Cycling banned in Cycle Town Woking

[snibgo]

I think thelawnet is really Arthur Dent, and I claim my five pounds.

[thirdcrank]

My interpretation of the current situation, soon to be streamlined (see above) is that once a highway authority has decided it wants to make a TRO, there is a procedure to be followed (experiments and temporary situations are different.)

Publish / advertise proposed TRO for consultation / objections. ------> Highway authority replies to valid objections received ---> if any objectors still dissatisfied the matter must be discussed by the relevant highway authority committee. (Certain things eg loading ban may have to go to public inquiry if unresolved.) -----> If committee agrees, TRO is made, subject to anyh amendment decided by committee (eg ban on all vehicles relaxed to ban on motor vehicles, allowing pedal cycles.) -----> Decisionmaking open to review by High Court.

Afaik, the High Court review is purely over matters of procedure ie were correct steps followed, rather than was the "right" decision reached? Again afaik, the power of the High Court is limited to nullifying the TRO so the highway authority can simply start again, getting it right the second time. I'm not sure that the High Court would be too impressed by somebody who spotted procedural shortcomings and did nothing at the time.

I'm not suggesting that it's easy to change official minds but one thing that might work is contrasting the rhetoric of "Cycle Town" with the reality of banning cycling. The draft TRO will have all sorts of exceptions for emergency vehicles, public utilities, Royal Mail, possibly taxis and even more. There's a certain lack of logic in allowing quite a lot of motor vehicles and banning cycling. Ultimately, the main hope is to get a decent submission in front of the highway committee. This will include some dedicated cycling prohibitors, have no doubt. There may well be some waverers who think that the points you make are sound.

I've gone to a bit of trouble to explain this for several reasons: when I was a CTC CRN rep, I had to find all this out for myself. Also, I still like to help fight bans. Finally, it's marginally easier to explain how to object to a TRO than it is to explain how to contest a fixed penalty ticket or a summons.

[niggle]

I think thelawnet is really Arthur Dent, and I claim my five pounds.

You think that the earth is about to be demolished to make way for a hyperspace bypass?

[snibgo]

Arthur Dent's problems started when a local authority wanted to demolish his house for a new road, but the authority displayed the plans in a keyless locked filing cabinet in a rat-infested damp basement of an unused building. (I'm working from unreliable memory.)

[kwackers]

Arthur Dent's problems started when a local authority wanted to demolish his house for a new road, but the authority displayed the plans in a keyless locked filing cabinet in a rat-infested damp basement of an unused building. (I'm working from unreliable memory.)

In a disused lavatory, with no lights, no stairs and a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard"...

[snibgo]

Ah, yes, thanks.

[thelawnet]

My interpretation of the current situation, soon to be streamlined (see above) is that once a highway authority has decided it wants to make a TRO, there is a procedure to be followed (experiments and temporary situations are different.)

Publish / advertise proposed TRO for consultation / objections. ------> Highway authority replies to valid objections received ---> if any objectors still dissatisfied the matter must be discussed by the relevant highway authority committee. (Certain things eg loading ban may have to go to public inquiry if unresolved.) -----> If committee agrees, TRO is made, subject to anyh amendment decided by committee (eg ban on all vehicles relaxed to ban on motor vehicles, allowing pedal cycles.) -----> Decisionmaking open to review by High Court.

Afaik, the High Court review is purely over matters of procedure ie were correct steps followed, rather than was the "right" decision reached? Again afaik, the power of the High Court is limited to nullifying the TRO so the highway authority can simply start again, getting it right the second time. I'm not sure that the High Court would be too impressed by somebody who spotted procedural shortcomings and did nothing at the time.

I'm not suggesting that it's easy to change official minds but one thing that might work is contrasting the rhetoric of "Cycle Town" with the reality of banning cycling. The draft TRO will have all sorts of exceptions for emergency vehicles, public utilities, Royal Mail, possibly taxis and even more. There's a certain lack of logic in allowing quite a lot of motor vehicles and banning cycling. Ultimately, the main hope is to get a decent submission in front of the highway committee. This will include some dedicated cycling prohibitors, have no doubt. There may well be some waverers who think that the points you make are sound.

The draft TRO was published last July (or thereabouts, a notice is still up for it). I made representations prior to the decision being made (i.e. before the councillors made the decision which resulted in the initial draft TRO), rather strenuous ones, but they were ignored as the Guide Dogs charity used its £££ to fund councillors to be blindfolded (or sensory deprived, or something), so as to experience what it's like to have a cyclist go by.

I didn't pay any attention to the draft TRO because there was some talk about it being changed when planters were removed, and I wasn't convinced it would go ahead, so I thought best to wait and see. Now it's final and nobody seems to care - basically the situation hasn't changed on the ground in terms of cycling.

But who knows, perhaps the metal signs saying 'no cycling 10am-4pm' will go up in a few weeks, it's quite possible.

[thirdcrank]

thelawnet

I misunderstood what you were saying -it will be obvious from what I posted that i thought we were still at the consultation stage. From what I now understand, we are at the stage where pluralist democracy has run its course. There are some groups whose purely emotive appeal is exceptionally high and they know how to maximise that. C'est la vie.

[Phil_Lee]

You are now in the situation that was the incentive for the Cambridge Cycling Campaign to be started.
It took them thirteen years to get (most of) the ban lifted for a "trial period" and another two for it to be permanently revoked.
And they will put up the signs, and then start enforcing it (I don't believe they can enforce it until the correct form of signs are properly erected).

It's a shame it got through to start with, because it's FAR more difficult to get it revoked than to prevent it.

[rootes]

There are some groups whose purely emotive appeal is exceptionally high and they know how to maximise that. C'est la vie.

Yes and woe betide them if they think thy can do any collection pot rattling in the town now...

[Richard Mann]

I make a point of walking with my bike as conspicuously as possible through pedestrian areas. If they want me to walk at 3mph rather than cycle at 5mph, then so be it, but I'm not going to be harassed out of a street by petty lawmaking.

[rootes]

still waiting for a reply from Cllr Hunwicks...

[thelawnet]

still waiting for a reply from Cllr Hunwicks...

Curious why you asked her particularly? Fellow Horsell West councillor Ann-Marie Barker seems to have an interest in cycling.

[rootes]

still waiting for a reply from Cllr Hunwicks...

Curious why you asked her particularly? Fellow Horsell West councillor Ann-Marie Barker seems to have an interest in cycling.

spoke to her outside the polling booths at last election time.. Beryl seemed also to be interested and though the decision to lessen cycling was daft.

must drop her an email

[thelawnet]

Just FWIW this ban is being completely ignored.