A local council says it has “escalated” and “intensified” its “war on cycling menaces” by implementing a complete ban on riding a bike in pedestrianised zones, as part of a wider crackdown on anti-social behaviour.
North Lincolnshire Council announced this week that a new Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) is now in place in Scunthorpe and Brigg, following a public consultation earlier this year, introducing stronger powers and increasing fines for what the local authority describes as the “scourge” of “irresponsible behaviour”.
In Scunthorpe and Brigg town centres, cycling is now completely banned, with anyone caught riding a bike in pedestrianised areas set to be immediately handed a fixed penalty notice of £100. According to the previous PSPO, cyclists could only be fined if they refused to dismount when approached by an officer.
The total cycling ban comes as part of a suite of toughened anti-social measures, which also include the outright ban of drinking in the street and greatly increased fines for littering, fly-tipping, neglecting waste duty of care, and graffiti.
“We will not stop until we eradicate this behaviour,” Rob Waltham, the leader of the Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire Council said in a statement, issued under the headline “Council triples fines as war on fly-tippers, litter louts, and cycling menaces intensifies”.
“People need to use one of the thousands of bins provided, get off their bikes and push, or dispose of their household waste responsibly – it really is not that difficult.
“We have repeatedly asked people to stop doing these things, we have repeatedly told them how their behaviour impacts on others and, while we are starting to see some changes, it is clearly not enough. Local taxpayers will not pick up the bill for irresponsible behaviour.”
John Davidson, the local authority’s cabinet member for communities and urban added: “We consulted earlier in the year on stronger measures to tackle the scourge of anti-social behaviour and the response from the public was overwhelmingly in support of tougher action.
“The vast majority of people don’t make the area a mess for others or cause problems – but for the few that do we are going to hit them even harder in the pocket, clearly they have not listened to our requests, pleas, and demands.
“The Government provided the opportunity for us to increase the fines for these offences, residents have supported us, and we have done.”
However, when the public consultation was launched earlier this year, the proposed ban was heavily criticised by disabled cycling charity Wheels for Wellbeing, who argued that they had the potential to “deepen discrimination against cycling as a mobility aid”.
Nevertheless, Waltham maintained that the PSPO “has enabled us to protect vulnerable communities by targeting anyone creating a nuisance or putting themselves and others in danger”.
“The new measures will enhance those protections and I make absolutely no apologies for doing so,” he said.
> Cyclists warned city’s new e-bike ban will be “clamping down on any cases of reckless behaviour”
The newly implemented cycling ban in Scunthorpe and Brigg is one of many that have come into force in town centres and pedestrianised zones across the UK in recent years.
Earlier this month, a controversial ban on e-bikes in certain pedestrianised parts of Coventry city centre was introduced, with the deputy leader of the council warning that riders can expect strict enforcement.
The new ruling, which prohibits e-bikes and e-scooters being ridden through sections of the city centre, was approved last month, as Coventry City Council passed a PSPO despite protestations from the West Midlands’ walking and cycling commissioner Adam Tranter, who argued such a ban would “discourage cycling and penalise responsible cyclists”.
Last February cyclists in Bedford staged a ride protesting a “discriminatory” town centre bike ban, while this summer Hammersmith and Fulham Council introduced an e-bike and e-scooter ban along part of the Thames Path.
A pensioner in Grimsby also made headlines when he told the council to stick its £100 fine for cycling in the town centre “up your a***”, saying he would “rather go to prison than give them £100”.
That particular town centre ban in Grimsby has attracted quite a bit of attention in recent times, with some locals accusing the council of targeting the “old and slow” and cyclists “they can get away with” for fines.
Wheels for Wellbeing, while criticising a councillor’s “get off and walk” advice to town centre cyclists, also called for clearer signage which specifically states that people who use standard cycles as mobility aids are permitted to ride in pedestrianised zones, which they say will both reassure disabled cyclists and help reduce the risk of confrontation between pedestrians and people on bikes.
And last month, police in Nuneaton said they had asked the council to introduce a no cycle zone to cut out “really dangerous” cycling and “anti-social behaviour” in the shopping area, saying that “we get a lot of kids wheelie-ing through and it sets the wrong tone”.
77 thoughts on “Council “escalates war on cycling menaces” with new town centre ban, saying: “We will not stop until we eradicate this behaviour””
Discrimination. Nothing more,
Discrimination. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well – and I’d love a local
Well – and I’d love a local to tell me otherwise – it looks like with the provision for cycling in Scunthorpe only wrong’uns are likely to be cycling there. (“Cyclists” will have already left as quickly as possible.)
