North Lincolnshire Council has cited “zero tolerance to anti-social behaviour” as it suggests a complete cycling ban in parts of Brigg and Scunthorpe town centres that could come into effect from next year.
The consultation, which ends on March 27, has proposed “no cycling or riding a motorised scooter” in a number of streets of the two North Lincolnshire towns, under the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO).
A PSPO, according to the council, enables them to take action against “anti-social behaviour” and “protect vulnerable people by targeting those who continue to be a nuisance within communities”.
The council already has a PSPO since October 2021 that an officer can ask a cyclist to dismount if they ride in the pedestrianised areas of the town centres. Now, it seems that are trying to get rid of cyclists from these areas completely.
North Lincolnshire Council leader Rob Waltham said: “Residents are fed up and we are fed up with that small minority of people who think the rules do not apply to them.
“We have taken a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour, and we have spent a great deal of time – and taxpayers’ money – to crack down on these people already. Despite this, they just will not listen nor learn.
The fight against anti-social behaviour across North Lincolnshire looks set to be boosted further as the council strengthens its powers to fine people. https://t.co/HmF74lLz7y
— North Lincs Council (@NorthLincsCNews) March 23, 2023
Waltham said that the council had to go back to the 2021 order and strengthen it further so they could be able to fine people if they are on a bike in the prohibited areas. Since the introduction of the PSPO in 2021, thousands of fines have already been issued for public order offences and littering.
Cllr Waltham added: “This 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.
“We are committed to keeping North Lincolnshire peaceful and safe and the strengthening of the PSPO is a significant part of this.”
> “Why is cycling discouraged?” asks councillor as Stafford introduces ban when renewing its PSPO
Besides being keen to banish cyclists from town centres, the council is now also proposing a ban on drinking alcohol (or even being in possession of an open bottle), as well as loitering or begging in almost the entirety of Scunthorpe.
In neighbouring North East Lincolnshire, a similar PSPO ban on cyclists in Grimsby’s town centre has been in place since 2019, with over 1,000 fixed penalty notices issued as of last year targeting “anti-social and dangerous” behaviour.
One target for such behaviour was 82-year old Barrie Enderby, who was fined £100 for slowly cycling through the city centre. To his credit, Barrie did have a scorching reply for the council: “Stick it up your a*se”.
The move drew a lot of ire from residents, as unhappy locals complained that council officers are not imposing the cycling ban in pedestrianised zones fairly and rather than cracking down on anti-social behaviour they are seemingly “targeting” people “they can get away with doing so”.
These orders have also been criticised by Cycling UK for the way in which they target cycling as a whole rather than only those who cause a danger or nuisance through the manner of their cycling.
In February last year, cyclists in Bedford also came together to protest a ‘discriminatory’ ban on cycling in the town centre using a PSPO, with residents pointing out the irrelevance of these bans.
> Bedford cycling ban to remain despite consultation showing most people want it scrapped
As recent as January this year, Hammersmith and Fulham Council also proposed a £100 ban on cyclists using the Thames Path, along with banning e-bikes and e-scooters.
In Brigg and Scunthorpe, cyclists already can be slapped with a £100 fine if they fail to get off their bikes when asked by a police officer, with the penalty cost likely to rise if unsuccessfully disputed or not paid and taken to Magistrates’ Court
In Brigg, the proposed areas to stop cycling are the Market Place and the adjoining parts of Wrawby Street and Bigby Street, while in Scunthorpe, the no-pedal zones extend all the way along the High Street till Church Square, as well as adjacent roads like Market Hill and Jubilee Way.
The council said that all comments will be analysed and considered before a final decision is made on the proposed changes.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
78 thoughts on ““They will just not listen nor learn”: Council proposes all-out cycling ban in town centres to tackle “nuisance within communities””
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to see the number of injuries due to cycling in previous years before the restrictions were introduced.
….And those injuried by
….And those injuried by motor vehicles over the same time would be great.
and people don’t think we
and people don’t think we have authoritarian government!
We got downgraded recently,
We got downgraded recently, we’re now considered hostile and authoritarian. Great eh
this isn’t a government
this isn’t a government decision
Marin92 wrote:
The government (ha, ha, ha) set up the legislation without making it impossible for some biased councillors to impose their prejudices on otherwise legal activity: maybe they could revise the legislation to make it sensible.
