Public Places Protection order bans cycling on NCN route

[pete75]

Peterborough City Council have introduced a PSPO to ban cycling on part of NCN12. If we have a national cycle network it's somewhat ludicrous for a local authority to be able to ban cycling on it.

[slowster]

It is far more ludicrous to route a NCN route through a pedestrianised shopping precinct.

In fact it is almost as ludicrous as thinking that cyclists should be allowed to ride through a pedestrianised shopping precinct simply because Sustrans (or whoever it was) has decided to include it as part of their route. The council is the body with the legal responsibilities and duties for the safety of people using that precinct, not Sustrans.

Peterborough Council is responsible for assessing whether the precinct is safe and appropriate for cycling, and if not it has a responsibility and legal duty to prohibit it.

[gaz]

Streetview suggests there is a TRO banning cycling at those times. PSPO in effect means council officers can issue tickets rather than just the police.

I'd doubt that either are necessary but AFAIK the PSPO couldn't work without the TRO.

[Richard Fairhurst]

It is far more ludicrous to route a NCN route through a pedestrianised shopping precinct.

What makes you so sure this was the order in which it happened? Describing something as "ludicrous" is strong language and I'd hope you'd researched the facts beforehand.

Here in Oxfordshire, Cherwell District Council imposed cycling bans on High Street in Kidlington and Sheep Street in Bicester many years after NCN 51 had been (with their consent) routed along there. Not before. They have not provided safe alternative routes to replace them.

[gaz]

Peterborough Council is responsible for assessing whether the precinct is safe and appropriate for cycling, and if not it has a responsibility and legal duty to prohibit it.

The Council also have a legal duty to provide access for disabled people, many of whom use cycles.

TRL Report PR 15, 1993, Cycling in Pedestrian Areas, concluded that cyclists and pedestrians mix well in "pedestrianised high streets and shopping areas". Cyclists are unlikely to be moving faster than pedestrians running and the risks of conflict are largely perceived rather than real.

[Vorpal]

It is far more ludicrous to route a NCN route through a pedestrianised shopping precinct.

In fact it is almost as ludicrous as thinking that cyclists should be allowed to ride through a pedestrianised shopping precinct simply because Sustrans (or whoever it was) has decided to include it as part of their route. The council is the body with the legal responsibilities and duties for the safety of people using that precinct, not Sustrans.

Peterborough Council is responsible for assessing whether the precinct is safe and appropriate for cycling, and if not it has a responsibility and legal duty to prohibit it.

Is it? People don't seem to think it is ludicrous to route a trunk road through a town centre. Why would it be ludicrous to put a cycle route through a pedestrianised area in Peterborough?

I have, for the record, ridden my bike there a number of times, and unless something has changed *drastically* in the last few years, I can only think that someone has complained repeatedly, or even campaigned to make this happen, because it is unlikely that cyclists would cause any significant problems there.

Also, what gaz said.

[gaz]

NCN125 follows a short section of Dartford High Street.

Dartford High St is not truly pedestrianised, the signed prohibition is on motor vehicles (with some exceptions).

Don't try riding it on a Thursday morning, it's market day and the traders set up across the entire available space.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Is it? People don't seem to think it is ludicrous to route a trunk road through a town centre. Why would it be ludicrous to put a cycle route through a pedestrianised area in Peterborough?

I have, for the record, ridden my bike there a number of times, and unless something has changed *drastically* in the last few years, I can only think that someone has complained repeatedly, or even campaigned to make this happen, because it is unlikely that cyclists would cause any significant problems there.

Indeed. You would have thought that perhaps someone from Peterborough City Council might have visited Cambridge, not that many miles to the southeast, where cyclists and pedestrians coexist happily on much, much narrower roads such as Trinity Street.

(That said, I grew up in Rutland, not that far from Peterborough, and it wouldn't greatly surprise me to learn that none of the city councillors had ever visited Cambridge or indeed anywhere more than five miles away...)

[mjr]

Peterborough Council is responsible for assessing whether the precinct is safe and appropriate for cycling, and if not it has a responsibility and legal duty to prohibit it.

The Council also have a legal duty to provide access for disabled people, many of whom use cycles.

TRL Report PR 15, 1993, Cycling in Pedestrian Areas, concluded that cyclists and pedestrians mix well in "pedestrianised high streets and shopping areas". Cyclists are unlikely to be moving faster than pedestrians running and the risks of conflict are largely perceived rather than real.

