Police in Lancashire are cracking down on cyclists riding on the pavement while road closures are in place, after the local authority claimed the footpath-using cyclists were “causing risk to public safety” by riding at “breakneck speed”.
Preston’s Riverside has been closed to traffic since April to enable the construction of new flood defences, as part of the city council’s Flood Risk Management scheme. According to Lancashire Police, since the road was closed there have been “several reports” of cyclists riding on pavements and failing to follow the Guild Wheel diversion route.
Preston City Council has also claimed that “the ongoing failure to follow the diversions is causing risk to public safety after many reports of people being injured or near misses” involving cyclists and pedestrians.
Earlier this week, local councillors, Lancashire Police, and staff from the Environment Agency spent the morning in the Riverside area, speaking to cyclists about the need to dismount on the pavement or use the diversion route.
The council added that the local Police Community Support Officer will also be increasing patrols on the Riverside, with the aim of taking “appropriate action” – such as issuing Fixed Penalty Notices – against cyclists failing to adhere to the diversions.
Preston City Council also says it will use its online channels to promote the diversions, as well as “responsible” cycling etiquette in the area.
> “We introduced him to rugby”: Police boast of tackling cyclist who jumped red light
Councillor Carol Henshaw, who has campaigned on behalf of residents in the city centre to put a stop to what she calls “irresponsible cycling”, said in a statement: “Residents are concerned for the safety of the more vulnerable in the community, young children, or older residents with poor mobility that are at risk of getting hurt.
“Some cyclists using the path go at breakneck speed and there’s not enough time for people to get out of their way. It is only a small section of pathway, and it is very narrow. We are urging cyclists to be respectful of other users and to dismount for the short section.”
“Public safety is a priority,” added Preston’s cabinet member for environment and community safety, Freddie Bailey. “The pavements along Riverside are too narrow for cyclists and there have been a couple of accidents, which is not acceptable.
“It will only take a dismounted cyclist a couple of minutes to walk from Miller Park to Penwortham Old Bridge, where they can start cycling again. If a cyclist doesn’t want to dismount, then they can use the diversion route along South Meadow Lane and through Andy’s Bee Meadow.”
The crackdown on “irresponsible” cycling during roadworks in Preston comes a few months after Bristol’s mayor promised to reassess a diversion on one of the city’s main cycle routes, which redirected cyclists onto what councillors and local campaigners have described as a “risky” and “unsafe” main road, as well as forcing them to walk their bikes along a stretch of narrow pavement.
Concorde Way, a flagship cycle route which connects the north of Bristol to the city centre and is used by 1,000 cyclists a day, will be closed for at least a year to make way for the construction of a new railway station and a diversion put in place. Bristol Cycling Campaign has claimed that the plans are rushed and that the 500-metre stretch of Muller Road used by the diversion is unsafe.
However, Labour mayor Marvin Rees insisted that the “temporary closure” of the Concorde Way cycle route will not bring pedestrians into conflict with cyclists, and that the council is comfortable that “there is no better solution” to the current diversion.
Rees also refuted a Green Party councillor’s suggestion that private motorists belong at the “bottom” of the hierarchy of road users included in the Highway Code, claiming that the councillor’s language “betrayed” his attitude towards drivers and that “everyone in the road user hierarchy must share space in a safe way”.
40 thoughts on “Councillor slams cyclists riding “at breakneck speed” on pavement, as police officers increase patrols targeting people on bikes during road closures”
So public safety is a
So public safety is a priority and yet they don’t provide a good alternative to the cyclists using the pavement. What did they think would happen?
Article mentions an
Article mentions an alternative route that can be cycled.
It’s unlikely to be along the M6.
Thames Water have gone to
Thames Water have gone to great lengths to provide a heavily protected footway segregated from the road for pedestrians along the embarkment whilst works are ongoing that necessarily narrow the already narrow road alongside the slipway. Guess what the peds do? They walk in the road (with their dogs) where there is directional priority signage for vehicles alongside the segregated area.
