Stafford has added a cycling ban to its Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), which prohibits a number of supposedly anti-social acts in the town centre.
PSPOs have attracted a degree of controversy for how they criminalise behaviour not normally regarded as illegal and Cycling UK, in particular, has been outspoken in its displeasure at how cycling is frequently included in the mix.
Stafford’s PSPO was first introduced in 2017 and The Express and Star reports that it was this week renewed with the addition of a ban on cycling, roller skating, skateboarding and scooters in designated areas.
Anyone caught breaking the rules will face a £75 fine – reduced to £50 if paid within 10 days.
Councillor Gillian Pardesi questioned the change.
“In lockdown a couple of residents have spoken and made me question the reasons behind these orders,” she said.
“Why is cycling discouraged? If this is a decision you made because of the number of falls or serious injuries caused by cyclists through the town centre, please can we see evidence of this.
“As for roller skates, are we seriously suggesting a five-year-old holding their parents’ hands is now banned through the town centre?”
Councillor Jeremy Pert, cabinet member for community and health, said that the PSPO could have been called in for scrutiny before it was approved by the cabinet In June.
“PSPOs get reviewed once every three years. There was extensive work put into the consultation on this and it was noted even by the press that the level of consultation response was 386, which is one of the most responses to any consultation the borough council has done.
“I would say there was certainly no affront to civil liberties. It is about trying to make a town centre fit for how people would like to use their town centre.”
Commenting on the council’s attitude to cycling, he added: “There is significant investment by the county council in cycling, which is why we want to see people ditching the motor car and using cycle ways, public transport and legs.
“It’s right we should have some cycleways – that way it’s safer and we’re not mixing pedestrians with cyclists.
“I can imagine people coming out of shops, not paying attention and being mown down by cyclists. I know of people including a councillor that have been hit by cycles in Stafford town centre.
“It’s right we take these precautions so people can enjoy Stafford town centre as they should.”
Earlier this week, the Telegraph reported that nationwide a record 10,413 fines were issued for breaches of PSPOs last year with ‘nuisance cyclists’ high among the list of offences.
Peterborough, Bedford and Hillingdon councils, which employed private companies to issue fines, accounted for 6,565 (63 per cent) of on-the-spot penalties.
The firm enforcing Peterborough’s cycling ban has since lost its contract. Kingdom Services Group had raked in and kept £80,000 in cycling fines in a 12-month period after Peterborough enforced its PSPO, but since January 31 the council’s own Prevention and Enforcement Service has taken over responsibility.
"Some [of these acts] are nothing at all but they are being punished in the same way as crimes,” said Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club, which carried out the research.
“Councils are not set up to be police, prosecutors, judge and jury but that is essentially what is being condensed by these powers into one."
Add new comment
16 comments
If the point of pedestrianised zones is to encourage traffic free ambulation, cafe culture and a generally relaxed shopping experience, and assuming:
1. that the pedestrianised zone is not the only reasonable alternative for through traffic on bicycles v a busy ring road or excessively long detour for example.
2. That sufficient, secure cycle storage is provided at the edge of the zone.
3. Disabled access is preserved.
Then why not restrict cycling access? What is the benefit to the shops and restaurants within the zone of encouraging through traffic by bicycle?
Just throwing this out there, I have no particularly strong feelings on the matter either way.
It can be appropriate to restrict cycling access in especially busy pedestrian areas, but it only makes sense when your assumptions are true.
Last year, we had a holiday in Copenhagen which is generally excellent for cycling lanes (the cycle parking can get swamped in places - especially outside the train stations). One of the main pedestrianised shopping streets does forbid cycling, but it is exceptionally busy but even so, I almost had a collision with some old bloke (or at least older than me) on his bike who looked a bit drunk. He was only going at about 1-2mph, so the chances are that it wouldn't have hurt me if he had collided and to be honest, I consider it partially my fault as I wasn't looking in the direction that I was walking.
This is really a question of mutual repect within of multi-use space. A pedestrianised area is really an Oasis for many people, they can wander without having to be constantly wary of what traffic may be doing around them, parents let go of their young childrens hands and allow them a little more freedom. Cyclists in this space should slow down to walking pace (or little above) and give the same respect to pedestrians as we wish we recieved from all motorists on the road. Unfortunately, some of the bad behaviour we see from motorists manifests from cyclists as well. Excessive speed, close passing and impatience all happens (I lived in Cambridge for a while and witnessed all of the above all too frequently, admitted largely by students rather than the older population). Perhaps the answer is to have cycling lanes in pedestrianised areas with cycling bans outside these lanes.
Trouble is, most pedestrianised town centres are designed around people arriving by car or bus. If cycling is considered at all, it's usually seen as an alternative to the car. You're expected to dump your bike near the car park and walk the remainder of your journey to the shops. This really makes it difficult for the bicycle to compete with the car in terms of journey time, as you straight away lose the 'door-to-door' efficiency of the bike.
Take Milton Keynes as an example, famed for having an extensive (if flawed) cycling network, just look what happens when you get to the shopping centre - there is one cycle path that takes you to the southern end of the centre. All the other routes end at a car park some distance from the centre. There is no way to easily cycle from one end of the centre to the other.
https://www.getsmartertravelmk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MK_Redway_...
another Saturday visit to genteel Romsey, the main shopping street, The Hundred pedestrianised, no signs of vandalism on the barriers, after several weeks now. it's working well. The barriers are of the plastic "roadworks" type - time now for something more elegant?
Why ever would you want cars back? Why ever did you have them in the first place?
Three boys rode through on their bikes while I was there - they shouldn't have, or at least they should have gone slower. I'm waiting for the letter to the Romsey Advertiser: "Sir - My wife and I were shopping in Romsey on Saturday..." and to pasting in some links to that day's local motorised mayhem in the comments.
EDIT: or better still, make the observation that in effect they were doing much the same in relation to shoppers as the cars used to do
What is it about cars that alters our perspective so?
Not even allowed to mollest myself in the street anymore. Here's a picture of my bollocks. Since the public masturbation ban my nads have turned to rock. Next thing I know they are banning cycling too, so now I will have to ride a unicycle. I swear some people are only able to breathe because we let them!
Imagine there's no cycling
Easy if you try.....
“I can imagine people coming out of shops, not paying attention and being mown down by cyclists..."
Do they really let these people outside?
What would you have them do, stay inside with their imaginary friends?
Of course, it would be safer for them if they were wearing helmets.
They usually elect them as councillors
So pedestrians ”coming out of shops and not paying attention” causes cycles to be banned. Perhaps if a couple of road cyclists don't mind ”coming out of the homes and not paying attention” to be mowed down by drivers they can get cars banned.
Only imaginary pedestrians. If only real cyclists had as much influence as these imaginary pedestrians…
What a stupid reason given by the council given that there are planters/ metal work etc between the area marked as the road and door ways.
I know I haven't explained that well so take a look at this google link: https://goo.gl/maps/TqTueoVwbU6NdcTA7
Oddly, todays TheRantyHighwayman was about cycling in pedestrian zones-
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2020/09/cycling-in-town-centres-...
So, with no data and no evidence, they institute a law making a healthy, safe, non-polluting activity a crime? Human rights anyone? Sorry, I forgot, Boris is withdrawing those.