A cyclist caught riding through a pedestrian zone in Gravesend, Kent, has been fined £440 for breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
A safer place officer from Gravesham Council saw Adam Kitek riding his bike along a section of News Street subject to a PSPO at 11.10am on 11 August last year.
The PSPO forbids riding bicycles within the designated area from 10am-6pm every day, according to the Gravesend Reporter.
The council officer explained about the PSPO and took down Kitek’s details. A fixed penalty notice (FPN) was sent to him, however he did not pay it and ignored a reminder.
He was summonsed to appear at Medway Magistrates’ Court but did not attend and he was found guilty in his absence.
Besides the £440 fine, he was also told to pay a victim surcharge of £44 and costs of £250.
Speaking after the hearing, Gravesham Council’s assistant director for communities, Simon Hookway, said: “The Public Space Protection Order was put in place in 2016 to ensure shoppers can walk and shop safely along New Road.
“It is just a short distance that cyclists need to dismount for to ensure the safety of shoppers in this pedestrianised shopping street.
“We will issue fines to those who do not follow this and if fixed penalty notices are ignored, we will prosecute.
“As can be seen from this case, ignoring a fixed penalty notice can soon become an expensive matter,” he added. “But the safety of shoppers takes priority.”
PSPOs are used by local authorities to enable council officials to issue FPNs for behaviour banned by the order, which may include littering, drinking alcohol or cycling.
However, Duncan Dollimore of the charity Cycling UK, which opposes PSPOs, has described them as geographically defined ASBOs, saying that they are employed to “restrict the use of public space and criminalise behaviour not normally regarded as illegal … [like] the pernicious pastime which undermines the very fabric of our society: cycling.”
40 thoughts on “Gravesend pedestrian zone cyclist fined £440 after breaching Public Space Protection Order”
Drive your tank on the phone
Drive your tank on the phone and get £100 fine.
Just putting that in context.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
get it right
You can get 6 penalty points and a £200 fine if you use a hand-held phone when driving. You’ll also lose your licence if you passed your driving test in the last 2 years.
and dont forget if you took it court like the cyclist did then it could be uptp a £1000.
john1967 wrote:
OTOH the police are way more likely to stop a cyclist in a PSPO enforced no cycling zone than they are a motorist using a phone while driving.
john1967 wrote:
I apologise unreservedly!
Maybe time to work on your people skills..
Has anyone actually spoken to
Has anyone actually spoken to mr Kitek for his side of the story? Gravesend echo, road.cc, etc? Maybe he gave a fake name and/or address?
Why do people actually bother
Why do people actually bother stopping for these plastic plod? What are they going to do? Pull you off your bike? You know what to do if they try that, don’t you?
The twattery of petty
The twattery of petty officialdom. Don’t expect any sense, reason or fairness from the justice system. The whole thing is a scam, but like parking tickets, for the most part easily enough avoided.
If you do get caught, then unless you have an airtight technical mistake, such as they put the wrong date on the FPN, and even then you have to take the gamble of going to court, just cough up and try not to feel too sore that they got you. It happens. Court costs and bailiff charges etc soon add up to ridiculous amounts if you don’t deal with it promptly, and the stress is certainly not worth it.
As I understand it, a council
As I understand it, a council officer has no authority to either stop you or demand your name and address, so to anyone who knows that, the solution is clear; don’t stop, and if forced to, don’t give your details. Might even be worth threatening to sue them for false arrest or some such if they insist on stopping you.
burtthebike wrote:
Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut.
Welsh boy wrote:
This is civil NOT criminal, you DO NOT have to give your details, IN YOUR OPINION it’s obstruction but whatever.
ATEOTD simply ride off and ignore them, if they grab you use reasonable force to defend yourself against the assault, they cannot arrest you, they cannot make a citizens arrest lawfully either as it’s not an arrestable offence. Unlawful removal of freedom is kidnap which IS a criminal offence as is assault.
Which statute forces citizens to give their details to these types when you have commited no criminal offence?
PCSOs are mostly unlawful in themselves and discriminatory in the first instance.
Welsh boy wrote:
Wow! Got out of the wrong side of the bed this millenium did we?
