Signs reading ‘considerate cyclists welcome’ and ‘cyclists: thank you for slowing down’ are to be put up around Leicester city centre, reports BikeBiz. The aim is to ensure that everyone is aware the space is shared between pedestrians and cyclists and also to remind cyclists to ride responsibly.
A number of towns have recently made moves to ban cyclists from their centres using public space protection orders (PSPOs). PSPOs target various activities which are deemed to be ‘anti-social’ in nature.
Bolton is the latest to consult on such a move, while Bedford, Mansfield and Peterborough have already imposed bans. We’ve previously reported how the enforcement firm tasked with patrolling Peterborough raked in £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in just over a year as part of its contract with the council.
Leicester is taking a different approach. Deputy city mayor Adam Clarke, who leads on environment and health, said: “We want to encourage people to travel to the city centre by bike, on foot or using public transport and once they are here, our large, people-friendly pedestrianised zone gives priority to people ahead of vehicles.
“Bikes are welcome in our pedestrianised zone too, but obviously we ask that cyclists show consideration to people on foot. These signs and our safer cycling campaign are a simple, straightforward reminder of that message.
He added: “Our ongoing Connecting Leicester programme aims to create people-friendly streets that link the city’s retail, heritage and cultural destinations more effectively, so that it’s easier than ever to leave the car at home and choose a more sustainable, environmentally-friendly form of transport.”
Statistically, there are very few collisions that involve pedestrians and cyclists – there were only 12 officially reported in Leicester in the last five years.
This compares to 739 injuries resulting from collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles and 958 from collisions between pedestrians and vehicles.
38 thoughts on “Leicester to put up ‘considerate cyclists welcome’ signs in city centre”
Yippee, passive aggressive
Yippee, passive aggressive signs fueling the hatred of cycling. The pedestrian (patronising) zones in Leicester this article refers to, is the main city centre. The main type of cyclist in this area is the delivroo / Uber eats rider, like most inner city centers.
Rather than forcing these cyclists to push through large open plan pedestrian areas to get to the take aways that they serve, the council should have had the foresight to put in proper segregated cycle paths in its recent renevation.
It’s a shame that the same effort hasn’t been put in to educating drivers on the outskirts of the city centre, who continuesly block cycle routes and put cyclists at risk.
Also, the archaic new walk bylaw should be dropped and opened up to cyclists, at least until the council finally pull a finger out and sort London road. See Sam Boulton.
lllnorrislll wrote:
I don’t actually think its too bad. It’s like the myriad signs you see on roads into towns/villages asking people to drive considerately.
I don’t really see a problem with it.
Will there also be signs
Will there also be signs “Considerate pedestrians welcome”? or “Stop looking at your phone and look where you’re going”?
It’s right that we complain
It’s right that we complain about all the crap people have to put up with if they choose to cycle, but I don’t see a big problem here.
Even Utrecht has a pedestrianised main shopping area in the centre. You couldn’t cycle fast there if you wanted to, because of the crowds. You park your bike up and go shopping.
What Leicester are saying seems ok to me.
The signs are bad; “cyclists
The signs are bad; “cyclists welcome” would have been better. Are inconsiderate users of other modes of transport welcome? That’s what it sounds like. Luckily, I’ll never see them, because I won’t be riding through Leicester, as it’s an utter shithole.
srchar wrote:
Leicester is my adopted city and I don’t agree with you about it being a shithole, as I’m sure most of the people who live here don’t. I’m really glad you won’t be visiting – you and your nasty opinions wouldn’t be welcome.
tonyleatham wrote:
How predictable. Someone said something negative about something you like, so they’re “nasty”.
srchar wrote:
TBF, calling somewhere an ‘utter shithole’ is bound to piss off people who live there.
Zebulebu wrote:
How predictable. Someone said something negative about something you like, so they’re “nasty”.
— tonyleatham TBF, calling somewhere an ‘utter shithole’ is bound to piss off people who live there.— srchar
I thought that too when I said Bolton was a shithole, someone came along in its defence, then a couple of Bolton natives came out and agreed with me. Go figure!