The vast majority of the cycling parts marked on Google are … in parks.
Here’s some of the “on road –
Here’s some of the “on road – sometimes” provision (here on Streetview – further back you can see some “spontaneous generation” as cyclists mysteriously emerge like maggots from a kerb. I did find one though here). Looks quite a lot like the US “sharrows” and green death strips to my eye… (There’s what looks like a footway you can cycle on (maybe?) on the other side. I think the local authority is yet to reach the height of “paint and sign” provision.)
It’s absolute hell to ride
It’s absolute hell to ride around Scunthorpe and the roads are in a terrible state.
They are banning cycling from the town centre but the only people in the centre are drunk, high or just going between bookies and pound shops. Unfortunately the only way through Scunthorpe safely is the centre as the cycling provisions are so bad
It looks like car town to me.
It looks like car town to me. Not that anywhere in the UK isn’t car town (possible exception the centre of Cambridge? TBH even in NL it’s still quite possible to drive most places – just slightly less convenient than cycling or walking…). Even places with “historic streets” are. This place looks “yeeeehaaa!” though.
Yes, like the rest of the UK
Yes, like the rest of the UK and not as Chris Boardman describes it, Cambridge is a car town. Massive decades-long battles with Tory/Daily Mail 1970s pitchfork wielding driving voters continue to demand more road space, more parking provision, more pavement use, more, more, more.
In the NL you will also find
In the NL you will also find cycling is banned in pedestrian areas.
Ratfink wrote:
And also In NL you’ll find many – if not most – people cycle to the shopping.
That’s why they also build – and continue to increase – the number of large cycle parking garages in urban centres.
I’d say same idea, coming from a very different attitude. But yes – you will indeed see signs with allowed times for cycling.
Whereas in the UK often where there is indeed a pedestrian area it’s surrounded by quite unpleasant roads, because people want to drive to the “nice pedestrianised shopping centre”. Which then means people who might consider cycling across town can choose: brave it with the motor vehicles, take a (sometimes massive) detour, go through the banned area. Or … drive.
They already had powers to
They already had powers to ‘ave a go at “cycling menaces”, surely?
What this means is making it simpler for their enforcement officers by removing any possible discretion, so a careful eighty year old on a city bike is treated the same as a fourteen year old in a balaclava wheelying along on a BMX.
(I love how they talk as if riding a bike is the same as street drinking or littering…)
Oh no! The Terrorradfahrer
Oh no! The Terrorradfahrer are back
And why not? Get off an walk
And why not? Get off an walk. Like all laws a few selfish sods spoil things for everyone but do people here complain about that? Pedestrian zones are never very long. Walk. I do ea h way daily. If you commute through one leave home earlier. If you are one in a million who can only move by riding not walking then you can happily just say so to who ever stops you.
Just where is the problem?
Just one of the reasons why I despise the modern cycling movement. Such disgusting self entitlement.
Oh I don’t know – their first
Oh I don’t know – their first album was quite good.
It turned out that MCM were
It turned out that MCM were weirdly big in Brazil.
momove wrote:
Big in Japan, surely?
Quite right, they need to
Quite right, they need to eliminate the dangerous and offensive shorpe from Scunthorpe (do I have you right?).
‘Modern cycling movement’ ?
‘Modern cycling movement’ ? Meanwhile nearly 500 people a year are killed or seriously injured by drivers on pavements and pedestrian areas – every year in the UK. Where is the same draconian measures to fine pavement parking? Is it because Tory councillors only drive? Locals who only drive…quick to grab their pitchforks whenever cyclists are mentioned ??
Hammer bad car use and bad
Hammer bad car use and bad bicycle use. Not an either or thing
E6toSE3 wrote:
When does the crackdown on bad car use begin?
Also, you may notice that this crackdown is on any bicycle use – they don’t care whether the cyclist is causing a problem or not.
‘Just one of the reasons why
‘Just one of the reasons why I despise the modern cycling movement. Such disgusting self entitlement’
you wouldn’t give us the other reasons would you? Just out of interest.
Imagine a scenario where a
Imagine a scenario where a certain stretch of your walk to the shops had been blighted by a few youths indulging in antisocial behaviour. In reaction to this, the authorities close the street to all pedestrians and you have to walk 500 m further around the block. Would you say that’s absolutely fine and a perfectly proportionate response, I’ll just be leaving home earlier, or would you say that’s ridiculous, I’m a law-abiding pedestrian, why am I being punished for the behaviour of a few youths?
