Public Places Protection order bans cycling on NCN route

[pete75]

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.

Actually not with the correct signage - there was no signage coming in from Priestgate or Wentworth Street.

Previously enforced by the police though they did it by making people get off and walk not by fining them unless they were abusive or refused to walk.
Speaking to an officer he said their view was that there should be a marked cycle lane along that stretch of former A road.

No, no cycling that's a good one but it's effectively what the sign means. Doesn't the white cycle on a blue background below also mean cycling allowed. Contradictory signage - how is anyone to know which is correct?

[mjr]

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.

Well, I think creating a cycle route closed to all cyclists who can't dismount and push is always daft and unrealistic. Apart from the disabled access problems (would they really make a tricyclist or handcyclist struggle through pushing?), the Thatcher government realised that "it is generally impracticable to require cyclists to dismount" - from 1987's LTN 1/87 again. Maybe Peterborough's 40 years behind the times?

Why would the alternative be to use the congested roads? Just send Route 12 along the cycleways beside/under Bourges Boulevard that it joins north of Russell Street anyway. If Peterborough city centre doesn't want tourists, then rather than try to trick them into £1000 fines with confusing and contradictory signs, they should help cycle tourists get to more welcoming places like Spalding or Stilton more quickly.

[thirdcrank]

We have another recent thread about access for disabled riders on Sustrans routes and in particular, how obstructions to access are shown on Sustrans maps. I'd say that a ban on cycling is every bit as much a barrier to access as a physical obstruction.

viewtopic.php?p=1217034#p1217034

Can anybody say how the NCN map shows this here? (I've looked through the thread to see if anybody has already mentioned it so apologies if I have missed it.)

[gaz]

Sustrans map key used to include "access points", a yellow circle being cycle/ped and red being ped only. The relevant little coloured circles remain on the map if you zoom in far enough.

There are two problems.

Firstly "access point" doesn't mean much. All manner of gates, barriers and openings are marked as "access point" some more manageable than others but toucans and other crossings are also marked as "access point".

Secondly to the best of my knowledge having dropped them from the key Sustrans are no longer trying to keep the records of "access points" up to date.

This specific spot is marked with the old cycle/ped "access point" notation, presumably with reference to the crossing, the pedestrianised street is shown as "on-road route on the NCN".

[thirdcrank]

gaz - Thanks

I'm adding nothing to what's been posted already if I say this is at the very least unsatisfactory. How can it be that cyclists arriving in good faith following a nationally recognised cycle route using the appropriate map are confronted with this? I like to think I'm reasonably clued up on the meaning of traffic signs, but I'm not clear what "NO CYCLING PERMITTED" means. Obviously, they don't want people riding through but is wheeling a pedal cycle cycling or not? No doubt if pressed, those responsible would laugh that query off but they would be laughing at themselves.

We've had a detailed discussion before about the "No no cycling" sign and in the sense that it's obviously meant to have the same meaning as the official sign it's hardly a big deal, but it does indicate to me that the person responsible for its design is an ignoramus. It's likely that their ignorance extends further than the design of a traffic sign.

Underlying problem is politicians at the national and local level who think that cycling is a good thing, or it would be if it weren't for all those cyclists.

[AMMoffat]

Why would the alternative be to use the congested roads? Just send Route 12 along the cycleways beside/under Bourges Boulevard that it joins north of Russell Street anyway. If Peterborough city centre doesn't want tourists, then rather than try to trick them into £1000 fines with confusing and contradictory signs, they should help cycle tourists get to more welcoming places like Spalding or Stilton more quickly.

Actually to go by cycle route from the point shown in the OP to the centre of town where the cycling restriction ends (c200m walking direct via NCN12) involves a much longer and rather circuitous route which also has a (much shorter) "no cycling" section where the cycle route goes through an alleyway, a bit of back route where many would not feel safe cycling in the dark, a section of shared-use path partly obstructed by lamposts and going down and back up an underpass, so I guess Sustrans chose the lesser of 2 evils.

I am not however defending the cycling restriction in that area because the rest of the town centre is pedestrianised and cycling is permitted and seems to cause no issues. Also the Council "improved" the no cycling section a couple of years ago by removing all the bike racks and hiding them in unsafe out of the way places when they could have put a cycle route in place to make travel directly through the city centre less of a pain, and more attractive, for cyclists. I think they forgot that cyclists are also customers but not if they can't leave their bikes near to where they are shopping, especially with the high level of bike thefts in Peterborough. But what do you expect from a city that likes to call itself an "Environment City"!

