Cyclists are regularly being handed £100 on the spot fines for riding through a pedestrianised shopping street.
Two years ago, businesses on Grimsby’s Victoria Street raised concerns for customer safety following a number of incidents involving cyclists.
Signs which alert cyclists to a ban on cycling along Victoria Street were subsequently installed at the entrances to the precinct.
The area is also patrolled by enforcement officers for North East Lincolnshire Council, who dished out 550 fines in the first 15 months of the ban, which was brought in as part of a Public Space Protection Order in July 2019.
But one business manager has now said she is still worried someone will get hurt by a passing cyclist, The Grimsby Telegraph reports.
She said: “We have families come in with children and sometimes the children wander out the door and it scares me to think there could be a cyclist going past a speed.”
Another shopworker said: “You see it all the time everyday. The cyclists don’t pay any attention to the signs.
“It is very rare to see anyone walking with their cycle. I look out our window and there is always some one riding past. Some don’t care that there are people walking close by and they are going fast on their bikes.”
A total of 550 fines were issued from July 2019 to October last year, according to council figures.
Courts imposed fines and costs of more than £9,000 on 14 defendants whose cases were taken to court.
All the cyclists had been issued with a £100 fixed penalty notice for cycling in the pedestrianised area on Victoria Street.
Councillor Ron Shepherd, cabinet member for Safer and Stronger Communities at North East Lincolnshire Council, said: “We will fine you if you put other people at risk by cycling in Grimsby’s pedestrian zone
“Those who choose not to pay the £100 fixed penalty notice, find themselves facing a larger bill in court.
“Enforcement officers patrol the area regularly. Shoppers, businesses and people working in the town centre often complain about nuisance cycling.
“There’s no need to cycle in the pedestrian area – Bethlehem Street and Osborne Street are literally a few metres away and run parallel to it.”
92 thoughts on “Business owners complain cyclists still riding in pedestrianised zone despite council handing out thousands of pounds worth of fines”
It’s tragic that none of the
It’s tragic that none of the many people killed and seriously injured by these incredibly dangerous cyclists are being respected.
Dogless wrote:
I forget, how many victims were there?
Uncountable multitudes…
Uncountable multitudes…
No actual figures given, but
No actual figures given, but I guess they must have just lost count after the first thousand. Whatever the figure, this is a serious, very real risk, and definitely worth spending time and money to police.
Dogless wrote:
It sounds serious enough that there should be a mandatory pedestrian helmet law brought in and maybe the shops should be handing out hi-viz tabards for their customers.
Presumably it’s hard to
Presumably it’s hard to properly identify the mangled pedestrian remains. Or it’s possible that the poor pedestrian was carried away entirely.
Fortunately I found a video by an American on how to survive in the worst terror-cycle-afflicted place on earth which may help although I appreciate this may just re-traumatise people. Actually, don’t watch it. It’s all frightful really, people given as little thought as squirrels…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Is that Hitchcock’s lost
Is that Hitchcock’s lost horror masterpiece?
chrisonatrike wrote:
How would I know if it’s been lost?
From: http://www.amaninthewoods.com/2015/12/alfred-hitchcocks-lost-screenplay.html
1. Do not panic. Squirrels, especially fox squirrels can literally smell fear. They have an extra nostril designed just for this purpose.
2. Whatever you do, DO NOT LET THE SQUIRREL GET YOU TO THE GROUND! This is where they can really do their damage with their 4 little feet, 2 OF WHICH THEY CAN TURN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION!
3. Protect your neck. Squirrel will not actually attack your windpipe or vascular system there but will use the neck hole of your clothing to gain easier access to vital organs.
4. Every attacking animal requires a different response.
Sharks = punch them in the nose.
Grizzly bear = play dead.
Black bear = fight since they want to eat you.
With squirrels, apparently the best response is to scream like a little girl and curl up in the fetal position.
5. Carry 1-2 lbs of hickory nuts or pecans with you at all times. When attacked, scatter them like a sea cucumber disgorging itself, to distract the marauding squirrel and buy you precious seconds of time to escape.
In all seriousness, it is a proven fact that most squirrel-related deaths are not related to the attack itself but the victims dying from embarrassment after admitting to others they were attacked and injured by a squirrel.
You were promised a simple
You were promised a simple solution to your perceived horrors, you were lied to, it turns out that things are far more complex than you could possibly have imagined.
Ah well…
If people are walking out of
If people are walking out of shop doorways without looking, might they also run the risk of being walked into by a passing pedestrian or hit by a person driving a mobility scooter? Ban doorways, that’s what I think! 😉
Who would have thought that
Who would have thought that criminalising normal behaviour would be appreciated by the new criminal class? If I were anywhere near there, I’d be cycling through it as a protest against ridiculous group punishment (i.e. punishing all cyclists for the behaviour of a few).