Or old disabled people in
Or old disabled people in heavy powered buggies that can do 10+mph in pedestrian areas
E6toSE3 wrote:
Don’t discriminate against the young disabled people
mattsccm wrote:
The problem, as already pointed out in this comment thread is that the “cyclists” the council want to deal with, the ones causing actual problems, are exactly the ones who will be unaffected by this, as they will not stop when asked, will not hand over their details and will simply ride away when challenged.
So the inevitable result of the policy is that the “cycling menace” continues, and well-behaved cyclists going about their business no longer bother and drive instead.
And it isn’t just about being asked to get off and walk for a section. It is about lumping cyclists in with fly-tippers and litter louts with the heavy implication that the council simply views cycling as anti-social in and of itself. Given how dreadful cycling provision is in both Brigg and Scunthorpe, it wouldn’t surprise me if that was what they thought.
There’s a pedestrian area
There’s a pedestrian area here in Southampton where cycling is permitted, although I avoid it when it’s busy. The alternative route is down a fairly busy road, but thankfully the council has made part of it buses and taxis (and bikes) only to reduce the amount of through traffic…. Unfortunately there’s no enforcement so people have continued to drive through it anyway. We all know where the problem with dangerous behaviour lies.
Strongly agree. And reckless
Strongly agree. And reckless cycling done by all demographics and an uncomfortably high proportion of cyclists. Speaking as 50 years bike as main transport up to 100 miles
E6toSE3 wrote:
Why do you think the amount of time you’ve been riding validates your very extreme anti-cyclist opinions? Cycling has been my main form of transport for more than 40 years, I don’t think that particularly makes my opinion more valid than that of somebody who’s been cycling for five.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Why do you think the amount of time you’ve been riding validates your very extreme anti-cyclist opinions? Cycling has been my main form of transport for more than 40 years, I don’t think that particularly makes my opinion more valid than that of somebody who’s been cycling for five.— E6toSE3
Why is this anti cycling? Its about seeing that the king is in the altogether.
We have some very militant, angry people on here. I wonder do you not think refering to people as ” gammon” is not so as one person has on this thread?
If we cannot face up.to simple facts instead of getting angry and abusive if not damn right offensive to one another it doesn’t say alot about us, Does it!
Stephankernow wrote:
E6toSE3, the person whom you are so strongly supporting, is the only one who used the term “gammon”. You seem a bit confused, I think you might need coffee and breakfast and then come back when you have a bit of a better grasp of what’s actually being said and by whom.
Motorists walking in
Motorists walking in pedestrian zones complaining about dangerous cyclists!
This always goes the same way
This always goes the same way
Someone carefully and slowly riding along in the pedestrianised zone will be likely to stop when asked and hence gets a fine
Your averge yobbo wearing a blck hoodie, black jeans and trainer will just laugh and ride off – no way to identify them and if you try to catch them you have no chance
So – people that are causing no problem get a fine – the ones who are causing the problem are not affected
The whole point of this
The whole point of this crackdown is to get headlines for the tories, not whether the measures are necessary or effective.
In light of dreadful events
In light of dreadful events occurring in the world, I find the language used by the council disgusting.
Unfortunately, and with 50
Unfortunately, and with 50 years of cycling as my main transport, lumping an embarrassingly large proportion of cyclists, of all demographics, along with flytippers etc is very valid. I also developed some data mining tools for Newham Council Enforcement Service for a year or two before retiring in 2018. The rise of aggressive reckless behaviour is a real thing. Car speed limits attempt a blanket restriction of bad driving, even on clear roads at night. Quite reasonable, if annoying to us, to blanket restrict cyclists due to the dangerous recklessness of many, not just a few
E6toSE3 wrote:
And your statistical evidence for this “real thing” is…?
We need a chart!
We need a chart!
(Perhaps people are fly-tipping cyclists and that’s irritating them? Or the cyclists are fly-tipping but it’s not cooling their tempers?)
E6toSE3 wrote:
Well said , All demographics where i live its about respect and commonsense which is sadly lacking in some people today.
E6toSE3 wrote:
Except that it’s not a restriction, it’s a ban – reckless driving doesn’t lead to a ban on all cars.