I think Wrecsam is a shithole too, but it’s my shithole.
Just for reference I live in none of the places mentioned.
srchar wrote:
So you don’t think your opinions are nasty then? You condemn a city that is home to over 400,000 people as being a shithole, and don’t like being called nasty as a consequence? There, there, didn’t mean to bruise your delicate feelings. If you’re going to dish it out, have the balls to take any flak your unpleasant attitudes provoke.
tonyleatham wrote:
Not sure if serious. I could have sworn you were the one getting upset (on behalf of Leicester, remember?)
srchar wrote:
Definitely serious. You call an entire city a shithole which we’ve already established I consider a nasty thing to say. I tell you your opinions are nasty, and you go defensive. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
tonyleatham wrote:
Well put, I don’t live in Leicester but I go there for work from time to time. It’s ok.
There are some crap towns and cities in the UK. Leicester isn’t one of them.
As regards the signs, maybe they are a bit patronising. But if you remember the way many places used to stick up signs welcoming careful drivers, you can maybe see where the thought lay.
OldRidgeback wrote:
The only places I’ve seen that nowadays are tidy little villages, the ones where you just know that the people driving the worst through there, live there!
tonyleatham wrote:
You don’t generally come across as “nasty”, schar – but that did seem a “nasty opinion”.
Unfair too – from what I’ve seen of Leicester (mostly the central area) in recent years.
Anywhere Dave Podmore rates is a winner with me.
I loathe this kind of
I loathe this kind of nonsense. It simply offends the vast majority of people who are considerate and don’t need to be told. Whilst those who are going to be dicks will continue to behave like dicks even assuming they can read the signs.
Or perhaps “Cyclists and
Or perhaps “Cyclists and pedestrians, please share this space with consideration for each other.”
In fairness to the council,
In fairness to the council, most city centres have their fair share of inconsiderate @rseholes riding BSOs at top speed through busy pedestrian precincts and their heart is in the right place. However, those same morons will be exactly the ones who ignore the signs. Much like dog owners who let their dog crap everywhere – do councils think that putting up signs asking them to clear up is going to make any difference? Right intention, wrong implementation.
I think those signs can be
I think those signs can be justified as it’s a pedestrianised area and as cyclists are the faster moving traffic, then they should be held more responsible for safety. Unfortunately, a lot of pedestrians do look at their phones and have zero awareness of what’s around them, so you have to be careful when cycling through.
However, the same philosophy (biggest/fastest vehicles should be the most responsible) should carry through to the roads and we should be seeing lots of “Considerate Drivers Welcomed” signs around. Maybe some “Motorists: thankyou for driving considerately around cyclists” signs as well.
hawkinspeter wrote:
This. In a pedestrianised area, peds have every right to wander unpredictably with their heads in their phones. You can’t put the onus on the pedestrian to not get hit.
But public opinion and the authorities repeatedly put that onus on cyclists using roads.
davel wrote:
Yes you can. Any other mode of transport requires the person to look where they are going; why should pedestrians be any different? There are lots of vids e.g. https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-dcola-003&hsimp=yhs-003&hspart=dcola&p=youtube+pedestrian+phone+accidents#id=2&vid=14adc5bf37973b2c55710a188fb65913&action=click
There are any number of deaths and injuries caused by phone drivers, some of whom are prosecuted even though there is a law against it. Why should pedestrians be exempt from the consequences of their own actions?
Will mobility buggies, capable of inflicting much serious injuries than a bicycle, be banned? What happens when a pedestrian phoner knocks over a 90 year old and causes serious injury.
burtthebike wrote:
Way too many
mobile phone userspedestrians nowadays seem to assume that the onus is on everyone else to not walk into them, rather than looking up from their screen long enough to look where they’re going. The equivalent really would be a cyclist riding along then moving right, then turning, then stopping, all while not bothering to look because the motorists should be avoiding them. And we all know how that ends, don’t we?And don’t get me started on mobility scooters! If bicycles are too dangerous for pedestrianised areas, and completely banned from indoor areas, then why are electric motorised mobility scooters allowed to zip around all over the place (for zip around, they do).