Oldfatgit wrote:
I don’t know the area, but my default assumption is that they haven’t really considered cyclists with the diversion and it’s longer or busier etc.
(I’m thinking of the diversion put in place in Bristol for the building work for the Ashley Down train station – not very useful at all and that’s specifically inteded for cyclists)
You are wholly correct in
You are partly correct in your assumption. They waited until there was a kick off between pedestrians and cyclists before they did something.
You can be sure that if this
You can be sure that if this is being used over the alternative, the alternative is substandard or not close enough.
If only Lancashire
If only Lancashire Constabulary were as bothered about cyclists on the roads they might get more sympathy.
I know the area very well although I don’t cycle it much. As Bike Phil says the diversion has only recently gone up & the signage for it is a joke.
Police in Lancashire…….?
Police in Lancashire…….?
Are there any? I was lead to believe that the Police force had given up and gone home where traffic regulations were concerned.
Surely this must be some kind of joke? Checks date…. hummm, perhaps not. Ah, that’s it, going after the easy targets again.
Time to defund this type of Police activity and spend the money stopping killing machines but hey…. that would be the War On Motorists and we can’t have that can we.
There still are, but they are
There still are, but they are all useless. I called 999 a couple of weeks ago to report a man so drunk he could barely talk, get into his car and drive off. I followed him and called 999…..and was put on hold! He eventually turned off and I was still on hold, I couldn’t follow him forever so I terminated the call. I then called 101, got straight through to Lancs plod, explained the emergency and was told I would be put on hold and the wait was currently an hour. So I put the phone down and prayed he didn’t kill anyone on his way home.
But call someone a name online and they are all over it.
A cynic might say that
A cynic might say that investigating name calling online provides officers good cover for sitting in their office, checking their favourite social media, while nattering with colleagues over tea and doughnuts.
always thought the request to
always thought the request to dismount slightly odd – takes up much more space and makes it harder for others to pass on narrow paths…..riding slowly or considerately is actually what’s needed, or as noted in the comments, providing suitable space for everyone even with roadworks.
In circumstances like this,
In circumstances like this, it’s not about taking up more space, it’s about appearing to be less intimidating, and more considerate and respectful to other users of the pathway.
To someone unstable of their legs, or unable to move quickly, a cyclist *can* appear threating, especially in a narrow space.
Dismounted, the cyclist is merely a pedestrian, and as such easier to avoid.
I don’t know the area, but there is mention of a route that does not involve dismounting; as a disabled rider, I would be more likely to use that than a clearly marked zone where there is a high potential for conflict.
In before … No, they wouldn’t ask drivers to get out and push their vehicle,BUT we get asked to … yep, and? Basic physics. You can push you <25kg bike.
That sounds like common sense
That sounds like common sense. I doubt it will fly well here then!
Honestly, I don’t care. I
Honestly, I don’t care. I cycle slowly if need be but I’m not going to dismount, sorry. If they want people to feel less intimidated they can make the path wider. It’s their problem. This never applies when it is drivers that cause intimidation, for example with bad crossings.
“In before … No, they wouldn’t ask drivers to get out and push their vehicle,BUT we get asked to … yep, and?” That’s a completely valid point though. It’s a cycle route, not a walk-with-your bike route. And as a disabled rider you’d think you’d understand why it is more than an inconvenience to some.
@Global Nomad – You will
@Global Nomad – You will reach an age where the worst three words in the English language are “had a fall”. Whatever the cause, losing balance can have very serious consequences for older people.
People on the pavement may prefer to be inconvenienced by making room for bike and owner to squeeze past, than risk being struck.
Riders, like drivers, are people convinced of their own abilities. Others may not share our confidence and experience backs them!