Any sensible cyclist would slow down in a pedestrianised area – the ones who don’t are the ones who need to be curtailed
Your experiences in a London borough are not representative of cyclists as a whole. (General behaviour in large cities is generally worse than elsewhere)
“We will not stop until we
“We will not stop until we eradicate this behaviour,” Rob Waltham, the leader of the Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire Council said in a statement, issued under the headline “Council triples fines as war on fly-tippers, litter louts, and cycling menaces intensifies”
Cllr Waltham is doing many of us a favour, by imforming anyone who tries to cycle instead of driving, to be lumped in with fly-tippers and litter louts in his region.
Instead, one should drive, feel free to park on the pavement, or avoid Scumthorpe and Blight altogether.
There are a growing number of councils across the UK that focus on anti-cycling measures, not youth-related problems, but fail to address widespread driver selfishness. Probably because the baying voters with pitchforks are all drivers.
Im looking forward to the App that highlights these backward boroughs so I can avoid visiting them.
Interest to see not mention
Interest to see not mention of CUK or British Cycling being involved in any of the discussions. Do our national organisations care?
Capt Sisko wrote:
Dunno about British Cycling, they’re … more sport-focussed.
I suspect CUK care if you do … enough to do some thankless work. AFAIK they are not “the cyclists’ union”. I’d like it if there were one … or actually, maybe not quite (“cyclist” after all – though I’m happy to pay CUK and get their insurance and the magazine).
It seems CUK pick up on some local campaigns to highlight some bigger issue at national level. Can’t fight all the battles and it probably makes most sense where a) there a sustained local campaign doing the leg-work and b) there is some hope of some shift in attitude / policy.
Of course this selectivity causes resentment. Perhaps sometimes all you can do is “be the change … “
Capt Sisko wrote:
I am not even sure it has anything to do with whether they care. They can only be involved in discussions with the permission/invitation of the local council(s) involved, it isn’t like they can insist on being involved.
They can comment on these things publicly (and I believe CUK have previously commented on these issues) but cannot simply inject themselves into a process. If a council wants to rid its town of the “cycling menace” I am not sure CUK are the kind of organisation they will want to talk to about how to do it.
Weird comment. Just scrolled
Weird comment. Just scrolled down and see others have responded. Form a Brigg Cycling Campaign, or join it if it exists
Tory culture wars. Uggh.
Tory culture wars. Uggh.
Brigg and Scunthorpe have
Brigg and Scunthorpe have very wide pedestrian zones in the town centre there is absolutely no need for this policy. I can “sort of” understand the need in Grimsby a little more as it’s a narrower and far more of a traditional bustling town centre than the other two. Also Grimsby the situation in the centre is already better for peoople on bikes as it has an alternative road running parallel to it, it’s a shared space that is predominately buses and taxis as much of the car traffic has moved elsewhere.
I cycled through the high street in Brigg on Sunday, must have been about 10am, it was completely dead, not a soul in sight. I will continue to cycle in such areas where unjustifiable measures such as these are present.
Good to hear some local
Good to hear some local knowledge, thanks. I don’t know which of the disputed areas the picture above shows but my first thought was that looking at the cars there is literally room for a six lane motor highway through there, no way you could fit in a 2m cycle path? Isn’t that one of the main problems with these pedestrianized areas, that there is no guidance for where cyclists should go and so pedestrians feel an exaggerated threat with riders appearing to come from all directions? It’s pretty cheap just to paint a cycle lane on the pavement and if it’s properly signposted 99% of cyclists will stick to it.
While I suspect there are
While I suspect there are gammon tendencies involved, I’m now sympathetic to anti-cycling attitudes. My father-in-law was from up there. I’m in London. The last ten years I’ve had to walk with vulnerable people like heavily pregnant daughter-in-law and wife whose been permanently injured by runaway motorbike. Cyclists, ebikers, scooters are, I’m afraid to say, predominantly deliberately reckless. It’s been my main form of transport for journeys up to 100 miles for 50 years but, for the past 15 years, I’ve been almost embarrassed to be called a cyclist. The brutal recklessness is shown by all demographics with the diligent exceptions also from all demographics. Shame. Back in the day, were were a rarity. Now it’s rabid mobs on two wheels
I’m a cyclist, but…
I’m a cyclist, but…
The carnage wreaked by a year
The carnage wreaked by a year of brutal recklessness by rabid mobs on wheels…
I actually think if we achieved mass cycling we would of course see a commensurate increase in problems – because people can be just as selfish on a bike as they can be driving their car or walking their dog.