[gaz]

... I'm not clear what "NO CYCLING PERMITTED" means. ...

Have a read of the PSPO, you'll be even less clear.

No unauthorised cycling (i.e. in Bridge Street).

Cyclists to dismount if requested to do so by an authorised officer if they are of the opinion that the cyclist is riding in a wanton and furious manner.

The explanatory video might help, no guarantees .
[youtube]wj59VJL9Hfw[/youtube]

[mjr]

Defecating, anti-social behaviour and cycling, she says! Well, I guess I'll keep going to Norwich or Cambridge rather than Peterborough - the three are all roughly as far from me. Peterborough clearly doesn't want the business.

[thirdcrank]

My reading of that is that (1) cycling is banned in Bridge Street, and, (2) in other parts of the area covered by the order, cyclists must dismount on being requested etc., if they are considered to be riding in a wanton or furious manner.

FWIW, that's already an offence under s28 Town Police Clauses Act, 1847 although I don't know if that was ever extended to this backwater. I see that their taxi licence applications refer to this Act so perhaps it does apply.

It just needs some untrained representative of the local authority in a cap with a shiny neb to get it wrong and they'll find a learned friend driving a coach and horses through it all.

[gaz]

... and they'll find a learned friend driving a coach and horses through it all.

In a wanton and furious manner .

[djrikki]

I think if faced with such a situation myself I would cycle right through it taking the usual precautions of slowing down.

You cannot have signs that contradict each other - it's either a cycle route or it isn't.

Logic says the council should liaise with Sustrans and have this stretch of the NCN diverted down other streets. Of course the optimal solution would be to create a dedicated cycle lane with kerbs and demarcation on the effected stretches of the route through the high street.

[meic]

You cannot have signs that contradict each other

The Sustrans signs are only information signs, they dont have any legal status.
More importantly they are erected by members of Sustrans who have no more authority than a general permission from the signing authority to be allowed to stick up signs.

The NCN route may go that way but that in no way gives you permission to break the law as clearly signed by the official legal signposts.

Some of the signs I stuck up encouraged cyclists to illegally cycle up a one way road. Nobody bothered telling me or Sustrans HQ when they changed the roads status and they didnt bother to remove our signs. So it remained until we discovered the change and decided whether to leave them there (and let cyclists work out for themselves to get off and push) or remove them terminating the route in the middle of nowhere until a new (or temporary) route could be posted.
I imagine that many cyclists just carefully cycled the wrong way up the one-way when we left the signs there, I certainly did. That didnt make it legal though.

[djrikki]

Both look like regular run-of-the-mill road signs put by the highways department to me nothing to suggest otherwise. You may state they are for information only and have no legal status - but to me and everyone else they are a permanent feature of the urban landscape appearing as a square sign with rounded edges and made of metal.

Ps. cycling up one-way streets - different subject but the majority of no-entry signs need to be revisited and have 'except cycles' written underneath on square signs with rounded edges and made of metal

[meic]

nothing to suggest otherwise.

Speaking as somebody who erects those Sustrans signs, I am telling you now, that they are for information only and I have no legal training or powers other than to be allowed to erect an information sign.
Unlike the Sustran's sign the No Cycling sign probably has a road traffic order to make it legally enforceable.

[gaz]

... to me and everyone else they are a permanent feature of the urban landscape appearing as a square sign with rounded edges and made of metal.

It is possible, although in my view extremely unlikely, that the Sustrans sign has times of operation out of camera shot beneath the direction arrow.

The PSPO sign is undoubtedly erected by the Local Authority, it may be metal but plastic is more common for modern signs to avoid a scrap value. As you say, a permanent feature of the urban landscape. By contrast, whilst it may not be obvious in the picture the Sustrans sign is a simple vinyl sticker wrapped around the post.

Whoever the LA's contractor may have been they were undoubtedly instructed to put up a new sign. Taking down a Sustrans sticker would not have been on the worksheet. If they're not contracted to do it, however seemingly obvious the task may be, they don't do it.