Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cyclists could face £1,000 fine if caught riding in pedestrianised zones

Anyone caught cycling in the areas would be handed an on the spot fine of £100 and could be given the higher penalty if they go to court

Cyclists could be at risk of fines of £1,000 if they are caught cycling down two Berkshire streets.

A new legal order prevents people riding through pedestrianised zones in Peascod Street, Windsor and High Street in Maidenhead. 

Anyone caught will get automatically get a £100 fixed penalty notice and risk the higher fine if they go to court.

The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead's community wardens have been patrolling pedestrianised no-cycling zones in Maidenhead and Windsor to raise awareness of the new order, Berkshire Live reports. 

Their new enforcement powers mean they can tackle cyclists who don't dismount.

The new approach is part of the council's 'proactive stance' against anti-social behaviour.

The Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) was introduced after a public consultation showed 'strong community support' for the proposal.

The council has warned that while wardens can't be everywhere at once, they will carry out 'targeted spot checks' and undertake targeted enforcement days to support community safety.

Councillor David Cannon, cabinet member for public protection and parking, said it is important all road users follow the rules.

He claimed the council is also looking to 'make improvements to support both cycling and walking as forms of Active Travel'

He added: "while most cyclists are responsible, we will use enforcement powers under the PSPO to respond to community concerns and tackle the behaviour of a few who ignore the no cycling signage in these zones, don’t dismount and risk pedestrian safety."

"Over the last week, our community wardens have been speaking with cyclists to make them aware of their new powers and warn that anyone caught ignoring the no cycling rule will get a £100 fixed penalty notice."

Add new comment

36 comments

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 3 years ago
2 likes

Quote:

Their new enforcement powers mean they can tackle cyclists who don't dismount.

Sounds dangerous, have they completed a risk assessment on bringing cyclists to the ground safely?

Avatar
NPlus1Bikelights | 3 years ago
2 likes

This is anti cyclist.

Norwich saw the light in 2018. "accidents between pedestrians and cyclists are very rare in pedestrianised areas and the proposals are in line with government recommendations."

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/local-council/cyclists-can-now-ride-through...

 

Avatar
qwerty360 | 3 years ago
4 likes

While I don't necessarily have a problem with fining cyclists for riding in pedestrianised areas with high rates of pedestrians, I do think we should be ensuring fines are proportional to risk... (Though it is a strong indication that they have failed to provide usable infra as research shows pedestrian areas are generally self enforcing re cycling behaviour...)

 

Given that the maximum fine issuable to a cyclist should be ~1/10 the minimum issued to motorists;

 

What, bus lane fines are £65 if paid promptly so that would mean they can only fine cyclists £6.50 which isn't worth doing; Hmm perhaps we should increase motoring fines to something that vaguely represents the risks bad driving presents... (oh, wait, that is totally impossible because the people making the decisions drive and commit most of these offences regularly...)

Avatar
workhard | 3 years ago
4 likes

If they are that anti-bike they'll no doubt soil themselves when they realise the picture shows a UPS van has driven down their pedestrianised street.

Avatar
Jenova20 | 3 years ago
12 likes

"He claimed the council is also looking to 'make improvements to support both cycling and walking as forms of Active Travel'"

 

You're doing it wrong.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Jenova20 | 3 years ago
6 likes

Jenova20 wrote:

"He claimed the council is also looking to 'make improvements to support both cycling and walking as forms of Active Travel'"

 

You're doing it wrong.

They're only looking, not doing.

Avatar
Simon E replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

eburtthebike wrote:

They're only looking, not doing.

I doubt they are even doing that much. It will have been added to the press release in a tokenistic way, as most statutory bodies do.

Avatar
chrisonabike | 3 years ago
13 likes

An interesting - if dated - quote from the Transport Research Laboratory study (at that time part of the DfT) mentioned here: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/cycling-in-pedestrianised-areas/

"Observation revealed no real factors to justify excluding cyclists from pedestrianised areas, suggesting that cycling could be more widely permitted without detriment to pedestrians."

I've no doubt some people on bikes are being anti-social and I've no doubt that "idiots on bikes" are a "thing" in the minds of people there but I call "fallacy" on two counts:

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/9/cycling-causes-danger-to-people-walking
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/55/collective-responsibility-collective-guilt

Avatar
chrisonabike | 3 years ago
3 likes

Maybe the problem is the "Royal" bit?  What others are there?  Ah, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.  In a recent review they came 33rd out of 32 London boroughs + the city for protected cycling infra, 25th / 33 for LTNs.

Would changing it to the Borough of Ken and Chelsey help?

To be fair the Royal Borough of Kingson-upon-Thames and the Royal Borough of Greenwich are not so bad but are certainly not brilliant.

Maybe we just need to change the habits of a few royals and waith for the trickle down effect?