I did say “As I understand it…..” and I’m happy to be corrected if wrong, but you could at least try to be polite. It must be so difficult being perfect and always being right; just as well it hasn’t made you a smug, arrogant t**t. Much.
Welsh boy wrote:
You have to give your name and address to a properly authorised council officer, but the onus is on them to demonstrate that they are properly authorised for that purpose (even the stormtroopers from Kingdom Services need to show some sort of ‘licence/warrant card’ if they want you to answer to them, as I understand the legislation).
You do not have to give your name and address to every single council employee (Park Keeper Percy?) who asks for it, but if they can show that they have appropriate authority for that purpose then yes, I think what you’ve said is correct Welsh boy.
brooksby wrote:
The problem is going to be when – I suspect it’s not ‘if’ – someone will refuse to give a name, or gives a false name. And the person trying to issue a fine is either not going to know the limits of his ‘powers’ (because he was never trained), or is not going to care, because as soon as the cyclist ‘defies his authority’ (chuckle), he is going to rugby tackle the cyclist to the ground and cite some knobend gobshite in PACE, to justify his doing so.
You’re then going to get two uniformed PCs turning up, and neither of them will have a fucking clue about the law either. So they will radio their control room and the sergeant there will tell them to bring the cyclist in ‘for questioning’. In what passes for the ‘mind’ of the ‘council employee’, his actions will thus have been vindicated, and that evening over a beer with his mates, he will recount how he ‘arrested’ the cyclist, all the while confirming to himself (and to his friends) that his world view is correct, and that he has power of arrest. And he will then use it the next time.
As for the cyclist, he will seek to know why he was arrested by the coppers who arrived, and failing adequate justification, that arrest will of course have been unlawful (Roberts v Chief Constable of Cheshire Constabulary [1999] 2 All ER 326; [1999] 1 WLR 662; [1999] 2 Cr App Rep 243). There are three remedies that present themselves.
In short, the cyclist is fucked, because the ‘council employee’ will stand up and will swear on a stack of bibles and his dear mum’s life, that he was ‘assaulted’ by the cyclist. The CCTV in the town centre will be found to have been ‘faulty’ that day (‘faulty’ in this context means that the supervisor in the control room will be the husband of the sister of the ‘council employee’ and he’ll make sure that they’re wiped before the end of his shift), and there will be six ‘independent’ witnesses who will swear that they saw the cyclist punch the ‘council employee’. Two of those ‘independent witnesses’ – one of whom will actually be a police officer – will actually have been sunning themselves on the beach in Tenerife at the time, but their evidence will get the cyclist convicted, fined £550 and ordered to pay £600 costs as well as a’victim surcharge’ of £350.
At the same time, in a blatant disregard for the laws on contempt of court, the video will go up on the Daily Mail website, and there will be seven thousand comments, all stating how ‘lawless lycra louts’ (despite the fact that the cyclist will have been wearing jeans and a T-shirt) ‘think the law doesn’t apply to them’. Of the six thousand comments, one thousand of them will recount how a friend’s eighty-six-year-old grandmother was knocked down by a cyclist on the pavement, and had to have a hip replacement, which didn’t save her as she died of emphysema six months later, and if the fucking cyclist hadn’t killed her, she’d be here today. Four thousand, six hundred and twenty-two of the comments will call for cyclists to pay ‘road tax’, and there will be sixty petitions launched on change.org insisting – without a hint of irony or self-awareness – that cyclists should be punished for their transgressions. The London Taxi Drivers Association will replace their newspaper cut-outs about how Uber drivers are rapists that they have on the rear parcel shelf of their taxis, with the Daily Mail story about the cyclist, and the next time there is a ‘die-in’ next to Bank Junction, four cyclists will be assaulted by taxi drivers, but the police will report that ‘there have been no arrests’.
Two weeks later, the cyclist will be invited onto the set of Good Morning Britain, and he will appear dressed in lycra, but without hi-viz (which will incite 2,500 tweets about how cyclists ‘should wear hi-viz’, from people none of whom will actually be owners of a bright yellow car). Holly Willoughby will ask, ‘People say cyclists are out of control. What do you say to that?’, but the papers will completely warp what the cyclist says in reply.
