- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Mansfield Market Square (CC licensed by DncnH via Flickr).jpgCyclist fined almost £600 for ignoring Mansfield’s bike ban
A cyclist caught riding his bike in Mansfield town centre, where cycling is banned under a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), has been ordered by a court to pay almost £600 in fines and costs, with Cycling UK saying that it reinforces the perception that “people on bikes aren’t welcome” there.
Christopher Cobb, aged 22, was spotted by a council neighbourhood warden heading on his mountain bike from Market Place to the Nottinghamshire town’s library, reports the Mansfield Chad.
He got off his bike after being told to do so, but 10 minutes later the same warden saw him riding on West Gate and given a fixed penalty notice in the sum of £100.
After failing to pay it, Cobb was summonsed to appear at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court but failed to appear and, with no plea entered, was fined £440 plus £100 costs and a victim surcharge of £44.
Mansfield District Council’s portfolio holder for safer communities, Councillor Bill Drewett, commented: “Cycling has been prohibited in the pedestrianised area of Mansfield town centre to protect pedestrians.
“There are alternative routes around the town centre or cyclists can act in a responsible fashion and get off and push their bicycles through the town centre.
“This cyclist had the opportunity to pay a much lower fixed penalty of £100 but chose to ignore it which is why he is now facing a much higher penalty as a result of the case having to go to court.”
Introduced last year in a bid to combat anti-social cycling, Mansfield’s PSPO received national attention in August after road.cc reported that Stage 4 of last month’s Tour of Britain was scheduled to start in the part of the town where cyclists are banned, with BBC News among the outlets that subsequently reported on it.
> Council that bans cyclists from town centre … hosts Tour of Britain stage start in town centre
Last year, Cycling UK, acting through the cyclists’ defence fund, said it was supporting an appeal by six cyclists against the PSPO in what is believed to be the only legal challenge yet brought against a local authority in connection with the controversial legislation.
That appeal has not yet been heard, with the charity telling road.cc that the case has been adjourned since the Home Office were revising their guidance on PSPOs, and the circumstances in which they should be made, and because Mansfield Council were prepared to consult again, with a view to varying the PSPO.
That consultation has now been launched in response to the revised Home Office guidelines. It remains open until 25 October and Cycling UK is currently drawing up its response.
The council proposes changing the times the PSPO is in effect from 24 hours a day to between 6pm and 7am, as well as reducing the area to which it applies.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told road.cc: “A fine of nearly £600 for cycling in the town centre sends a very simple message: people on bikes aren’t welcome in Mansfield, unless of course the Tour of Britain’s coming to town for a stage start, when all of sudden cyclists aren’t a menace and a danger to pedestrians, but can be welcomed with open arms.
“Hopefully Mansfield Council will reflect on the reputation they’ve created for themselves as the town that doesn’t like cyclists, and consider the revised Home Office guidance on PSPOs during its new consultation on proposed variations to the existing bicycle ban,” he continued.
“They might like to ask themselves whether they’re really tackling anti-social behaviour, or just imposing a ban because they think they can.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- anagallis_arvensis 11 min 14 sec ago
It was, two cars did so, the solid line was ending, the road fairly straight the view clear. Are you seriously suggesting cyclists should alter...
- Oakhambike 14 min 14 sec ago
£11.5k for a bike weighing over 8kg that's 2 fingers to customers let alone UCI
- HarrogateSpa 15 min 54 sec ago
No trees need to be cut down for a cycleway....
- Dnnnnnn 29 min 32 sec ago
I'm going to show my bike a picture of this shed and tell it, "If you don't behave..."
- Hirsute 1 hour 17 min ago
Ex black cab https://twitter.com/KingArtAT/status/1783296299787309088
- bensynnock 2 hours 13 min ago
Quite. I was wondering where the cycling infrastructure is located that causes drivers to go 90 on the M3?
- I love my bike 2 hours 42 min ago
If one is prepared to pay £28 for a TPU tube, the butyl comparison should be Continental's Supersonic ~50g or Schwalbe at 70g. Both costing £8 - ...