(I know – “because they are a mobility aid”, but some bikes are too; mobility scooters weigh a lot more than bikes do, with (presumably?) more potential to harm pedestrians).
brooksby wrote:
Again, back to what is meant by ‘onus’. If it means mild disapproval, with tutting, for peds walking round aimlessly and bumping into people, I’m kind of with you.
But I’m all in favour of peds being able to do pretty much anything peddy in a pedestrianised area, so if that disapproval stretched to anything official I’m dead against it. Ultimately, if people want to do ‘the worm’ through shopping centres, it’s fine with me.
davel wrote:
So does that mean you’re in favour of pedestrians not bothering to look, or head down looking at their screen, knocking each other over? Whatever your mode of transport, if you’re moving, you really, really must look where you’re going.
burtthebike wrote:
Not really, but the rights to just wander and meander need to be balanced with the actual damage done. Peds just wandering and not paying attention might be inconvenient, but peds colliding with other peds do zero damage. It isn’t a problem that needs to be addressed. Don’t forget, we’re talking about ‘pedestrianised’ areas (‘shared space’ is a cop-out term – it’s an area where peds move around freely that bikes are still allowed in to). There would be no justification in bringing a ‘no heads in screens’ rule in, for example, based on KSIs from inconvenient meetings of hips and some glaring.
If you, society and the authorities adjusted your last statement to ‘you need to look where you’re going in accordance with how much damage you can do at the time’, we’d live in a happier place.
burtthebike wrote:
The issue with pedestrianised areas is that pedestrians can be deaf, blind, not looking, 6 years old or have any number of conditions that would mean that they can not be relied on to follow rules that a typical cyclist would expect. Pedestrians have ultimate priority in these areas (and also on shared use paths and to some extent, roads) and the onus is definitely on the faster vehicle to avoid collisions.
You may have a point with mobility buggies, but I doubt that the KSI figures involving them are anything to be concerned about.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree.
To the other comments, I suppose it depends what we mean by ‘onus’. I was using it in a more ‘official’ capacity and saying that liability should lie with the cyclist if one collided with a pedestrian in a pedestrianised area. I think that’s what society expects – but then contrast that with the lack of presumed liability on the roads, and the emphasis put on cyclists, the CPS, defence lawyers and judges referring to the cyclist’s behaviour, lighting and clothing. Total double standards.
Of course “Please drive
Of course “Please drive carefully through our town” and “…. welcomes careful drivers” make so much difference.
I’m from Castleford and now
I’m from Castleford and now live in London. “Cas Vegas” regularly appears in “Top 10 Worst Places to Live” lists, occasionally making the top 5, but then it is a bit of a shithole. London is, err, polarising, but I don’t get upset about those who are on the “shithole” side of opinion, and I certainly don’t think they’re being nasty. To each their own.
Leicester though – wouldn’t board my dog there, and he’s not fussy*
* – a joke
The Wakefield area is IIRC
The Wakefield area is IIRC the most deprived area in the country (according to the stats I saw last year) and lowest average incomes, it’s certainly got a bad rep for racism and the 6 fingered insults from your delightful neighbours in that there Leeds could well be true.
Honestly though I think I’d rather ride a bike in Cas or Wakey than London, I’d also feel far safer in Casvegas than London after dark in an area I didn’t know. Being able to talk rugby league would probably help (When are you getting that new stadium!) but London for me on a bike is simply horrible.
Nowhere else compares, yes it’s a bloody big place but the threat of harm is ridiculously high in so many places comparative to anywhere else (though I haven’t cycled in Birmingham which is another cycling shithole from what I’ve heard and read)
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Yorkshire is certainly a nicer place to ride a bike than it was pre-grand depart. Cycling is huge up there now; you do seem to get a bit more respect on the roads.
