Public Space Protection Order to prohibit cycling.

[gaz]

Today, as I was on my usual commute I spotted a new sign.

DSCN0460.JPG

There was a consultation, clearly I missed the relevant notices or I'd have brought it up on here before.

The section of road highlighted is essentially a pedestrianised town centre, already subject to a TRO preventing motorised vehicles 10am-6pm and prohibiting cycling 24/7. Although one-way it sees frequent two way cycle traffic and within the prohibited times some of it probably is anti-social.

The Order can be found here.

It was already illegal to cycle on this road, enforceable by the police. Having had a look at the underlying legislation the main upshot is that the Council's own "authorised persons" can also now issue FPNs.

Policing cycling on the cheap, where next?

[irc]

] the main upshot is that the Council's own "authorised persons" can also now issue FPNs.

Do the council people have any powers to require cyclists to stop?

[mjr]

That doesn't seem lawful because "In relation to a highway that is the only or principal means of access to premises used for business or recreational purposes, a public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over the highway during periods when the premises are normally used for those purposes" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... hts-of-way

Could you get a local cycling group to ask various pointed questions about how cyclists were consulted and so on?

I wish this country took the same attitude to most countries and allowed responsible cycling in pedestrian zones.

[gaz]

Good point, well made. It would appear to be a technicality over which a FPN might be challenged, with no guarantee of success. The existing TROs already mean there is "no cycling" access to the relevant premises. Arguably the PSPO does not restrict such access.

The only point I can see to creating the PSPO is the enforcement of "no cycling" by "authorised persons". I have little appetite to launch a fight against the legality of the order.

[mjr]

I'd prefer to fight such an order on its undemocratic nature rather than the strict legality - unless push comes to shove, someone gets an FPN purely under a PSPO (so in an area not also covered by a TRO) and people are willing to fund that legal challenge.

Also, I don't think the existance of some other order allows a PSPO to do something specifically disallowed by the legislation. The TRO can restrict a highway but the PSPO cannot.

[gaz]

Could you get a local cycling group to ask various pointed questions about how cyclists were consulted and so on?

There was a consultation Oct/Nov 2015. How well promoted or wide reaching it was I do not know, I certainly didn't chance upon it myself.

What little I can discover of the consultation suggests that creating "better enforcement powers" was an official aim of enacting the PSPO. It's easy to imagine the reaction to local cycling groups campaigning against "better enforcement powers" for an existing "no cycling" policy.

[jgurney]

The section of road highlighted is essentially a pedestrianised town centre, already subject to a TRO preventing motorised vehicles 10am-6pm and prohibiting cycling 24/7.

So for 16hrs per day motor traffic is allowed but cycling is prohibited?

[mjr]

It's easy to imagine the reaction to local cycling groups campaigning against "better enforcement powers" for an existing "no cycling" policy.

It has to be done carefully, for sure, but local groups here have long campaigned against lifting the current "no cycling" orders as unreasonable (due to cycle routes and cycle parks inside the "ban" area), unenforceable (because the signs are incomplete and always have been, so anyone challenged can simply reply "oh, I entered from X" where X is an unsigned street, although they then must comply with instruction to dismount from a police officer) and discriminatory against disabled people who can't walk as easily as they can ride.

So for 16hrs per day motor traffic is allowed but cycling is prohibited?

Actually, I think that's fairly common in "pedestrian" zones. There seems to have been a set of cut-and-paste TRO clauses somewhere that didn't include a part-time cycling restriction option.

[gaz]

So for 16hrs per day motor traffic is allowed but cycling is prohibited?

Outside the PSPO area is a section where buses are allowed 24/7 and other motor vehicles are banned 10am-6pm. Again cycling is prohibited 24/7.

A wonderful bit of forward thinking by the local authority dating back to the late 80's/early 90's when the area was "pedestrianised".

It's easy to imagine the reaction to local cycling groups campaigning against "better enforcement powers" for an existing "no cycling" policy.

It has to be done carefully, for sure, but local groups here have long campaigned against lifting the current "no cycling" orders as unreasonable...

I would agree that there was an opportunity to campaign for lifting the TRO outside of the hours covered by the PSPO. Their is a CTC RtR rep covering the area but to my knowledge there is no campaign group.

[Bmblbzzz]

PSPOs seem designed to let local authorities ban absolutely anything, with FPNs backed up by court fines up to £1,000.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analy ... d-sleeping

[Flinders]

'No lying on the the street'??
I had a good laugh about that one.
I suppose politicians (and some other 'professions') are not allowed there.

[MikeF]

The section of road highlighted is essentially a pedestrianised town centre, already subject to a TRO preventing motorised vehicles 10am-6pm and prohibiting cycling 24/7. Although one-way it sees frequent two way cycle traffic and within the prohibited times some of it probably is anti-social.

Surely the cycling restriction is the same time as that for motorised access and not 24/7, as stated in section 4c.

[MikeF]

'No lying on the the street'??
I had a good laugh about that one.
I suppose politicians (and some other 'professions') are not allowed there.

The order states "Persons, who are not homeless or a vulnerable adult, will not lie down............". However that seems to be lost in the displayed notice. It appears homeless people can still bed down overnight! I wonder if the "jobsworths" are aware of this?? And do people, who are not homeless, bed down in the streets and doorways anyway??

[gaz]

There are times that motor vehicles are allowed, the cycling ban is 24/7 under a TRO. The TRO can only be enforced by the police and the signing of it is perhaps dubious. The last I knew the TRO could not be enforced by FPN: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=40140&p=320632&#p320632

A somewhat dated Streetview shows the bus section, the no cycling signs appear a few yards past the gate and face in both directions of the one-way street.

The streetview car has not accessed the PSPO zone, similar no cycling signing to diagram 971 has been in place inside that zone since the "pedestrianisation".

It seems to me that cycling in part of the area already designated as no cycling has now been identified as an issue of anti-social behaviour, if it happens between the times given in section 4c. Now the PSPO is in place both the police and the Council's "Authorised Persons" will be able to issue FPNs, achieving the desired "better enforcement powers".

[gaz]

The link from Bmblbzzz explores the wider civil liberties issues of PSPOs.