Are there many reports of
Are there genuinely many reports of people being injured by cyclists on this path? Must be hundreds of incidents if the police prioritise time and effort to be on the scene to talk to and possible fine cyclists. Because despite thousands of reported close passes and cyclists being injured or killed every day, the police don’t think there are enough incidents to warrant being on the roads to prosecute dangerous drivers. I’m not condoning cyclists who crash into pedestrians when they have been asked to take another dedicated cycle route, but it seems when the shouty gammons eventually get out of their cars and walk somewhere they only have to complain a couple of times about close passes from cyclists and the police are all over it.
No there isn’t. It must be
No there isn’t. It must be bollocks, I read all the local blog sites and news site daily, and have never read a story about anyone getting ‘mown down’ by a cyclist through the park or local area.
“Councillor Carol Henshaw,
“Councillor Carol Henshaw, who has campaigned on behalf of residents in the city centre to put a stop to what she calls “irresponsible cycling”, said in a statement: “Residents are concerned for the safety of the more vulnerable in the community, young children, or older residents with poor mobility that are at risk of getting hurt.”
““Public safety is a priority,” added Preston’s cabinet member for environment and community safety, Freddie Bailey.”
Strange how the most vulnerable only become a priority when the danger is posed by cyclists, not drivers.
Link to Lancashire RTA stats
Link to Lancashire RTA stats for 2021 and provisional figures for 2022.
https://www.lancashire.gov.uk/lancashire-insight/community-safety/road-collisions/
To quote a line.
“In the Lancashire-12 area, there were 2,068 reported road traffic collisions during 2021. Regrettably 32 people were killed, and 717 people were seriously injured”
So fuck me, but those breakneck speed cyclists in Preston must be maiming at least a dozen people every week to have Police resources allocated and prioritised for enforcement actions.
And another thing. I know
And another thing. I know this area well, it’s part of my Sunday afternoon jaunt from Essex to Berwick on Tweed. This is obviously a plot by the left wing cycling militia to scare people into staying within their fifteen minute ghettoes. As responsible cyclists we need to help stamp this out before it becomes a nationwide problem. Don’t forget to salute drivers when they pass you
Over and out.
I ride this path regularly.
I ride this path regularly. Until the flood defence works, it was part of my daily commute. The cyclist diversion has only in the past week or so been put in place. Before that the sign asked cyclists to dismount and walk through the works, the only thing cyclists could do anyway as the remaining path is too narrow to cycle on.
The diversion is a joke, the signage is very poor. The first time I rode it, I ended up at the end of a greasy moss filled back alley behind a row of houses, and had to ride between trees over long grass to get back on the diversion, getting badly stung by nettles in the process. I rode it again today, making sure that I did not miss any signs the previous time. I did not, the signs are very poor. As this is part of the busy Guild Wheel, and is used by hundreds of cyclists each week, the diversion should be much clearer. It simply is not good enough.
Far andf away, the greatest danger through the park and along the river comes from dog walkers with 100 ft invisible leads, people walking whilst wearing earbuds, oblivious to anyone around them, and the regular park runs, where hundreds turn up and take over the park paths, stopping anyone on two wheels from getting through, these idiots also run along the aformentioned path at speed. Are the complainers not complaining about them too?
Wow! It’s almost as though
Wow! It’s almost as though Nigel doesn’t know the area at all and is in fact talking out of his bottom. Who’d have thought it?
“the regular park runs, where
“the regular park runs, where hundreds turn up and take over the park paths, stopping anyone on two wheels from getting through, these idiots also run along the aformentioned path at speed.”
Come on, parkrun takes place at 9am on a Saturday morning only and lasts no more than an hour. Don’t be the guy tooting his horn at someone travelling slower than him, or pretending that a well-advertised and time-limited event is going to seriously inconvenience him.
I agree … but I’m not
I agree … but I’m not reading about drivers complaining about parkrun events.
Back to our old chicken and egg of “not worth the effort of proper cycling provision because barely anyone cycles.”