The thing about cycling in London is, most of the traffic doesn’t really move, and when it does, it moves slowly. Whereas up around Wakey, you often find yourself sharing an A road with traffic doing 60+, and you’re always at risk of some teenage arsehole launching something at you from their car, which happened to me twice.
So I feel safter down in The Smoke. Never been mugged/stabbed/shot either, which even many Londoners now seem to think is an occupational hazard of living here. We’ll all probably die of resipratory disease instead, given the shocking air quality.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
If you know your way around the inner (pre-20th C) city it can be fantastic – loads of quiet shortcuts with lots to see, traffic calming, filtered permeability and cycle contraflows, large parks and often remarkably little traffic on side streets.
Major arterial routes can be unpleasant, particularly if they don’t have bus lanes – but they can be everywhere, and at least London drivers expect cyclists these day. Most trouble I’ve had has been in places where they don’t.
The segregated superhighways are good – but marred by inconsiderate riding at peak times. Likewise, you need to be alert for zombie peds at busy times in town.
Perhaps best of all, there’s the considerable satisfaction of knowing that you are often the fastest thing around. I particularly enjoy crusing past ridiculous supercars stuck in traffic (so much noise for no movement!).
I’m not sure if “harm” was a reference to things other than road safety. If so, it’s not a big thing – the current fashion for fatal stabbings is almost entirely confined to gang culture and those around it. Not good but not a direct risk to most of us (perhaps more would be done if it was?). I’d worry far more about random, drunken violence in other UK cities.
I’ll hazard a guess – there
I’ll hazard a guess – there aren’t anything like 14,000 cyclists in Leicester. Let alone 14,000 who cycle inconsiderately.
Funny set of priorities, Leicester …
… given that 14,000 drivers got caught speeding in 2016 – in Leicester City, alone. [Aye, and we all know that’s a ****ing tiny percentage of the actual speed merchants.]
So Leicester chooses to squander its austerity-limited budget … on cyclists. Betcha there ain’t anything similar for BMW/Audi/RangeRover/Qashqai (Qashqai?
) drivers!
i ride through leicester town
i ride through leicester town centre twice a day to get to my office – never had any issues with crashing into pedestrians, despite a large proportion having their eyes fixed to their phone screens. i simply go slow and keep my eyes open.
the signs aren’t going to stop people being dickheads on bikes, just as speed limit signs don’t stop people being dickheads in cars – some people are just dickheads!
At least if someone shouts ‘get off your f’kin bike!’ at me, i can point to the signs and tell them that cycling is allowed.
As for Leicester being a shhit hole – it’s improved a lot over the last ten yrs i’ve been working here, there have been many infrastructure improvements, and there are many ongoing projects aimed at making the city more accessible.
I can ride the last 6 miles of my commute without having to mix with motorised traffic at all if i want to, which i imagine is pretty rare for a commute into a town centre.
I lived in Leicester for a
I lived in Leicester for a couple of years. Shithole or not, the standard of driving was abysmal. They should be worrying about considerate drivers.
vonhelmet wrote:
i don’t think bad driving is endemic to leicester…
bigshape wrote:
No, but it was some of the worst I’ve come across.
Bolton is likewise dreadful.
vonhelmet wrote:
I rarely get the opportunity to cycle outside of Leicestershire so I don’t have a benchmark against which to judge it. What I can say is that it seems to me that, whilst still having a long way to go, it has improved over the last few years. I think the publicity surrounding the Sam Boulton tragedy has helped calm a few hotheads.
Don’t get me wrong, I still have regular close passes – but they are a lot fewer than they were. I bought a Cycliq camera two or three years ago, and in the early days, I was recording a close pass more or less every day. Now it’s relatively rare I have one that concerns me enough to archive the footage.
You may wonder why I only archive the footage and don’t report them. Well, I have done in the past and my experience is that Leicestershire police are as much use as a chocolate condom. They are the force who carried out their version of operation close pass over the summer on the basis that there would be more bikes on the road. Needless to say that the reduction in traffic you get during “factory fortnight” meant they didn’t experience a single close pass and so concluded that Leicester doesn’t have a close pass problem. FFS!