Cycling is not a crime!
I suppose you ride your bike
I suppose you ride your bike on the highway too ?
kettlenorth wrote:
Hell yeah!
? Get your e-bike runnin’
? Get your e-bike runnin’
Head out on the highway
Looking for adventure
In whatever comes our way ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nH5g_YWiRM
chrisonatrike wrote:
Pffft! The kid would have been fine if they’d been wearing a helmet.
I’m surprised that none of the traffic stopped and ushered the kid to safety as the police officer did.
“Highway”? We call them roads
“Highway”? We call them roads here and cyclists ride them by right (motorways excepted).
Eton Rifle wrote:
I was puzzled by that question as it didn’t seem to fit in with the rest of kettlenorth’s line of questioning – now it makes more sense if he meant U.S. highways.
It would be rude to ignore a
It would be rude to ignore a possible Strava KOM opportunity.
It’s just not cricket old boy ?
I’m joking. Get off and push when it’s crowded with zombie consumers.
As ever the devil is in the
As ever the devil is in the detail.
I wonder if any of the business owners, councillors or enforcement officers have ever asked themselves why cyclists continue to flout the pedestrian zone rules?
The suggested route, Victoria Street/Bethlehem Street is full of bus stops, on-street parking bays, some which motorists have to reverse out of and heavy goods vehicles. No wonder cyclists prefer to risk a fine by cycling through the pedestrian zone rather than using the adjoining road infrastructure.
Unfortunately, Grimsby is your typical local authority where the councillors are still in the thrall of the automobile and everything has to defer to it’s might. Sadly there aren’t any viable alternatives, but to use Victoria Street, unless you are extremely brave/stupid.
I’m glad someone local came
I’m glad someone local came along to clarify why this is happening.
why dont the local council muppets use some of that funding to improve the alternate routes for cyclists?
Increase the fines,
Increase the fines, confiscate offending bikes and sell them on eBay.
increased revenue for local services. Win-win.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
OK as long as the same applies to speeding cars in 20 zones, which kill a lot more people. 85% of drivers ignore 20 limits so that should raise a few bob.
Sure absolutely, and mobile
Sure absolutely, and drivers using mobile phones at the wheel while you’re at it. But this story is about cyclists riding in pedestrianised zones so you’re being kinda tangential.
Three strikes and offenders should be dragged into stocks at the centre of the precinct and shoppers spending more than £50 allowed to throw rotten fruit and veg at them. Helping local businesses thrive in this difficult environment.
So if we’re agreed this
So if we’re agreed this should be a universal punishment and proportionate to the risk – which seems fair – presumably the cyclists will have to endure lettuce, grapes and baby tomatoes. Motorcyclists and car drivers should face baking potatoes, melons and pineapples. That’s including pavement parkers – because the cars didn’t really get there by crane did they? I’m not sure we normally have suitable projectiles available for bus and lorry drivers but presumably this would be a jackfruit, yam, sweet potato or pumpkin level offense and thus generally fatal?
Although pedestrians and cyclists can mix quite safely I think that this is generally not a good idea as it slows down the cyclists. This is a common source of friction / complaints because a) both modes are fighting over scraps of space after the motor vehicles are provided for and b) motor vehicles are seen as “normal” and bicycles are not – so they attract disproportionate negative attention. Maybe also putting someone in a box has a two-way psychological distancing effect (“pedestrian was hit by a car” as opposed to “hit by a cyclist”)?
Why do people reply to Boo?
Why do people reply to Boo? 80% of what he posts is just to get a reaction. That is why they takes the very extreme positions on most things ( or their “jokes” when called out on some of it). They almost got bored previously as evidenced with the flouncing and name changes but people started reposnding again.
Why does anyone post here?
Why does anyone post here? The pleasures of shouting into an internet-sized cave to hear the echos? This poster doesn’t have an entirely one-sided history (“80%…”) else I wouldn’t bother. Plenty of people here have bees in their cycle-basket. If it’s always repetitive and boring then just kill it by silence, yes. If you respond with something sensible and unruffled but always get ad-homs, sealioning or the Gish Gallop you know.
I’m prepared to given occasional benefit of the doubt on the “trolling” vs. “banter” – plus I quite like the surreal too…
With no dissenting voices though – even if you think they’re largely in bad faith – that would leave us all creating Cyclopedia, nodding over our beer or shouting into the void. With the exception of squirrel memes, pedantry and pun-fights of course.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I love a bit of Wondermark (where sealioning comes from):
If there are so many cyclists
If there are so many cyclists riding in the ped zone, and there aren’t piles of dead pedestrians lining the streets, the risk is absolutely miniscule, and definitely not worth legislating against. Unless the council and shopkeepers can point to quite a few injury incidents caused by cyclists, this is the old sledgehammer/nut scenario, with added spice of anti-cycling bias.