Marin92 wrote:
government with a small g, so it very much is a government decision. My comment applies across the spectrum of government.
Marin92 wrote:
Councils are quite literally “local government“.
It’s almost like you can’t be
It’s almost like you can’t be a nuisance unless you’ve got a bike or scooter..
Sounds like experience! Have
Sounds like experience! Have you been trying your best?
I Presume they will be
I Presume they will be seeking to ban all motor vehicles from all roads due to persistant breaking of the speed limits?
Thought not.
Kendalred wrote:
You beat me to it: clearly we’d better ban all motor traffic from the motorway network, because some people drive their cars above the speed limit…
So, cycling is now an anti
So, cycling is now an anti-social behaviour is it?
Personally, I’d consider that driving around and just allowing your exhaust fumes to poison the air is far more anti-social and that’s without considering such anti-social behaviour such as pavement parking, threatening other road users, noise pollution etc.
Lincolnshire – one of the
Lincolnshire – one of the most rural counties. They absolutely have a driving focus there. TBH even the roads are not a focus of safety. Lincolnshire is proud of not having motorways…
Good luck disabled cyclists.
Good luck disabled cyclists. Some use normal looking bikes but struggle to walk and potentially can’t drive either. North Lincolnshire Council seemingly does not care about these people.
https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk/campaigning/my-cycle-my-mobility-aid/
I’m split on this. On the one
I’m split on this. On the one hand, if an area is truly ‘pedestrianised’, then it feels sensible for vehicles of all types to be banned, do that pedestrians can wander round like the brainless sheep so many of them are. On the other hand, it seems daft to fully ‘pedestrianise’ an area if there are still roads which a cyclist could very naturally safely use.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
The best way to deal with the problem is to deal with the actual stated problem – some anti-social cyclists. It doesn’t require legislation, just have regular police strolls through there and apprehend any cyclists that are being dangerous and/or anti-social.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The best way to deal with the problem is to deal with the actual stated problem – some anti-social cyclists. It doesn’t require legislation, just have regular police strolls through there and apprehend any cyclists that are being dangerous and/or anti-social.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Sadly that costs money, and between being seen to be doing something for cheap, and actually doing something for a greater expense, the powers that be are much more inclined to pick the former, especially when it involves what is often seen as an “out” group.
Of course the fact that N.
Of course the fact that N. Linc is firmly under the control of the Nasty Party has no correlation with the creation and harassment of out groups….
I’d tend to agree, fully
I’d tend to agree, fully pedestrianised areas work precisely because of the homogeneity. People are accustomed to, and surprisingly good at, navigating on foot amongst a throng of other randomly wandering “brainless sheep”. It’s nice to give the brain time off. Add other modes of travel, particularly at greater speeds and lesser nimbleness, and that simple, relaxed ease evaporates.
Homogeneity of modes is good!
Homogeneity of modes is good! One of the biggest failings in UK public space design* is not making separate spaces for cycling and walking (which should be clearly recognisable ). We know this because wherever there is lots of cycling that is what they do, the more so where the more cycling.
Of course the reason the UK does it this way is we’re still *specifically designing* for not much active travel and very little of it cycling.
* Apart from still having the goal of all carriageways being “maximum capacity of *motor* traffic consistent with safety”
Sriracha wrote:
My local sheep are rubbish at avoiding each other – in fact, they tend to head unerringly towards each other, like Exocet missiles
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
There have been several studies in European cities which have pedestrianised centres with cycling, and they all showed that there was very little, if any, conflict between the two modes. Making cycling illegal because of a few anti-social cyclists is punishing the many for the sins of the few. As others have pointed out, using that principle, cars would be banned everywhere.
I’ve never noticed any
I’ve never noticed any problems with cyclists in Brigg market place. The only people I’ve seen cycling there are older and/or more nervous cyclists, cycling slowly, who are too nervous to use the roads (with good reason as I can’t count the number of times I’ve been close passed as a car squeezes between me and a traffic island on the road). And if anyone can work out where the newly installed ‘cycling infrastructure’ is leading you besides into the market place (which is just over the bridge on the right) then well done!
Banning begging too. Doing
Banning begging too. Doing nothing to help the people forced to beg, just get them out of eyeshot.