On the other hand, overall problems on our roads and public spaces would still steeply decrease. Because motor vehicles get everywhere and cycling is less problematic than driving in many ways – by an order of magnitude or more. (Deaths and injuries, damage to infrastructure, noise, pollution, use of space …)
Also won’t be a problem since without cyclists having their own space (separate from motor traffic and pedestrians) I see no chance that numbers will greatly increase. With the possible – and unlikely – exception of the food delivery companies taking over all deliveries / floodgates being opened on kids and e-microvehicles.
chrisonabike wrote:
The photo in the article shows a van inside (what I assume is) the pedestrianised area. Again, making an assumption, but it is likely making a delivery.
Will this “total cycling” ban apply to loading/unloading cargo bikes or will they have the same exemption as the “total driving” ban?
HoldingOn wrote:
In Scunthorpe I think I can guess…
Overall – the place most likely to have problems with cycling has had some “problems of success” (see this interesting take on “too much convenience for the consumer?”) but seems to be thriving on it. Of course it’s possible that the UK’s … particular approach to regulation* would mean we have problems after genies are out of bottles. But … that wouldn’t be different from anything else we’ve done.
* Ignore the heck out of everything on a “don’t meddle” principle (good). Continue to “let matters take their course” as taking the mick gets industrial (either a little by everyone – like speeding – or companies/organised crime seeing a loophole e.g. overseas oligarchs, food delivery companies). Finally when the shires / chattering classes are sending in too many strongly worded letters / having a word in the club, bring in some rules that most inconvenience those who weren’t the main cause of the issue.
35,000 cyclists a day and
35,000 cyclists a day and that was back in 2016!
Interesting video. When someone says “delivery cyclist” I always assume hot food delivery (those folks on e[motor]bikes)
I am seeing more and more stories about people in the UK (the plumber sticks in my mind) using eCargo bikes for their businesses. I was wondering what Scunthorpe council would do if one of those businesses set up inside their pedestrianised area.
As with all change (albeit with increased cycling we are changing back) there will be people fighting against it.
By the way – how on earth do you keep track of all these informative links?! You always seem to have several links to offer counterpoints (and often counterpoints to your own counterpoints!)
I just google myself.
I just google myself.
In the UK, yes. Having lived
In the UK, yes. Having lived abroad it was a very different reality.
E6toSE3 wrote:
Do you mean in your post? In which case, agreed.
Why is the only injury you mention in your post one caused by a motorbike? Are cyclists responsible for motorcyclists now?
If “cyclists, ebikers, scooters are… predominantly deliberately reckless” then why don’t the injury figures reflect that, when all these cyclists are riding around with “brutal recklessness”?
Because that wouldn’t suit
Because that wouldn’t suit his bias?
I blame the Lawless Cycling
I blame the Lawless Cycling Collective (Elsie), the militant faction of the Evil Cycling Lobby. They also have connections to the sinister Cycling Mafia. Be careful out there.
E6toSE3 wrote:
Will you please explain what you mean by ” gammon” tendency please?
Never had a problem walking
Never had a problem walking my bike through the pedestrianised high streets in my two local towns. I guess some think the heirachy of road users has cyclists at the top.
You’re reading it upside-down
You’re reading it upside-down. It has motor vehicles on top.
Spending is often a better proxy for what people consider important rather than what they say.
Not really, I just don’t
Not really, I just don’t believe if I am on my bike I have the right to ride it through a pedestrianised area where cycling is prohibited. It isn’t difficult.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I agree with you , If its pedestrianised we walk our bikes i cannot see the problem. Pedestrianised means pedestrianised!
Stephankernow wrote:
Except it doesn’t only mean that of course, in many pedestrianised areas cycling is permitted. As I pointed out above, nobody is suggesting that cyclists should ignore prohibitions against cycling (I certainly don’t), they are simply saying that in numerous cases cycling is banned when there is no need for it to be so. The picture above is a prime illustration of this, a 12 m+ wide thoroughfare that could easily accommodate a cycle lane without inconveniencing anybody and provide a safe, car free route instead of a needless total prohibition.
Adam Sutton wrote:
My issue is more with councils criminalising the careful, considerate cyclists. There’s already laws to deal with reckless cycling and also general assault laws can be used to deal with dangerous cyclists, so the introduction of this law is only to criminalise ordinary people. I dislike poorly thought out laws that target out-groups as a knee-jerk response to something that isn’t a significant issue (except in their minds that have been warped by right-wing culture wars).