^^ This. Allowing cycling in "pedestrian" areas has been policy for over 30 years now. LTN 1/87 "Getting the Right Balance" said "6.15. It is important that pedestrianisation measures do not result in unsafe or inconvenient conditions for cyclists, e.g. in forcing them to use busy distributor roads. [...] 6.16. Exemptions for cyclists should be considered if satisfactory routes for them around a proposed pedestrian zone do not exist and cannot be created. [...]" and so on - later policy changes have only strengthened these instructions.

King's Lynn's signs changed a few years ago (although there seems to be some delay updating the legal orders which I ought to chase up) but Sustrans has bizarrely just re-signed NCR 1 to avoid the newly-opened streets and go on a grotty tour of loading bays and car parks instead (another thing which I ought to chase up). Norwich is in the process of reopening the remainder of its streets, against vocal opposition from Living Streets.

It's quite surprising to see Peterborough, which claims to be "The UK's Environment Capital", travelling in the wrong direction on this.

[Vorpal]

It's quite surprising to see Peterborough, which claims to be "The UK's Environment Capital", travelling in the wrong direction on this.

Peterborough is a bit of a mixed bag, despite their claims. There are decent cycling facilities and some areas where they have catered well for cycling, but on the other hand, they positively encourage the 30 000 or so who commute by car each day, on the basis that it is good for the economy.

I still think it's likely to be a vocal person or group responsible for this one, along with ignorance, rather than an anti-cycling agenda on the part of the council.

[pete75]

It is far more ludicrous to route a NCN route through a pedestrianised shopping precinct.

In fact it is almost as ludicrous as thinking that cyclists should be allowed to ride through a pedestrianised shopping precinct simply because Sustrans (or whoever it was) has decided to include it as part of their route. The council is the body with the legal responsibilities and duties for the safety of people using that precinct, not Sustrans.

Peterborough Council is responsible for assessing whether the precinct is safe and appropriate for cycling, and if not it has a responsibility and legal duty to prohibit it.

Is it? People don't seem to think it is ludicrous to route a trunk road through a town centre. Why would it be ludicrous to put a cycle route through a pedestrianised area in Peterborough?

I have, for the record, ridden my bike there a number of times, and unless something has changed *drastically* in the last few years, I can only think that someone has complained repeatedly, or even campaigned to make this happen, because it is unlikely that cyclists would cause any significant problems there.

Also, what gaz said.

Talking of routing a trunk road through a town centre that was actually the main A15 north south road through the city until the mid eighties. As a former A road surely more than enough room for cyclist and pedestrians.

[pete75]

It's quite surprising to see Peterborough, which claims to be "The UK's Environment Capital", travelling in the wrong direction on this.

The leader of the council quite often makes anti cycling comments in his weekly column in the local paper. He tries to counter claims the council is not anti cycling because of the many miles of purpose built cycle tracks in the place. He conveniently forgets to mention most of these were built by Peterborough Development Corporation and the CNT not the council.
To be fair though the council has installed a few high quality cycle routes like this

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.58368 ... 312!8i6656

[atlas_shrugged]

Cycling in Peterborough is awful and gets 1/10 (the 1 point is for the nice track beside the boating lake).

Peterborough has an extensive cycling network that was used by workers commuting in the 50s/60s. Since then a network of dual carriageways have been built isolating the cycling networks for all except skilled natives in the know.

I cycled to Peterborough and after an hour of getting hopelessly lost and getting no where (despite having a map and brand new Garmin) I plucked up the courage to cycle on the dual carriageways.

[AMMoffat]

The PSPO is relatively recent, but no cycling between 9am and 6pm in that part of Peterborough city centre is not new and has been in place with the standard (and correct) "no cycling" signs for many years. The PSPO also has the same 9am to 6pm cycling restriction, so not at all new. Presumably the PSPO has been put in place to allow proper enforcement of the cycling restriction which has always been widely ignored.

I'm also pretty sure that cycling was restricted in that part of the city centre long before NCN12 was routed that way. Routing NCN12 along a short stretch of city centre with a cycling restriction (around 200m) is not as daft a solution as it sounds as the route avoids the very busy and congested roads (some of it dual carriageway) that would be the alternative to going straight through the city centre.

I do though wonder whether the "no, no cycling" symbol on the PSPO sign is legally enforceable. Does the the symbol not indicate "cycling allowed" and the text below "no cycling permitted"? Choose the one that suits I suppose though I think the old, and correct, no cycling sign is still in place above the PSPO one.

[Vorpal]

I wasn't aware of the restriction when I was there. TBH, I've cycled in the pedestrianised area on a number of occasions and not noticed any signs, nor observed cyclists dismounting to go through.

I don't see any point in a restriction there.