Avatar
FrankH replied to chrisonabike | 3 years ago
13 likes

chrisonatrike wrote:

Maybe the problem is the "Royal" bit?  What others are there?  Ah, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.  In a recent review they came 33rd out of 32 London boroughs + the city for protected cycling infra, 25th / 33 for LTNs.

33rd out of 32, that's quite an achievement.  1

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to FrankH | 3 years ago
0 likes

Because they put the effort in (and here, and here). "yeah - we're only 32 out of 32 if you don't include the city which isn't a borough anyway!"

Avatar
GMBasix | 3 years ago
9 likes

Quote:

[Councillor David Cannon, cabinet member for public protection and parking] added: "while most cyclists are responsible, we will use enforcement powers under the PSPO to respond to community concerns and tackle the behaviour of a few who ignore the no cycling signage in these zones, don’t dismount and risk pedestrian safety."

That says they will be enforcing only if people...

  1. ignore the signs, and
  2. don't dismount, and
  3. risk pedestrian safety

Since that is listed separately, it follows that 3 is not an inevitable consequence of 2, therefore 3 must be demonstrated before they take action.  Thank you, councillor, for giving guidance on how the PSPO will be implemented.

NB:  IANAL, but even I know this won't carry any water and should not be taken as legal advice

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to GMBasix | 3 years ago
10 likes

GMBasix wrote:

Quote:

[Councillor David Cannon, cabinet member for public protection and parking] added: "while most cyclists are responsible, we will use enforcement powers under the PSPO to respond to community concerns and tackle the behaviour of a few who ignore the no cycling signage in these zones, don’t dismount and risk pedestrian safety."

That says they will be enforcing only if people...

  1. ignore the signs, and
  2. don't dismount, and
  3. risk pedestrian safety

Since that is listed separately, it follows that 3 is not an inevitable consequence of 2, therefore 3 must be demonstrated before they take action.  Thank you, councillor, for giving guidance on how the PSPO will be implemented.

NB:  IANAL, but even I know this won't carry any water and should not be taken as legal advice

A good point: since they already have powers to arrest someone recklessly putting pedestrians at risk, what, exactly, is the point of the PSPO?  Except to persecute otherwise perfectly legal, safe cyclists of course.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 3 years ago
4 likes

That's a good reason not to go to either place then. There are plenty of other places to go in the UK, Windsor and Maidenhead are off the list.

Avatar
kraut replied to OldRidgeback | 3 years ago
10 likes

I was thinking, "f*ck it, I'll leave the bike on the rack and drive through instead"

Avatar
RoubaixCube replied to kraut | 3 years ago
2 likes

Just take it easy when youre driving close to pedestrians. At least give them a chance to part like Moses parting the Red Sea before mowing them down.

Avatar
Fursty Ferret | 3 years ago
5 likes

I assume they can't physically "tackle" a rider so unless you make the mistake of stopping for them there's not much that they can do.  

Avatar
0-0 | 3 years ago
4 likes

"if caught".
So just cycle faster through the pedestrianised zones, so you don't get caught 😉
(Joking by the way).

They need larger signs at least.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
18 likes

"He claimed the council is also looking to "make improvements to support both cycling and walking as forms of Active Travel."

Off to a great start!  Fining someone a disproportionate amount for a minor transgression sends exactly the right message to support cycling.  PSPOs are supposed to be for anti-social behaviour, not something a normal cyclist is guilty of, and just cycling through a shared area is not an anti-social action.  This situation has been studied many times, and the answer is always the same: there is no reason to ban cyclists.

They should be targetting the anti-social behaviour by the individuals that do it, not banning a perfectly social form of transport because of the few, who won't stop because of this fine, they'll either give a false name or pedal off quickly in the direction of away.

I wonder how the consultation was carried out?  Presumably influenced by people who wrongly or rightly, feel threatened by cyclists, even if their feelings are not justified by the real level of risk.

Avatar
Awavey replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
8 likes

just cycling through a shared area isnt anti social, but its perfectly possible to cycle anti socially through a shared area.

and its pretty much been a consistent thing in my life experiences that the actions of a few individuals will always result in stronger measures taken against a whole group whether they are responsible or not and not just tackle the individuals.

these zones came up a few months back, possibly as part of the trial, and they dont look wholly unreasonable to say nope sorry you cant ride down there given they seem fairly heavily used pedestrian zones, and youd not be able to ride much more than walking pace.

will it impact cycling in the area ? impossible to say very much depends on where you are trying to get to and from, and whether these routes were the main desire lines.

but Windsor/Maidenhead had 335,000 pound of tranche 2 active funding to spend on schemes in Windsor & Maidenhead, they dropped a set segregated lanes as they only were allocated half the money they bid for, but its maybe more productive for local cyclists to keep the pressure on the council to deliver those schemes, than lose too much sleep on this stuff.

if anything the councils actions here directly give you the leverage to push for proper cycle routes.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Awavey | 3 years ago
6 likes

Awavey wrote:

just cycling through a shared area isnt anti social, but its perfectly possible to cycle anti socially through a shared area.