My local council got rid of
My local council got rid of the rough sleeper problem in town by closing down the night shelters and making it illegal to sleep outdoors. Result, no rough sleepers anymore…
Yes, Tory.
I suspect I won’t visit this
I suspect I won’t visit this area before my demise, but if I did I would be happy to comply with a ban on cycling in a restricted area, just as long as there was evidence that the local enforcement agencies were not just following a hyper-junk press anti-cycling bonanza and were equally dedicated to enforcing regulations forbidding motor vehicles to drive and park where they like or to drive around illegally without MOT or insurance (yes, yes, I know, hobby horses etc.). DS13 ATX has been driving around for almost 4 months without MOT/ insurance and 4 months after failing MOT for four serious defects- yet Lancashire Constabulary does nothing at all about it because…hard-working, hard-pressed otherwise law-abiding driver…
Then you should report it to
Then you should report it to DVLA using this link – https://contact.dvla.gov.uk/report-untaxed-vehicle
I don’t usually reply to
I don’t usually reply to people making stupid comments, but for the benefit of others I should point out that it’s the police who are concerned with driving without MOT or insurance. DVLA pretend to be interested in VED evasion, but aren’t and do nothing when blatant cases are reported to them. In Lancashire they tend to abandon both MOT and VED because there’s essentially zero chance of the police taking action. My record around here is a Range Rover without either for 5 years
.
.
Winning friends and influencing people again down in Garstang, I see.
.
But you can cause as much
But you can cause as much havoc as you wish on a non-motorised scooter, go figure!
Reminds me of the article
Reminds me of the article last year about a local council fining an elderly gentleman when all he did was walk out of the local supermarket with his groceries and went over to his bicycle to load it up for the ride home.
It didnt matter that he wasnt one of the local yobs ripping it around the highstreet or town square at warp 9. He was guilty by association just because he rode a bicycle and wasnt in a position to escape the wardens who were patrolling the area.
I would assume this ban will change and do absolutely nothing but cost the local businesses loss in sales.
Local yobs will still rip around at warp 9.
No issue with PSPO Officers
No issue with PSPO Officers or even real Police Officers asking anti-social people to stop doing anti-social things with a route to appropriate escalation if they don’t have the good grace or sense to comply.
However, the all too frequent reality is that when it becomes a blanket ban on this or that backed by a fine and then the enforcement is farmed out to a commercial company such as Kingdom for example, you end up with quota driven, legalised extortion mercilessly targeted for the smallest infraction on those least likely to give the enforcement officer a difficult time.
Nobody opposes preventing
Nobody opposes preventing anti-social behaviour, but demonising perfectly safe cycling is merely displaying their intitutional anti-cycling bias. Cycling is not per se, anti-social, and passing a law saying that it is anti-social is absurd, and will not stop anti-social behaviour by the cyclists who already do it.
Penalties are already in place for people who behave anti-socially, so this new proposal is un-necessary, pointless and will only affect those who do not behave anti-socially.
Tackle the anti-social behaviour, not people who pose no threat. And make the local roads safe to ride on while you’re at it.
Is this any different to town
Is this any different to town centre alcohol bans? Yes, not all drinking is associated with anti-social behaviour, but I guess its easier to draw the line at drinking alcohol.
Moreover, whilst you may be a paragon of virtuous cycling behaviour, elderly pedestrians will nevertheless feel apprehensive at the prospect of any approaching cyclist, and even the able bodied do not want to be forever alert to objects moving much beyond walking pace. TBH, if people running through the area became a bit of a thing I reckon that would become just as much of an issue – its the speed differential and inertia that are in contention.
In a milieu congested with pedestrians you’re really only able to cycle at walking pace anyway. It’s then not much hardship to get off and push.
This would be great if there
This would be great if there were cycle-friendly alternatives. Unfortunately in many towns and cities the pedestrianised centre is surrounded by some really unfriendly roads (for access or often a through-route). Which is partly why people are so keen on the pedestrianised bit and fighting cyclists over scraps again.
How did all the pedestrians get there? People really like to drive to the (relaxed) walk – and of course park as close to the stroll as possible.
How on earth could it be different? Provide for cycling. Here’s an example.
If there are a medium density or greater of either cyclists or pedestrians then mixing is unpleasant / inefficient. But there’s often space (3.5m) for an access lane for vehicles through part of an area. Just make that 2-way cycles-only for part of the time if there’s demand. Or take some of the vast space given over to the moving and static motor vehicles on the edge of the area.