Meanwhile, on road.cc, someone will have found the name of the ‘council employee’ and will have posted a link to his facebook profile. The ‘council employee’ will then go onto the news the week after, and will claim that he has had ‘death threats from cyclist groups’. He’ll be lying through his fucking teeth, of course, but he’ll get the sympathy and attention he craves. This will prompt LBC to run a piece – ironically enough, on the anniversary of Kristalnacht – asking what is to be done about ‘cyclists and their powerful backers’. The Prime Minister, Mr Jacob Rees Mogg, will stand up in front of the dispatch box and say, ‘This House condemns the actions of cyclists who do not obey the law of the land, and we are proud to support the Private Member’s Bill to force cyclists to carry a means of identifying themselves at all times’.
And so it will go on. Nothing changes. Not until we force them to start respecting us, will they start. Unfortunately, ‘forcing’ involves the use of force.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
Did lol
Welsh boy wrote:
He’s actually completely right; Just because somebody works for the council, it does not necessarily follow that they have any additional powers whatsoever.
If you are foolish enough to stop, the very first thing out of your mouth should be a request to see their designation card.
They have no power to stop you unless it is specifically mentioned on the designation card – though they [i]may[/i] have the power to demand your details. However, they generally have no power to actually hold you to obtain them.
They cannot make a citizens arrest, as this is not a criminal offence and, even it it were, it’s not one that falls into the purview (PACE 1984 24A (1984 c.60 part III Section 24A). )
It is not obstruction, except when it is; It is actually an offence to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer;
You must also not attempt to leave whilst they’re actually issuing the FPN without having first checked their designation card – which they must provide you on demand, and may not make the provision of subject to any conditions ie; you can see my DC once I have your details.
If it doesn’t expressly state that they have been given power to detain, then they have 30 minutes to get a police officer or otherwise authorised officer; after 30 minutes, just walk away. PRA2002.
Kingdom and other privately hired officers don’t even get that 30min hold. If detaining isn’t specifically listed on the DC, just leave, they can’t do shit.
Crippledbiker wrote:
— Crippledbiker He’s actually completely right; Just because somebody works for the council, it does not necessarily follow that they have any additional powers whatsoever. If you are foolish enough to stop, the very first thing out of your mouth should be a request to see their designation card. They have no power to stop you unless it is specifically mentioned on the designation card – though they [i]may[/i] have the power to demand your details. However, they generally have no power to actually hold you to obtain them. They cannot make a citizens arrest, as this is not a criminal offence and, even it it were, it’s not one that falls into the purview (PACE 1984 24A (1984 c.60 part III Section 24A). ) It is not obstruction, except when it is; It is actually an offence to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer; You must also not attempt to leave whilst they’re actually issuing the FPN without having first checked their designation card – which they must provide you on demand, and may not make the provision of subject to any conditions ie; you can see my DC once I have your details. If it doesn’t expressly state that they have been given power to detain, then they have 30 minutes to get a police officer or otherwise authorised officer; after 30 minutes, just walk away. PRA2002. Kingdom and other privately hired officers don’t even get that 30min hold. If detaining isn’t specifically listed on the DC, just leave, they can’t do shit.— Welsh boy
Thanks for clearing that up, I think. I am still slightly confused by
“It is not obstruction, except when it is; It is actually an offence to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer”
So if they ask you for your details, but have no power of arrest, can you just ride off?
Crippledbiker wrote:
Oh dear, talking through your butt. Please, don’t post comments on subjects when you don’t know what you are talking about. The council officer does have the power to ask your name and address and not providing it is obstruction which is another offence. Bar room layers giving out bad advice, tut tut.
— Welsh boy He’s actually completely right; Just because somebody works for the council, it does not necessarily follow that they have any additional powers whatsoever. If you are foolish enough to stop, the very first thing out of your mouth should be a request to see their designation card. They have no power to stop you unless it is specifically mentioned on the designation card – though they [i]may[/i] have the power to demand your details. However, they generally have no power to actually hold you to obtain them. They cannot make a citizens arrest, as this is not a criminal offence and, even it it were, it’s not one that falls into the purview (PACE 1984 24A (1984 c.60 part III Section 24A). ) It is not obstruction, except when it is; It is actually an offence to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer; You must also not attempt to leave whilst they’re actually issuing the FPN without having first checked their designation card – which they must provide you on demand, and may not make the provision of subject to any conditions ie; you can see my DC once I have your details. If it doesn’t expressly state that they have been given power to detain, then they have 30 minutes to get a police officer or otherwise authorised officer; after 30 minutes, just walk away. PRA2002. Kingdom and other privately hired officers don’t even get that 30min hold. If detaining isn’t specifically listed on the DC, just leave, they can’t do shit.— burtthebike
I’ll see you in the bar later Welsh Boy, and it’s your round.