From the PSPO Guidance for councils:

"The Home Office's statutory guidance reiterates that PSPOs should be used responsibly and proportionately, only in response to issues that cause anti-social behaviour, and only where necessary to protect the public."

The same point is made several times that PSPOs should only be introduced where there is a real, demonstrated problem, not used to criminalise otherwise legal behaviour.  It also makes clear that there must be wide consultation, especially with representative groups, but there is no mention of them doing that.

"Local areas will of course, need to satisfy themselves that the legislative requirements are met before an order can be introduced, and obtaining clear evidence to support this is important."

The only evidence mentioned is that of a consultation which, if it's anything like most local consultations, is rarely representative, and easily dominated by a few people with strong views, especially if whipped up by the local press.  I think they meant actual evidence like a long list of pedestrians hospitalised after being struck by bicycle riders.  No?  No evidence then.

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/10.21%20PSPO%20gu...

Avatar
muhasib replied to eburtthebike | 3 years ago
1 like

Thanks for the link to the document, I note that it is recommended to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment if the PSPO will disproportionately affect groups with protected characteristics, perhaps all cyclists should agree to declare themselves to hold such a protected characteristic if stopped. Is the Royal Borough noted for its diversity?

Avatar
brooksby replied to muhasib | 3 years ago
2 likes

muhasib wrote:

Thanks for the link to the document, I note that it is recommended to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment if the PSPO will disproportionately affect groups with protected characteristics, perhaps all cyclists should agree to declare themselves to hold such a protected characteristic if stopped. Is the Royal Borough noted for its diversity?

I think that's why you never see councils banning antisocial mobility scootering in pedestrian areas...

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Awavey | 3 years ago
2 likes

Awavey wrote:

its maybe more productive for local cyclists to keep the pressure on the council to deliver those schemes, than lose too much sleep on this stuff.

if anything the councils actions here directly give you the leverage to push for proper cycle routes.

I'd agree but given the glacial progress of any change unless it's forced (Covid) or essentially a cash cow anyone in favour of active travel should be pushing everywhere. Also in my experience the last thing that councils do is is "joined up thinking". The "shops" / "civic realm" / "buses" / "cycling" and "transport" responsibilities may be in separate departments that don't coordinate - if they're not actively fighting.

If only there were some way to improve the situation for pedestrians, those with disabilities, cyclists and motorists in one go...

(From a couple of years back): https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/my-cycle-my-mobility-aid-recognising-cycles-mobility-aid

Visions from the future?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/who-else-benefits-from-the-dutch-cycling-infrastructure/

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/inclusive-cycling-on-tricycles/

 

Avatar
HoarseMann | 3 years ago
22 likes

Shame they couldn't have brought in safe cycling routes with immediate effect, with up to £1000 fines for cars parking in the bike lanes. Then look into improvements to accomodate pedestrians and cyclists in the high street.

Now someone needs to start delivering to those shops via cargo bike - that'll confuse them!

Avatar
jerv | 3 years ago
1 like

As long as there is a nearby alternative that is direct and safe for cyclists to use I have no problem with banning ridden bicycles and enforcement of fines. Areas with heavy pedestrian traffic often do have a ban on bicycles (sometimes at certain times instead of 24/7), and I always respect the orders and either dismount or use an alternative route and it does annoy me that some illegally cycle along those streets and suffer no consequence and benefit from it at the same time.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to jerv | 3 years ago
9 likes

Trouble is, there is probably no traffic free alternative. As is typical with UK town cycling infrastructure, it disappears when you get near the centre. Often at a bike rack next to the car park, making you walk the same distance (or further!) to the shops as a car driver and losing the door-to-door time saving benefit of cycling.

Avatar
bikeman01 replied to HoarseMann | 3 years ago
5 likes

And come back to a vandalised or stolen bike.

Avatar
Sriracha | 3 years ago
17 likes

I assume this applies to any vehicle, human powered or otherwise, using pedestrianised zones? Call me old fashioned, but I had always assumed the pavements were "pedestrianised", but I see motorists using them as a matter of course, almost like they were actually a car park. I guess from now on the motorists will "dismount" and push their cars up the kerb?

Avatar
festina replied to Sriracha | 3 years ago
8 likes

I had a similar thought. A couple of years back i contacted my MP about parking on pavements, he told me that it was sometimes inevitable. Elsewhere it seems that cycling on the pavements is a fineable offence.

Pages

Latest Comments