Having a “no-go zone” in the middle of places can be a big impediment to general cycle travel. This was the case in Edinburgh for time – East-West involved quite a diversion if you didn’t want to brave the busy (bus-y) roads / tram tracks. That’s slowly getting fixed now.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Both Brigg and Scunthorpe are on my longer Summer ride routes and while cycling around the pedestrianised area in Brigg is not too bad (in spite of the roads mostly being minimum 40mph) circumnavigating Scunthorpe town centre on the roads can be a pain. And there are plenty of HGVs to negotiate.
That said, one of my weirdest experiences while out on the bike was the independent cafe owner in Brigg town centre refusing to serve me because I was dressed inappropriately (I was in my usual bib shorts and cycling jersey) … having locked my bike up in the rack right outside his establishment.
Isn’t Brigg where Falcon
Isn’t Brigg where Falcon bikes came from originally?
.
.
Very reasonable post.
.
Get OFF this site!!!!!
.
It is interesting you mention
It is interesting you mention the “elderly”, yes that is often a reason made when it comes to “cycling on pavements” and even proposed shared streets. But I find it curious that when I visit Tokyo, an infinitely denser but often more pleasant pedestrian experience than most UK towns that it is the elderly and school children who are cycling on pavements. Maybe the large elderly population in Japan who have a far higher health rating than our population have something to teach us.
Maybe this one can be put
Maybe this one can be put down to “it’s the culture”? Never been to Japan but I was in Korea for a little while – a society which has some similarities – and noticed a) different social norms enforced by the intense social pressures meant that conformity was greater, and certain anti-social behaviours I’d expect in a massive city weren’t noticable and b) below a certain age you were granted a certain licence and respect for older people is very noticable. Especially above 60 (61 in Korean) in earlier times you’d transition into a special status.
The Japanese bicycle culture is certainly interesting and I’d like to know more. I’m not sure it has as much relevance to us in the UK as nearer, more similar cultures e.g. Netherlands / Copenhagen and some other Scandinavian places and a smattering of other European locations. (Sorry Germany – still trying to catch up with the state of things there…). The UK is very close geographically, culturally and climatically close to the Netherlands. Our language is very closely related to languages from the region and we even have a Holland (which is flat). And yet “not invented here”…
How about cracking down on
How about cracking down on antisocial driver behaviour? We’d ride on the roads more then . Fucjing carcentriccuncils
Stevearafprice wrote:
Yes, especially as they’ve proven that “They will just not listen nor learn”
(Anyway, the proposed ban is probably pointless, as the antisocial people will carry on regardless)
I was a bit more concerned to
I was a bit more concerned to hear that alongside cyclists and beggers being ousted from the area.. apparently ‘loitering’ will also not be allowed. Which (without any knowledge of caveats) seems to me to be a bit of an encroach into our personal freedoms..
peted76 wrote:
There’s one of those privatised public areas in central Bristol. Quakers Friars used to be a car park surrounding the remains of a mediaeval friary. When the Cabot Circus shopping area was built, the council sold off the car park to the same developers and it was turned into a pedestrian plaza with high end shops and a restaurant in the old friary.
You are not allowed to cycle, scooter, take photos, play ball games, etc etc in there (and many security guards to make sure).
I remember reading about one privatised public area in That There London where you are not allowed to eat food outside…
(edited for typo)
It seems to me that what’s
It seems to me that what’s being proposed is to transform what was once a road into a wide pavement.
I’ve no problem with legal enforcement of not cycling through “pedestrianised” shopping areas.
Whether I cycle in an anti-social manner or not, I don’t seek the right to cycle through the local indoor shopping malls nor the right to cycle on pavements.
Those that express the opinion that shared use paths are unsatisfactory should be able to comprehend the benefits to pedestrians of not having to mix with bike riders (and e-scooterists).
Doctor Darabuka wrote:
We’re back in the position of keeping cyclists out of ‘pedestrian areas’ to protect the pedestrians, but not putting in ‘cycle-dedicated’ areas to protect the cyclists, which forces cyclists onto the (as someone else has said) big and busy circular roads.
Many “pedestrianised” shopping areas around the country are happy to let cyclists pass through – why are these North Lincs ones so vulnerable?