Given that Public Space Protection Order should only be brought in where there is significant, demonstrated risk, it might be worth one of the people who have been fined challenging this.
I aggree eburththebike.
I aggree eburththebike.
The wording of the PSPO says “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.”
So in other words the PCSO’s handing out the fines will simply be handing them out for cycling in the area covered by the PSPO forgetting that they have to prove that the cyclist has to be causing a nuisance, alarm, harassment or distress.
TriTaxMan wrote:
not forgetting there are some pedestrians who will be ‘alarmed’ by cyclists rising uphill at 5mph and many who will consider them a nuisance at all times.
TriTaxMan wrote:
On the face of it, that does seem perfectly reasonable. The way I understand that, simply pootling along bestride your bicycle would be fine, tearing through heedless of others would be fined.
Personally I’ve never experienced any issues when meandering slowly through pedestrianised streets on my bike, but I can understand why OAPs whose next “fall” might be their last, or parents with young children, would be nervous to the point of being excluded from the space if people were to ride recklessly, or in a manner which would reasonably give them fright.
Does the PSPO specifically
Does the PSPO specifically state “Pedal Cycle”?
Crippledbiker wrote:
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:
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.— Crippledbiker
Awesome.
I’ll get the cattlecatcher back out of storage…
What kind of a stupid
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:
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:
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
Careful, careful! Sensible points like these are most deffo. NOT welcome here.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
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
So if I follow the logic of kettlenorth’s sensible point…… any activity is considered antisocial and should be fined.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
OMG! Another Socrapicyclist sock puppet.
kettlenorth wrote:
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 ?
Any proof to back this up ?
Its not just about absolute
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
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
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
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.
Robert Hardy 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.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
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?
Rendel Harris 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.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
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
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.
Doubling down.
At least you’ve abandoned all pretence now.
You’re nothing but a sad little troll.
There’s that problematic
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’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.
No, you need a cat too.
brooksby wrote:
On this comment thread, or in your house?
mdavidford wrote:
On this thread. I already know that my opinion doesn’t count in the house…
Well that would depend if you
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.
Have experience of it too.
Have experience of it too. Still disagree with you
Nigel Garrage wrote:
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
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
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:
“I have many toddler friends…”
If you walk around looking
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.
I largely agree but it is a
I largely agree but it is a question of degree. In general people cycling from a-b don’t want to find pedestrians in their route and neither do you want to be meandering on a through cycle route – see my moan about off-street paths below. The UK problem is that in an
attempt to tick boxes for “active travel”create an actual “off-road route” without spending any money we pretty much stick a blue and white “shared use” pedestrian and cycle sign in a space and dust off our hands. We just wouldn’t do this for motor vehicles – but there is still very little comprehension that cyclists are neither motorists nor pedestrians.If people have separate walking and cycle routes for actually going places as well as “mainly pedestrian” space too, the evidence suggests that these tend to self-regulate. This even “works” in town centres right now with cars! Lots of pedestrians, cycling is by necessity slow or people walk. Empty streets, speeds will go up. (Any wronguns causing trouble – just as they always do – can be an enforcement issue).
(Aside – another nuisance is we rarely clearly delineate “space for pedestrians” and “space for cycles” even when building new infra. If we could only settle on something like e.g. a single colour of asphalt nationwide people might have a hope of understanding where “their own” space was.)
If cycling becomes more popular then – just like with cars now – providing some “really pedestrian only” zones with cycle parking outside them – just like with cars – is how to do it.
Businesses claim “Customers
Businesses claim “Customers might be hit by a cyclist” (Often this is due to the pedestrian not looking, and simply wandering in random directions, and this often results in pedestrians also walking into each other)
Meanwhile councils argue that reducing a speed limit to improve safety is not feasable as “drivers won’t respect the new speed limit”, so we’ll do nothing. . . radical though… do like you do with the cycling rules, ENFORCE IT, with equal vigour.
Naughty, naughty pedestrians!
Naughty, naughty pedestrians! How DARE they walk in a ped. zone in the town centre and not keep their eyes peeled and senses alert for cyclist zooming around them?
How DARE older, infirm people be concerned that cyclists are riding amongst and around them?
FOI to grimsby council? How
FOI to grimsby council? How many pedestrians have been injured by cyclists in the last 12 months, and how many by cars?
Is it time for a complete ban on cars within the town?
I ride an e-bike because I
I ride an e-bike because I can’t walk very far.
So, if I was to go shopping on my bike – which I often do – would I still be given a ticket?
Even though to me, it is a 2 wheeled version of that disabled scooter in the main image.
Oldfatgit wrote:
It would certainly make an interesting case were you to invoke the Equality Act, previously known as the Disability Discrimination Act.
