Police ticket Oxford cyclists riding in pedestrian zones

The solution in Cambridge was to put up signs saying "Cyclists give way to pedestrians". The large number of pedestrians at the weekend means that cyclists have to slow down. It seems to work well.

I agree wtih Don-Don, better to challenge the ban on cycling and try to get it lifted, or a cycle route put in.
If cyclists want to be accepted by other road users, then they need to follow the rules. If you're not allowed to ride down a road, and it's well signed to say that, then you shouldn't ride down it.
There are lots of cyclists who follow the highway code and are courteous to other road users (and lots of drivers too), but the ones who don't make the rest of the cyclists look bad (and the same goes for the drivers who drive where they shouldn't).
There are people out there who don't follow the rules when they think no-one's looking, such as speeding, going the wrong way down one way streets, cycling in no-cycling areas. These people know they shouldn't be doing these things, so shouldn't complain if/when they get caught.

I can't help thinking the police have made a knee-jerk reaction to target cyclists. Giving cyclists fines is easy work and bumps up the figures for positive spin on tackling 'crime'. However it does next to zero to actually reduce the level of road accidents around Oxford or any other city for that matter. Is the person in charge of the police force in Oxford a Daily Mail reader? I'm curious what any of the serving officers who post on here would say. The UK has major issues with road safety, but it isn't cyclists who cause the fatalities in all but a handful of incidents (and that's a handful over a few years, not just one). I see a lot of data on traffic accidents in my line of work. The more I think about it, the more pathetic this police initiative sounds.

I can't believe that the police in Oxford don't have some real crime to deal with rather than wasting their scarce time over something as feeble as this.

I'm not intending to be provocative but when it says cyclists have to take a 'lengthy detour' does it mean they can't walk their bikes through the area? If they can, why over-dramatise the situation?

Report TRL 592 looked at cycle carriage on buses, and one factor which was seen tio be important was the risk to pedestrians of a bus with a bike rack on hitting them - tests to the car (ENCAP) safety standard were carried out (the only such tests on a bus or commercial truck so far to date?) This seems rather naieve or even negligently stupid given that buses have the worst safety record for hitting pedestrians on a per vehicle per year basis from the statistics 10 years ago and from those same figures today.

So someone might marshall the crash facts and ask why Oxford's Council permits such dangerous vehicles to share a pedestrian zone, whilst banning cyclists who have been shown by another TRL study from the 1980's (Cycling in Pedestrian Areas) to have practically no collisions with pedestrians when the two are mixed in an appropriate way. In the study it was actually found that the risk of a collision was greater when the cyclists were walking with the bike!

Oxford should follow the example of Cambridge, when a large number of people are doing something that conflicts with a rule and brings about confrontation those enforcing the rule then there is clearly something wrong. Like Canute they are faced with a flood of demand which a blunt enforcement tool does not work against demand = a need or market for doing something which will not, like the incoming tide, go away. In place of a seriously unpopular enforcement regime the solution is one of exemplary management. There are risks when wheeled vehicles mix with pedestrian traffic due to the potential on massive disparities in speed, and abilities to turn, stop and accelerate (Clue the pedestrian has the fastest acceleration to 3 mph, and can stop and turn through 360 degrees on the spot, a performance better than any bike or bus). So design for low vehicle speeds, and keep vehicle flows clear of doorways, and 'blind' corners.

It might be worth looking at how the buses are permitted to use the street as they are, for the purposes of the Highways Act 1835 a carriage, just like a bicycle, so if carriages are permitted to use the street ... There is also a very relevant question here, in terms of disability as I know of at least one unipedal Oxford cyclist who uses their bike as a mobility aid. Sitting astride the bike and scooting or pedalling provides a great relief to the strain of using crutches, which has in the past given them serious shoulder problems, and the potential for serious injury and infection of their stump, through over use of their prosthesis.

There is yet a further and highly commercial opportunity that Oxford is losing out on, for both foot-sore tourists and shoppers faced with a long trek back to a car, bus or train. That is to have pedicabs, not charging any fee, but sponsored by local businesses to patrol the pedestrian zone and city centre, on a hail and ride basis to bridge the gap between journeys that are comfortably walked and journeys made by motorised transport, that cannot viably fit in to the ore area of the city.

So let's look at the data. How many pedestrians have been injured by cyclists in Oxford in the last 12 months? If it is so dangerous, well see statistics proving this to be the case. Otherwise, it's just a pointless exercise in handing out fines for low risk activity. Perhaps the police in Oxford would find a better use for their time in targeting motorists using cellphones while driving for instance? I'm not a gambler by any means but I'd put money on Oxford having a far higher incidence of pedestrian injuries caused by vehicle drivers using mobile phones than by cyclists. Let's face it, enforcement such as this is a bit pathetic when there are far more serious threats to road users being ignored.

Come on guys, a bus is much easier to see than a bike. If you break the law (no matter how stupid it may seem) then MTFU and accept the penalty when caught.

Once, some 15 years ago, I was fined for cycling down Cornmarket street. I was only doing so to tell a policeman that a bus had crashed at the top of the street. He didn't care, just wanted his £30 of flesh.

These are key strategic routes for crossing the city, as well as shopping/tourist streets. Surely there's room for both.

Similar silly ban in Cambridge was why the Cambridge Cycling Campaign was founded. We got our bike ban lifted a few years ago. Still some silly one-way only streets in the centre though, which impedes some routes which would otherwise be very convenient.

The safety argument is bogus. One of our councillors predicted "carnage" if the bike ban was lifted. I haven't heard of any problems.