bad law and should be take
bad law and should be take off the statute book or reviewed and modified so Councils can’t use to exclude cycling….it is simply not being used as intended
on one hand we have Councils creating share paths that bring cyclists into conflict with pedestrians because it is supposed to be safer to remove cyclists from being in the way of vehicles – makes shared paths a convenience for drivers not cyclists or peds.
create a car free area where people have to get out of their vehicles to get about and for their safety when no longer in a car it needs to be cyclist free?
some cyclists are not responsible but on that basis we’d have to ban all cars because we know a few drivers can’t be trusted
despite all the talk about sustainable transport the majority of those in local politics are either anti cyclist or believe that they need to represent anti cyclist views or just don’t get it
antigee wrote:
Indeed so. And whilst that bad law is being considered for removal, the rest of us should resist execution of it.
This gets interesting. The
This gets interesting. The report says only “council officer” so I’m not sure if that is a PCSO or not. A PCSO does have some powers:
“Getting the offender’s details
Ask the offender for their details.
Call the police for assistance in the following cases:
the offender refuses to give you their details
you suspect the offender has given you false details
A police community support officer (PCSO) can detain the offender for up to 30 minutes before a police constable arrives.
The offender can be fined an additional amount on top of the FPN, if they refuse to give you details, or provide false details.”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-penalty-notices#getting-the-offenders-details
But as Brooksby points out, a mere council officer doesn’t have any such powers, unless specifically authorised in law.
He shouldn’t have done it and
He shouldn’t have done it and got busted. Simple surely?
The thing I find most
The thing I find most interesting about this story, is that the offender Mr Kitek hasn’t spoken to the media. We’ve got that he was ‘busted’ (as Mr Murden puts it) and gave the council officer his name and address. We’ve then got that he didn’t pay the fine. We’ve then got that he didn’t turn up at court, and was fined further plus costs. We’ve then got a council statement that they got ‘im, and let that be a warning to all Evil Cyclists Everywhere. But no interviews or statement from the offender.
As I’ve hinted at earlier, does Mr Kitek even exist?
What if he really did give a false name and/or address, and the wheels of justice just kept churning without anyone actually verifying his identity…?
brooksby wrote:
And now we all know what name to give to PCSOs and others. Never mind John Doe or other such nonsense, the modern pseudonym is Kitek; might be worth varying the first name, or they might catch on. I bagsie Roland.
This:
This:
In short, my advice would be:
In short, my advice would be: don’t cycle through these areas, because even if you don’t get caught, the pedestrians all around you are going to hate cyclists even more (the jury is still out on whether that’s at all possible, of course). If you do insist on cycling through areas where it’s banned and you get told to stop, don’t. Alter your course and give it beans. Just make sure you don’t knock down any pedestrians whilst making your escape. If you’re unlucky enough to encounter plod whilst you’re still within line of sight of the jobsworth who’s trying to stop you, he will scream at them to intervene, and as they won’t know the circumstances of the incident (you could be a murderer trying to make your escape), they will act.
At that point, it’s your call as to how much you want to avoid that fine.
I wonder what the
I wonder what the restrictions are along that road for motor vehicles making deliveries? For the safety of pedestrians, I would hope that they are completely banned…
Wow. Circle wagons, the perp
Wow. Circle wagons, the perp must be innocent – he was on a bike. I don’t want to comment on all the armchair lawyers opinions, I’m not qualified. I don’t much care for whether there were correctly constituted regulations posted preventing cycling in the pedestrian zone, nor whether the perp had been correctly served notice following all due process, etc. To me it is simple common sense that you don’t cycle in pedestrian areas. I don’t need to be told, I’m a grown up. Yes, even if some car drivers are not, whatever.