Has anyone been in touch with
Has anyone been in touch with Joe Lycett, perhaps he could help?
He was out campaigning
He was out campaigning against oil the other week, so he’s pro-petrol but anti-oil. Confused individual.
That’s a bigger penalty than
That’s a bigger penalty than for most motoring offences. It’s absurd.
Ban adult pedestrians, they
Ban adult pedestrians, they might hit children.
Gus T wrote:
Ban children as well – they’re little brats and often hit each other
Wouldn’t it be easier to get
Wouldn’t it be easier to get off and push? No point in annoying pedestrians illegally. You were one once.
RoryLydiate wrote:
Why would a careful, considerate cyclist (as I assume all Road.cc readers are) be annoying pedestrians? Also, ‘illegally’ is begging the question as careful, considerate cycling has bizarrely been made illegal by this ban, whereas cycling is typically a completely legal activity.
I assume you haven’t read the comment by Oldfatgit – he most definitely does not find it easier to get off and push.
There is obviously a by law
There is obviously a by law that Grimsby Council have passed to prohibit cycling in pedestrianised areas. Therefore whether you consider if you were cycling safely or not, you are still breaking the law, and subject to the penalities for doing so. Safe cyclists also should respect and follow the law do you not think?
didsthewinegeek wrote:
It is not a bylaw it is a Public Space Protection Order which prohibits “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.”
Many people look at the PSPO and read the 4 words of “Riding a pedal cycle” and stop reading assuming that all cycling has been prohibited, where it clearly has not been.
So the point is how many of these fines are being issued incorrectly?
didsthewinegeek wrote:
As TriTaxMan correctly states, it’s a PSPO, not a bylaw.
Following the law only makes sense if the law is sensible and just. They could put in a PSPO to ban an ethnicity from pedestrianised areas and it would be rightly demonstrated against (e.g. with civil disobedience). The problem with this particular PSPO is that they’re interpreting it as disallowing any cycling which is unjust.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s also unlawful; EA2010 S.20(3), S.29, S.149.
If I were local, I’d be very tempted to make a trip and enjoy myself a round of daring them to try and fine me.
RoryLydiate wrote:
I never realised that annoying pedestrians was illegal. Fancy….
RoryLydiate wrote:
Not really, no – unless you’d like to give me some detailed, step by step instructions as to how you envision that I do that..?
Don’t forget; Not all disabled cyclists are going to be obviously and visibly disabled.
Lovely to hear from you again
Lovely to hear from you again CB
ktache wrote:
There’s only so much time one can spend embarrassing people on Twitter who claim disabled people can’t cycle – need to branch out occasionally 😉
There are many ways to deal
There are many ways to deal with pedestrian zones, with or without cyclists.
Signage can ‘welcome cautious cyclists’. That’s OK, and action can be taken against those who do not respect pedestrians (who, including toddlers, should have priority in shared space). A PSPO can reinforce that approach and authorise town centre wardens to take action as well as police.
If the zone is not the only cycle-permeable route through a town centre, I personally don’t mind cycling being prohibited in part of the TC, as long as the options open to cyclists are not so backwater as to be unsafe in personal safety terms or too far from the function of the TC.
If the zone is, for convenience [ie laziness] framed as a no cycling zone, then enforcement could be limited in practice to those actually causing trouble for pedestrians, allowing those cycling at slow pace and/or off-peak hours to be unchallenged (along the lines of Paul Boatengs’ letter to ACPO). The trouble with this is that you still officially outlaw those who take a reasonable approach to cycling, and the balance of discretion is solely in the hands of the enforcement officer.
A lot depends on the layout, width and congestion of the street in question. I think some streets are so busy with pedestrian traffic that cycling on them becomes untenable at times. It is surprisingly easy to couch PSPOs in those terms; TROs are harder, imho.
“There’s no need to cycle in
“There’s no need to cycle in the pedestrian area – Bethlehem Street and Osborne Street are literally a few metres away and run parallel to it.”
This is begging the question – if there is a perfectly good alternative, why would people be risking the fine? I’ve never been to Grimsby so have no personal experience, but is it possible that the alternative is not in fact very cycle friendly, and people would rather risk a fine than their lives?
On this whole “toddlers
On this whole “toddlers exhibiting Brownian motion” thing – how is it that this apparently justifies banning bicycles and yet (much heavier, electrically powered) mobility scooters are fine and dandy?
In theory they are only doing
In theory they are only doing 4 mph as they are limited to that. However the “road worthy” ones can do 8mph and requires the owner to remember to swap speeds. Still will do damage though if the operator panics and just keeps on the accelerator, (as elderly sometimes do in cars).
brooksby wrote:
toddlers should be banned to save the climate. No other decisions a person makes will be responsible for more carbon emissions than creating a new toddler.