Add new comment
81 comments
I've posted before to the effect that there are cyclists and then there are ignorant and disrespectful louts who don't give a monkey's about how or where they cycle. Some on this thread seem not to give a damn about who upsets who when out on a bike. A shame if we make a bad name for ourselves. Speaking as someone who regularly has to step out of the way of cyclists in my locality who ride at speed up the footpath on my street, I do get fed up with those who have no regard for this simple, safety orientated distinction - footpaths and pedestrianised areas are for pedestrians. Only a few days back I saw a 'yoof' weaving through our crowded pedestrianised high street, phone in hand and no hands on the bars. If I'd of said anything to him I'd undoubtedly have been abused. I strongly wish our local authority would take similar action to the Mansfield's. Perhaps a little more respect both for one's fellow man and authority (Suggesting running down a warden? I find it hard to believe anyone would write that, even in jest) might be in order because what goes around comes around, I find.
As for the subject of this article, I hope Cycling UK are not wasting my sub to them in supporting him as I feel he's only got himself to blame for what appears to be his arrogance. Also, are they seeing the whole picture by trying to get the ban overturned? Is there a history of anti-social behaviour in the area that justifies control? I can't believe the local authority would go to the expense of putting this order in place without some good reason in such cash-strapped times.
Who gets hurt by being asked to dismount and walk a short way?
Depends. Like you said, you don't have the whole picture. You're assuming that the council have brought in a reasonable, evidence-based rule that will neatly alleviate a particular situation. I assume it's a cockheaded, heavy-handed approach to a situation that is being blown out of proportion, possibly tied to the' craze' where teenagers pull wheelies, which harms absolutely nobody apart from causing offence to miserable twats who don't like kids expressing their freedom and think cars should be able to bomb down residential streets.
We all make assumptions, just like I've assumed you're an ignorant lout for using I'D OF instead of I'D HAVE.
For the avoidance of doubt: is that "upon Hull" or "on Thames "?
The ignorant and disrespectful louts are also cyclists.
I don't think we differentiate between "real motorists " and "ignorant and disrespectful louts who happen to be driving a car", do we?
Kingston upon Thames.
Well, clearly, everybody. If doing so acts as a disincentive for using bikes as a means of transport, and contributes to some choosing to drive instead. If there's no safe alternative route provided, than that would apply.
But should you not take that up with the criminal justice system, which, by repeatedly sparing killer motorists jail time and levying fines as small as £90, clearly sends the message that running people down and killing them can indeed be less serious than cycling in pedestrian areas?
The suggestion was just pointing out the logic of our legal system.
Why are you so disgusted with the messenger, while not addressing the authorities who clearly endorse such behaviour?
You've met my wife?
You have singled someone out and refered to them as a "little Hitler", "Genital" and "Cockwomble" and you claim that you have not been personal?
You have jumped to a conclusion without any evidence to back it up which would indicate that you are closed minded and self opinionated and your name calling of the Warden without any provocation would indicate that you were a bully. If I have confused the definition of these terms I apologise, but they are what I believe are the correct definitions at the moment and as such stand by my conclusion as to how your post portray you to be.
*Note that I have only stated how I believe your posts portray you and not directly attacked you personally as I do not know you so could not possibly comment
I hadn't made it personal about YOU, not the dangleberry warden in our internet story. You really should have got that from the words I wrote, you rod-arsed, prissy, simpleton.
*Note that that's my best guess of what you're really like, based on my excellent judgement and experience of internet arguments with prim arsewipes with disturbing faith in authority. I'm right about you, and even if I'm not, you can shove your apology... if it will get past the rod.
I get massively frustrated every time I go to town. The way that people walk makes me think I'm in a Verve video. People step through doors, then immediately stop. people get to the top of escalators, then immediately stop. People walk right across a pavement and expect the oncoming pedestrian to get out of the way.
I'd hate to burst your bubble, but it's people that are twats (since 1979), whether they're walking, cycling, driving or running the USA.
No I am not a Warden, however I did (many, many years ago) go to school with someone whose father was a (traffic) Warden. They got bullied for the fact that their father was a traffic warden, no doubt because of idiotic stereotypes presented as facts from their parents. Parents with (what I assume to be) small minded attitudes like yourself, as "little Hitler" was one of the taunts used which I would assume would have been learnt from one of their parents. The end result of this small minded bigotry was that the child attempted suicide due to this bullying, not long after they moved schools. I hope that the school that they moved to had children with more open minded parents.
