Extension of cycling ban in Worcester city centre 'an embarrassment'

The problem is not cyclists but the way roads have been changed from having a dedicated pavement or sidewalk and a separate surface for the road to one where the only difference is material used. This makes it difficult for those with disabilities in particular poor eyesight. This concern was raised when a main street in Preston was altered in this way but was still open to car use. Having a curb at side might be thought as a trip hazard but actually acts as a psychological barrier which stops us wandering into the path of a moving vehicle or bike.
Councils could save money by simply closing road off to motor traffic. It could then be reversed at virtually no cost.
Roads with pavements have been around for 100s of years and they evolved this way for a good reason. The camber on roads is there for a reason making waste water escape easily. The side edges of roads are not ideal for bikes with less smooth surface yet that is where cycle lanes are put. No wonder many cyclists prefer the main road surface.
Bicles may go ave only two wheels but over past 20 years there has been a number of pedal powered machines with 3 or 4 wheels utilizing advanced in electric assistance motors. Yet most public perception is if the traditional 2 wheeled bike with a seat evolved from the horse back saddle. Pedal powered vehicles could replace most motor powered vehicle especially in towns not just for commercial deliveries but also for personal use. Pedal power can also be used for providing power for devices such as computers.

Most of this topic has been taken up by responses to the resident pair of nut-jobs. It saves time on reading as I don't have to bother with anything by them or responding to them, but is replying to them in the public or site interest?

In principle, wouldn't it be logical to apply the hierarchy of responsibility and accept that walking may be the optimal solution for a defined retail area? The logic might then prioritise cycling and scooters for a wider area around that - on the basis that these individuals can travel a bit further at a lower 'cost' to the individual than for pedestrians. This would deliver separation of cycling infrastructure from pedestrians and would need to be facilitated by secure parking for cycles - to facilitate walking for the last few hundred metres to the city centre - and with cycling superhighways enabling those travelling beyond the town/city centre to continue their journeys unimpeded. Motor traffic could then be displaced to say 3 - 5 miles beyond the centre, facilitated by Park & Ride schemes and bike/scooter hire. Ring roads that circumnavigate the centre will provide the opportunity to avoid delays for those who require it. Combined with additional charges for those driving inside the central zone (eg for residents etc), along with enforced 20mph limits and road design that mitigates against driving faster, should help to deter unnecessary car usage and encourage the shift to more active travel modes.

Looking at all the comments here, it is pretty depressing that most people are responding in earnest to two of the trolls who haunt our pages. You don't need to do this. We know the justification for being able to cycle through these spaces, and so do these trolls. Don't cast your pearls before swine.  

At best it's all just piecemeal, pollicy on the hoof. These kinds of decisions need a broader view. 

National and presumably loacl policy is to increse cycling trips. This ban will reduce cycle trips. So if it is justified, part of the decision should also involve what else needs to be done to overcome the negative effects and produce an increase.

Thinking about that, and the issues and knock on effects those changes also bring might make it clear that the ban actually is more trouble than it is worth. Or it might find a way to manage the wider area so the ban has less negatives. Or it mightmake councillors think about not jumping in with one hobbyhorse if they don't have/like the answers to those wider issues?

You can cycle to work, but not cycle home. OK.

How many establishments are open after 5 ?

I presume they have added plenty of monitored & secure bike parks on the edge of the restricted zone?

What do you mean they haven't?  I'm shocked I tell you - shocked. 

As they're allowing both buses and taxis on two of these "pedestrianised" streets, this ban is nuts and can be driven by nothing short of virulent anti-cycling dogma among the councillors. Private cars were banned from Exeter High Street many years ago but both buses and cyclists are still allowed. Although the pavements are very wide, the road area doesn't feel like a safe pedestrian space at all and that's very much because of the noise, pollution from and physical presence of the buses. If Worcester really cares about protecting pedestrians, then ban all motorised transport first. They'll probably find a cycling ban won't be needed.

Cannot some local cyclist demand the justification and data behind this decision?  They can't just make decisions without some evidence and proof that letting cyclists in is in fact dangerous.

The DfT did some research into this many years ago (10/20 years?) and found that there was no reason to ban cyclists in pedestrian areas, but what do they know compared to local councillors.

I think we've seen the Worcs CC attitude to cycling before. They clearly need to uncouple bikes and cars.