Of course it’s a massive task but if those making the routes – or indeed diversions – aren’t providing leadership and vision (building it well enough *so* they’ll come) makes you wonder why they’re doing it at all…
https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/road-works-vs-dutch-cyclist.html?m=1
And since park runs are
And since park runs are always at the same time, you kind of know its going to happen. Maybe best thing would be to avoid the area at that time?!? It is a bit like complaining about all the kids walking on the paths at 8.30 near schools. Who’d of thunk it?
Well, I could ask my boss if
Well, I could ask my boss if I could start work at a different time?
I have no problem with people using the park for fitness, but when they don’t care about other park users, then I do.
The official diversion looks
The official diversion looks to take you the wrong way up a one-way street!
https://goo.gl/maps/7KS3E2C22kRH4ayp9
I’m surprised Nigel didn’t
I’m surprised Nigel didn’t know that.
No it doesn’t. It brings you
No it doesn’t. It brings you out after the two one way roads.
Biker Phil wrote:
It just looks a bit like it on the maps, but maybe google maps needs updating.
Is this the right place:
Is this the right place: https://goo.gl/maps/MYfVKdEAbvGR4hbz9
If so, my understanding is the lower cycle track has been closed for the flood works. This cycle track appears to be narrower than the higher level footpath, yet it’s shared use. How can it be ok to have pedestrians mixing with cyclists on the low narrow path, yet not on the wider upper path?
Surely the solution here is to make the lower path pedestrians only and the wider upper path shared use, or even better, a two-way cycle lane.
The lower path is the cycle
The lower path is the cycle path, it is part of the Guild Wheel. It isn’t narrower than the upper path, they’re both about the same width. But many pedestrians don’t walk on the upper footpath, but walk on the lower cycle path. The upper path is also currently closed off at that point in the photo. It would not work to swap the paths over, as the lower cycle path joins the road on either side whereas the upper path is pavement from the cobbled bridge all the way to the Continental pub, hence why the cycle path is marked as a cycle path, not that many people take notice.
Fair enough. I guess if
Fair enough. I guess if flooding is an issue here, then the council could consider making a properly signed alternative route, with road markings etc. that avoids that low section.
I thought it was the law that
I thought it was the law that ‘breakneck speed’ and ‘irresponsible cycling’ must be accompanied by ‘lycra-clad’?
wtjs wrote:
There is an alternative – “masked” / “hooligan” / “hoodie” (must be an update on that, that’s Cameron-era?) – some reference to low-status criminals, generally young. (Fixie / alleycat subgenre as well?)
So they’ll put a dedicated
So they’ll put a dedicated team in place because of “several reports” of inconsiderate cycling? Does “several” mean “a F of a lot!” in Preston?
What is the actual definition
What is the actual definition of “Breakneck speed”? Is it 10mph? is it 20mph? Is it 30mph? No. Actually it’s a speed that when you try to stop, you roll over the front of your penny farthing and break your neck. Good to see politicians with their fingers on the pulses of modern tech. Also, technically, you could break your neck off a penny farthing (or more correctly an “ordinary bicycle”) at really slow speed – in fact it might be more likely!
Bigfoz wrote:
The formal definition is “when you cover more than the length of a piece of string in the blink of an eye”.
Or alternatively “The speed someone else is going which I think is too fast – which bears no relation to speeds I might go myself, or the ‘safe’ or ‘appropriate’ speeds for that person to go in that environment (also open to debate)”.
Are these same police
Are these same police clamping down on motorists who exceed speed limits and drive dangerously close to cyclists? Yep, did’nt think so…
Are these same police
Are these same police clamping down on motorists who exceed speed limits and drive dangerously close to cyclists?
Definitely not to the latter, and don’t know to the former. I do know for sure that they do nothing whatsoever about blatant red light offences, ‘because everybody does it’. The latest 2 offences to receive the Lancashire Constabulary ‘offence? what offence?’ No Response Special are
https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/ and this 44 Tonner G16 DHT of Hartley’s Transport and Training, Lancaster