(Not) welcome back, Martin.
(Not) welcome back, Martin.
marmotte27 wrote:
Who’s Martin?
(Not) welcome back, Martin
(Not) welcome back, Martin
Yes, this disingenuous ‘Who’s Martin?’ is very reminiscent of the pathetic pretence at being a foreigner. Another one to avoid!
I think you’re deluded.
I think you’re deluded. Seriously, who is Martin? Why do you think my name is Martin? What pathetic pretence at being a foreigner? If my username said “Doctor Bass Drum” or “Doctor Snare” would you be happier?
Doctor Darabuka wrote:
I’ll take this one, shall I?
I think that your time on road.cc will make a lot more sense once you understand that there have been several persons (well, I presume it was several…) who have run more than one username at a time and/or who have come right back under a new name after being banned or after having flounced off.
These persons bounce along between full-on nasty trolling and simply being contrary for the bantz.
One of them returned and started by pretending to be English-as-a-foreign-language, using Tintin level aphorisms.
The regulars on here, myself included, become a bit sensitive to anyone who turns up as a new username and appears to be contrary to the ‘usual consensus’. Or who uses certain phrases which are the fingerprints of these previous banned users.
I hope this helps clears things up – have a nice day!
Thanks for taking the time to
Thanks for taking the time to reply Brooksby when others have not been so polite.
I would never have thought that my predilection for hand percussion and former stage name could lead to such a bizarre response.
It would seem that there are some here who don’t welcome an honest exchange of views. That’s a shame; as someone who: has supported cycling in my community for decades (via pre-Sustrans Cyclebag, RSF and AudaxUK), was previously employed to maintain bicycle (and dare I say it ‘pedestrian’) paths and have throughout my life cycled many more miles than I drive, cycling is a topic on which I have considerable experience and strong opinions, but it would seem those opinions are not welcome here.
As a long suffering resident
As a long suffering resident of Scunthorpe this is all very confusing. Since 2022 North Lincolnshire Council’s enforcement goons from (I think) Kingdom Enforcement have regularly been seen shouting at and stopping people cycling in the town centre. It isn’t the hooded yoots they’ve been going after but people cycling at not much more than walking pace. If cycling isn’t covered by the PSPO why have the council allowed them to stop cyclists and enforce a non-existent law? As they are not police officers they can’t be enforcing the existing TRO that prohibits cycling in this area. Perhaps road.cc need to seek yet further comment from North Lincolnshire Council.
For those fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with Scunthorpe, this isn’t really about cycling in a town centre. It’s about a populist, authoritarian council leader playing the hardman in the context of upcoming council elections. The warlike language and crackdown on cyclists is the complete opposite of the council’s non-enforcement of parking restrictions in cycle lanes. The council regard no pavement as too narrow when they expect pedestrians to share it with cyclists. Council vans are regularly seen obstructing pavements and cycle lanes/paths. Scunthorpe town centre is in a sorry state not because of delinquent cyclists, as the council like to call them, but because too much controversial out of town retail has helped decimate the town centre. Oh, and as much free car parking as you like didn’t bring the shoppers back either. Rather than take responsibility for the outcome of his council’s policies, Cllr Waltham prefers to blame people who are not like us. Unlike cracking down on cars in cycle lanes, or, heaven forbid, taking space from cars for cycle lanes, he knows this won’t cost him any votes.
In general, I’m ambivalent about cycling in pedestrianised town centres because it can be annoying and feel threatening to more vulnerable people. Yet nearly all of the pedestrianised bits of Scunthorpe town centre are dual carriageway width. Pedestrian footfall is so dramatically reduced due to shop closures that for most of the day responsible cycling probably could be safely accommodated.
I grew up in Broughton, and
I grew up in Broughton, and went to school in Brigg. When I go back to see family, I can’t believe how grim Scunthorpe town centre is now. As you say, too many out of town retail parks pushed by successive generations of councils.
It’s a bit rich for them to now try and pin the blame on cyclists for the woes of the town centre.
There was a whole sub-thread
There was a whole sub-thread in this comment section that’s now vanished. Has another one of the blatant PBUs been canned?
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Looking at this and back at the map book thread it looks, praise be, as though DJChadders has been shown the door. Not before time either, given that he was making absolutely no secret of the fact that he was Nigel, Rakia, The Accountant et al. Wonder how long it will be this time before he makes another comeback.