Sriracha wrote:
Right, so, first up – what about shared spaces? There are many bits of “cycle lane” that are actually just shared space with pedestrians – are you saying that it’s obvious that nobody should use them (I mean, apart from the fact that they’re shit)? I don’t think you’ve thought that through.
More generally, for many people cycling is easier than walking, and many use cycles as mobility devices.
Also, what about those who are literally unable to dismount?
If I want to cycle through a pedestrian area to avoid a dangerous bit of road – that’s exactly what I’ll do.
I will not take a more dangerous route around a short stretch I am not “supposed” to cycle through – The town I live in has time restrictions on cycling through the centre, which I completely ignore[1] – I will, and do, just cycle straight through and there isn’t a damn thing anybody can say nor do to prevent me from doing that – whether that be in Romford, Gravesend, Woking, Bedford or anywhere else.
Funnily enough, though, I’ve never hit anybody going through there, and whilst I’ve had a few, uh, lively conversations with people taking objection to my presence, it’s never been because of a dangerous incident, more them taking offence to my entire existence in that space.
If somebody is attempting to set a new land speed record through a pedestrianised area, then yeah, that’s pretty shitty – but if they’re proceeding slowly and carefully, giving way to other persons and being cautious, nah, don’t see a problem.
[1] Although the RTOs attached are really badly worded and varies between Bicycle and Pedal Cycle, neither of which applies to the type of ‘cycle I use (2010 No. 198 Regulation 2)
Sriracha wrote:
I don’t cycle in pedestrian areas either – and this whether or not there are signs or prohibitions warning me that it is not permitted.
But of course, this isn’t just about whether the ‘perp’ is guilty or not. This is about the creeping trend towards out and out authoritarianism that has a feature of British life since time immemorial, but which has worsened since 1979, and which has been accelerating in scope and has been increasingly used to target the vulnerable.
The massive swing to the right of the British electorate since 1979 has resulted – as it always does when the cancerous vermin that are tories are in power – in an increasing willingness to put the boot into any and all minority outgroups. Vegans and cyclists are the current targets.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
I don’t cycle in pedestrian areas either – and this whether or not there are signs or prohibitions warning me that it is not permitted.
But of course, this isn’t just about whether the ‘perp’ is guilty or not. This is about the creeping trend towards out and out authoritarianism that has a feature of British life since time immemorial, but which has worsened since 1979, and which has been accelerating in scope and has been increasingly used to target the vulnerable.
The massive swing to the right of the British electorate since 1979 has resulted – as it always does when the cancerous vermin that are tories are in power – in an increasing willingness to put the boot into any and all minority outgroups. Vegans and cyclists are the current targets.
— Sriracha
Actually, this is about cycling in a pedestrian area. Read the article. It is not your manifesto.
Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:
.
Sriracha wrote:
I don’t cycle in pedestrian areas either – and this whether or not there are signs or prohibitions warning me that it is not permitted.
But of course, this isn’t just about whether the ‘perp’ is guilty or not. This is about the creeping trend towards out and out authoritarianism that has a feature of British life since time immemorial, but which has worsened since 1979, and which has been accelerating in scope and has been increasingly used to target the vulnerable.
The massive swing to the right of the British electorate since 1979 has resulted – as it always does when the cancerous vermin that are tories are in power – in an increasing willingness to put the boot into any and all minority outgroups. Vegans and cyclists are the current targets.
— Legs_Eleven_Worcester Actually, this is about cycling in a pedestrian area. Read the article. It is not your manifesto.— Sriracha
I am sorry I confused you. Perhaps when you grow up a little, you will be able to see further than the end of your nose.
Sriracha wrote:
I don’t think anyone was saying that he must be innocent [because] he was on a bike (personally, I’m not even entirely convinced he exists…
).
Why do you think that its common sense not to cycle in pedestrian areas? And how do you define ‘pedestrian area’ anyway? After all, a ‘shared space’ area and an ‘utterly absolutely pedestrianised’ area will usually look exactly the same (except for PSPO warning signs on some of the entries…).
And how do you get to the shops like other grown ups, if you won’t ride your bike there? Isn’t the convenience of door to door travel, part of the attraction of riding a bike?
It’s not like any shopping area near me has built ultra convenient multi-thousand space bicycle parking. My nearest have all started removing much of the bike parking.
I’m exasperated by these
I’m exasperated by these comments.
