could this be because in this conversation people either see "cyclists" as like themselves (normal folks) or like the "other"? Sounds like you see "cyclists" in this context as a dangerous "other" - and this view is looking out at all those other impolite, impatient road warrior types and yoof on bikes. (Not like you I hasten to add). I see cyclists as just people on bicycles - and I look at the people I meet and most are normal reasonable people.

Of course most people will see cyclists as "the other" because they don't spend much time on bicycles and neither do their peers, outside of "sport" contexts. People are just people, better or worse, and cyclists are just "people on bicycles". I suspect if we persist with the status quo on our streets the majority of cyclists you see there will resemble the former. If we redesigned our streets appropriately and made it convenient and more attactive to make some trips by bike than car, the evidence is that these "cyclists" would mostly look like the latter.

And yes - we'll still have people being idiots on bicycles in this future vision. Which will be an order of magnitude less dangerous than them being idiots in cars.

I think we have different experiences of being a pedestrian. I'll quite happily stop and look at architecture etc. when in pedestrianised spaces and that includes cyclist-heavy areas in European cities (e.g. Copenhagen, Amsterdam). The only issue I've found is that you need to be aware of cyclist specific infrastructure (this is more in Europe than in the UK) as there'll be "entitled" cyclists ringing their bells at you if you step into their way.

Toddlers can happily toddle their way around pedestrianised spaces as cyclists will give them a wide berth due to their (toddlers) tactics of running straight towards anything that looks interesting - it's really in the cyclists' interests to avoid them as it takes forever to remove nappies from a rear cassette. (By the way, I used to be a toddler myself)

Honestly, pedestrians can just carry on bimbling their way between shops whilst staring at their phones and cyclists will figure out a safe route around them.

hawkinspeter wrote:

(By the way, I used to be a toddler myself)

"I have many toddler friends..."

If you walk around looking about you up at the buildings, I imagine you get walked into by other pedestrians a lot.  Especially by the ones on their phones.