Looking at this and back at
Looking at this and back at the map book thread it looks, praise be, as though DJChadders has been shown the door
I will have to defer to your scholarship on the matter of previous identities, but it is indeed a matter for rejoicing that another of the tedious pillocks has been disappeared.
Yes! I see his stupid comment polluting my Lies, Damn’ Lies… topic has gone
1 day last time? Or was it
1 day last time? Or was it less?
Maybe he’ll go for another “comedy” persona again though? He’s done “foreigner” and at least one other more recently IIRC…
Ignore ’em once, then the practice gets easier with time!
Is there a prize for the
Is there a prize for the first to identify a likely reincarnation and then ignores whatever rubbish he writes?
You’d have to give it to
You’d have to give it to yourself, as to win it you need to not respond.
Anyway, I’m off to cycle about my local town (city) centre and – to borrow a phrase – be scrupulously polite and courteous to all other users of the space…
You’d have to give it to
You’d have to give it to yourself, as to win it you need to not respond
No, you respond to a ‘dummy’ message and refer obliquely to the offending message!
I do… and I suspect I
I do… and I suspect I shouldn’t!
Rendel Harris wrote:
Between the fact that he was using the same verbatim catchphrases as the last (at least) four times he’s been banned, and that HiVis comment he made on the Dan Walker live-blog story, I assumed he was just baiting the mods this time around.
Maybe my calling out the use
Maybe my calling out the use of “leading road safety expert” did the trick ?
This is a reminder of the old
This is a reminder of the old line “If Paxo put the stuffing back in Britain… Then who put the c*** in Scunthorpe?”
But to appreciate that, you have to have a decent recall of early 80s TV advertising.
TheBillder wrote:
The late great Humphrey Lyttleton on I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue: “You join us this week from Nottingham. Nottingham has a long history, being originally known as Snottingham, meaning ‘The home of the people of Snot’ – Snot being an Anglo Saxon king in these parts.* Over time, however, speech patterns change and the initial S was dropped and the name became Nottingham. Something that fortunately never happened with Scunthorpe.”
*This is true, by the way!
My Hump favourite about the
My Hump favourite about the celebrity chef who had his own brand sausages, with a picture of him in the kitchen on the label: underneath it said prick with a fork.
My Humph favourites –
My Humph favourites – anything preceded by “Samantha tells me she has to leave now…”
mark1a wrote:
“…to meet her new gentleman friend who works in the butcher’s trade. She says she’s always enjoyed Mr Sainsbury’s beef in Guinness but tonight she’s going to try Mr Dewhurst’s tongue in cider.”
Outrageous and so perfect delivered from the deadpan as if he had no idea what he was saying.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yes, it was Antony Worrall Thompson as I recall!
Would you believe it, they
Would you believe it, they are a Conservative Council……. well if market forces dictate that people want to cycle there, then they should!
If such a ban was proposed
If such a ban was proposed for cars, there’d be wackos bussed in from around the country, and abroad, to protest against a leftwing, Jewish, communist, pedophilic conspiracy to deny the human right to pollute.
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
As a Marxist/Leninist/Fascist/Neo-contrapuntalist, I wish to complain at your cancel culture.
They already charge heavily
They already charge heavily polluting vehicles for driving in some city centres – I don’t recall mass protests…
As for the ban on cycling in pedestrian areas – the cause isn’t cyclists, the cause, as always, is the minority. The few people out there that like to weave between pedestrians at high speed. They are most definitely causing a nuisance, but they should be dealt with. Far too many times the majority are punished for the minority.
I’m guilty of it too – “all drivers don’t know how to drive near cyclists” when what I actually mean is “most drivers are okay, but there are a minority who give the rest a bad name”
You should come to London and
You should come to London and spend the week as a pedestrian.
I’m sure you’ll be a supporter of this plan before the end of the week.
GOOD – hope many more follow.
GOOD – hope many more follow.
Presumably they’ll just issue
Presumably they’ll just issue warning letters to the cyclists who endanger pedestrians, and for others they will do nothing for several weeks and then say the time has expired for any action to be taken against the cyclist or advise that they couldn’t determine who was actually riding the bike. Oh hang on, they only do that if you are driving.