To think we (cyclists) wonder why pedestrains get beligerent towards cyclists, why cyclists get beligerent towards other road users, why drivers see anything outside of thier metal boxes as beneath them.
What about showing some tolerance and respect to other human beings and common law? Don’t assume everyone else is wrong, that we are always in the right, that nobody else makes mistakes, that “they are out to get you”. How about just taking some more time to consider others and how what you are doing affects them. Ask:
(BTW, the answer to the last one should be No)
If we all based out thoughts and decision making around this, we’d be a lot less stressed and angry.
Scottish Scrutineer wrote:
Cars being on the road inconvenience me and are not safe, can we ban them?
People drinking coffee in ubs inconveniences me, and hot drinks are dangerous, ban them!
Need i go on…?
Scottish Scrutineer wrote:
I agree with what you say about mutual respect etc., but you are mistaken if you think that pedestrians (and drivers) are ‘belligerent towards cyclists’ because of some aspect of our behaviour.
Cyclists are not despised because of what we do, but because of what we refuse to do. We refuse to drive everywhere, and we expose the hypocrisy of those who smugly recycle their empty Pepsi Max bottles, just before driving – in their Range Rover Evoque – their children to the local comprehensive which is three quarters of a mile away. In this way, we share the status of vegans, as a hated minority outgroup. It wouldn’t matter if no cyclist ever went through a red light, just as it wouldn’t matter if no vegan ever revealed his or her ‘vegan status’ to anyone. Until we start to conform to the dominant culture which normalises car driving (and meat eating), we will never be ‘liked’.
“To me it is simple common
“To me it is simple common sense that you don’t cycle in pedestrian areas”
Now, the people in charge of cycle provision in Reading have decided to do it rather differently.
Hopefully the map is visible, there’s that big yellow area BROAD STREET, but just to the right of it theres a purple L, running from the end of King Street to John Lewis, takes a right and goes down Queen Victoria Street. The yellow is Pedestrians only, cyclists dismount, and the purple is Town Centre Route. Here’s a streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4556918,-0.9720895,3a,75y,233.05h,79.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAj1sprWj2klbHkf1pfIqpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Apart from the NO CYCLING signs (and I do not ride on this bit) there is no difference in the pedestrian area on the Town Centre Route and the NO CYCLING side. Notice how the Cycle parking is within the NO CYCLING area, I have yet to see a car park in a NO DRIVING area.
Please also note that Reading has placed part of NCN 4 along the riverside at the Oracle
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4530429,-0.9703179,3a,75y,242.34h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq99Hagsj2XfeRVTSGqxHGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Does any of this make much sense to anyone?
@ktache
@ktache
I have only cycled along the Oracle bit a couple of times, but both times I have had people shouting and tutting loudly at me and a couple try to shoulder barge me. And this is whilst I am going at about 6mph and giving it the full friendly wave, smile and excuse me pleases. No idea why or how that is considered part of the NCN.
Podc wrote:
The only time I think I’ve been shoulder barged was while riding slowly and carefully across Pero’s Bridge in Bristol.
Here: https://goo.gl/maps/HcTTZ8p1H9u It’s part of certainly the city’s signed cycle routes and I’m pretty sure its on the NCN too. It’s a narrow and crowded bridge, and cyclists are signed to go over it to avoid riding around the Centre and getting killed (which looks bad for the council, y’know). It has blue shared-use roundels on posts at each end.
This one time, this overweight middle aged bloke (older than me – maybe late fifties/early sixties), smart shirt, shorts and deck shoes, decides he’s going to teach me a lesson, innit, and as I pass he purposely sticks an elbow out, knocking me against the barriers at the edge of the bridge. I put a foot down, ask what he’s doing, get a mouthful of bl00dy cyclists guff back from him
I shake my head, suggest he checks out the signage at the end of the bridge, and get back on my way.
ktache wrote:
To me, it is simple common sense that you put cycle parking where cyclists can ride to the parking.
To me, it makes no sense at all to put cycle parking but then insist that the cyclist dismounts and wheels their bike to said parking.
I wonder what would be said if anyone built a beautiful new car park, but then said the motorists had to turn off their engines some distance away and either push their vehicle, freewheel it, or be towed the last hundred metres to the parking facility?