It’s a slippery slope, and the next thing you know, they’ll be throwing you in prison for daring to walk rather than using a car: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/15/just-stop-oil-activist-is-first-to-be-jailed-under-new-uk-protest-law
LOL!
LOL!
Adam Sutton wrote:
And I guess some don’t understand that hierarchy of road users does not apply to a pedestrianised area. Once it’s been pedestrianised, it’s no longer a road, you see. That’s why local bylaws apply. Allowing cyclists to ride through a pedestrianised area does not transgress or alter the hierarchy of road users, any more than having a shared pavement does.
I guess some people don’t
I guess some people don’t understand this sign, example being my local town, but sure cycle through there like an entitled selfish prick.
Nobody here is arguing that
Nobody here is arguing that cyclists have a right to cycle through areas where cycling is banned. What they are saying is that cycling should not be banned in areas where it is perfectly feasible for cyclists and pedestrians to coexist. Can you not see the difference?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Its about respect in my opinion, just because you might think its safe doesnt mean you can actvin a selfish manner im all right Jack!
We have to act responsibly and show respect.
Stephankernow wrote:
Did you actually read what I said? I said nobody should cycle through areas where cycling is banned. I also said that there are areas where cycling is banned where it is unnecessary, I did not say that meant it was acceptable to ignore the ban. Got it now?
Looks self-enforcing at that
Looks self-enforcing at that time of day – best way.
With them invoking fly tipping and all the other nuisances doesn’t sound like you’d be preaching to people who will listen though (nor who will stop for the “enforcement team” or whatever – unless they’re committing genuine coppers? In which case they *must* have a major issue – takes a lot to get the police out these days!).
I doubt the “cycling menaces” are riding Bromptons, Urban Arrows or even Colnagos. Unless they’ve recently nicked them (I doubt there are many there to nick).
Again I’m not a local though so it’s possible Chris Boardman, Cycling Mikey and Jeremy Vine are on tour…
Judging by the presence of
Judging by the presence of the massive obstructive gate, that makes life harder for legitimate users, it would seem that motorists also do not understand signs.
It’s numbers, (perceived)
It’s numbers, (perceived) threat and balancing the down sides isn’t it?
Clearly motor traffic is most dangerous but mostly we don’t see it. However if you’ve got yoof / druggies and thieves hanging about, maybe using bikes to get around, that’s far more noticeably unpleasant and you’ll likely have a lot more assault, thefts and possibly injuries than from just transport passing through. (Sounds like they have an anti- social people issue really and this is at the low/yoof end of the scale if they’re on bikes…)
Block cars completely and you’ve “but ambulances / my shop can’t get deliveries.”
Don’t *physically* block cars for some of the time and you’ll have cars there because driving everywhere is normal and LOTS more people drive than cycle.
Seems that Scunthorpe at least is a generally unpleasant place to cycle in – so presumably numbers are low. So even if the local authority were sympathetic they’re going to say “making getting through /past the centre even less convenient by bike? Only a few of the fit, the brave on bikes plus hooligans here anyway – so tough, ban them all.”
I just don’t think adding some by-laws are going to fix it if there is already a criminal menace / aggressive behaviour.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Im the same i simply dismount the Pashley and walk through the pedestrianised areas.
My issue with bans is when
My issue with bans is when motor vehicles are permitted (with restrictions, e.g. time limits or permit holders) yet bicycles are banned with PSPO’s that don’t require police involvement…
If it is quiet enough to allow motor vehicles for any reason then it is quiet enough to allow bikes; if you went to been bikes then you should usually have to been cars as well…
Quite. Brigg town centre.
Quite. Brigg town centre. Signage says cyclists must dismount.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/5LfNyNiSoHt5A35G6
Huge heavy vans = ok. Lightweight bicycle = DEATH
“We will not stop until we
“We will not stop until we eradicate this behaviour,” Rob Waltham, the leader of the Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire Council said in a statement, issued under the headline “Council triples fines as war on fly-tippers, litter louts, and cycling menaces intensifies”.
Must be an election coming.
The blatent bigotry of
The blatent bigotry of putting ‘cyclists’ into the ‘public nuisance’ category tells me everything I need to know about this pillock and the town. Even though I’d probably never visit the town anyway, this reaffirms I wouldn’t be missing anything worthy of a visit. They can choke on their exhaust gasses.