If a shop rule is to not give refunds it is the shop staff's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a call centres rule is to not give sensitive information out over the phone it is the telephone agent's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a bank rule is to not give loans to unemployed customers it is the bank branch staff's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a delivery companies policy is to only deliver 9-5 it is the delivery driver's job to stick to this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a train companies rule is to not allow people to travel without a ticket it is the conductor's job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
Nobody should have to face abuse for just doing their job, in person or online!!!
The kid attempted suicide because they were bullied because their dad was a traffic warden. That's it - it was that simple. Attempted suicides are almost always related solely to bullying that only ever has one cause, most often their father's job.
Me throwing a few comedy insults at a warden over a bike forum is also entirely comparable to persistent bullying of the offspring of a warden.
Similarly, all those rules you use as examples are excellent parallels with taking a job largely to enforce rules, at least one of which is a nonsense infringement on the right to ride a bike somewhere safe.
I applaud your comprehensive grasp of this situation.
End of Sarcasm.
We are very different people and see this from different angles. However, I accept that there are different viewpoints here. I also know I'm a belligerent prick and occasionally try to temper it.
But I think you really have no idea how simple you and your views are. Your attempt at being the forum warden is similarly misguided, coming, as it does, from your very simple worldview and enslavement to it, and the rules you have created for yourself. By all means, follow them - but STFU with your preaching and get over your expectation that other people need to follow your Idiot's Guide too, and that if they refuse, they're not automatically Bad People.
But traffic wardens do a worthwhile job. Personally I've always taken their side against whinging motorists.
My complaint, however, is that there don't seem to be any of them around any more. Haven't seen one for decades.
I'm not so sure that 'neighbourhood wardens' (a New Labour initiative I believe) serve as much of a useful purpose.
What if your job is being a professional troll and bully, incidentally? Like certain media figures? Why should those whose job is to throw abuse not expect some of it back? Does your rule really apply to the likes of Katy Hopkins or Jeremy Clarkson?
I couldn't agree more with your views on Traffic Wardens, and I too have noticed a decline in their numbers. Not sure why this is because with the amount of fines they give out they must surely pretty much pay for themselves? Maybe it's because no-one wants to do the job because of the abuse that they get from people who call them "Jobsworths" and "Little Hitlers"?
I too am not sure on the Neighbourhood Warden role, I have never met one and did not know such a thing existed until this thread. I have read the job description and it sounds like it could be worthwhile, and maybe a good move given the degradation of communities to give them back a voice?
On the subject of professional bullies I believe that it is fair for anyone to get back what they give out, it's basic Karma. They should not however be subject to escalated abuse or personal threats. Whilst I do not like (and detest) people like Katy Hopkins and Jeremy Clarkson, I do believe they have their place. There are people who think like them and we need people like Jeremy and Katy to bring those views to the fore so that they can be debated properly and hopefully as a result re-educate those like-minded individuals as to how things really are.
I know this is all silver lining points of view and there is a possibility that thinking this way is how we end up with people like Trump, but I am not sure that the alternatives are better.
Do you really think some nobody on an Internet forum referring to a warden as a jobsworth, Little Hitler or cockwomble constitutes abuse and bigotry?
Or do you just like playing the drama queen?
Let me slightly amend your question to reflect all that you have posted on this thread:
Do I really think some
nobody on an Internet forum referring to a warden as a jobsworth, Little Hitler, Genital, dangleberryorand cockwomble without provocation or justification constitutes abuse?At the risk of being rude by answering a question with a question, do you really believe that this behaviour does not constitute refering to someone in an insulting and offensive way? Personally, as a general rule, I always consider that if something that I say could be poorly recieved in person, then it is highly likely to be the same online.
More personal abuse.
... taken completely out of context after the original poster had intimated that the lad on a bike was an ignorant lout.
But yay you.
I read those bold bits and just laughed. I don't know where you live, or grew up, I suspect alongside Janet and John, but that isn't abuse, in my humblest of opinions. It isn't even banter.
Anyhow, seeing as another Mackleberry Twin is on the case, you win. I'm going to hell etc.
No he didn't, the only thing that he assumed about the "lad on a bike" was "arrogance" (I assume for his ignoring both the Warden's warning and court letters). All the rest of the post was about their personal experiences and feeling around similar matters from what I understand.
Pages