"Cycling will be more dangerous due to council clampdowns, say campaigners"

[Jdsk]

"Cycling will be more dangerous due to council clampdowns, say campaigners":`
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/o ... ils-danger

Quite a lot to do with delivery riders and a comment from Cycling UK. Birmingham, Colchester, Bedford, Grimsby.

Jonathan

[ANTONISH]

"Cycling will be more dangerous due to council clampdowns, say campaigners":`
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/o ... ils-danger

Quite a lot to do with delivery riders and a comment from Cycling UK. Birmingham, Colchester, Bedford, Grimsby.

Jonathan

The problem is differentiating between those prepared to cycle at a reasonable and safe speed and those who are indifferent to the safety of others.
The only safe option for pedestrians is a ban on cyclists - unfortunately that will lead to increased risk for cyclists.

[simonineaston]

"Cycling will be more dangerous due to council clampdowns, say campaigners":`
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/o ... ils-danger

Quite a lot to do with delivery riders and a comment from Cycling UK. Birmingham, Colchester, Bedford, Grimsby.

Jonathan

Thanks, J - I expect I’ll be interested in that. Before making my way over to the Graun’s website, it occurs to me to mention that the delivery riders are but one side of a triangle, with hungry consumers, mad keen for all sorts of tasty scran and the caterers equally mad keen to get a slice of a thriving market, making up the other two.

[mjr]

The only safe option for pedestrians is a ban on cyclists - unfortunately that will lead to increased risk for cyclists.

That is not safer because the problematic cyclists ignore such bans, don't stop to be ticketed and police on bikes are usually reluctant to cycle in ban zones even if there are enough police.

The only safe option is to make cycle routes that are safe at 20mph and not slower than footway cycling, like government has said since at least 2008.

[rareposter]

The only safe option for pedestrians is a ban on cyclists - unfortunately that will lead to increased risk for cyclists.

Given how willing councils are to create "shared use" footpath / cyclepath facilities, often little more than paint down the middle of a pavement, it seems utterly perverse to then say that, through the middle of a pedestrianised town centre, people can't ride bikes.

Doubly perverse when you realise that most such town centres allow vehicles through - not all vehicles all the time but certainly things like delivery vans, refuse collection trucks, emergency services...

I absolutely agree that problem cyclists need to be dealt with but since most of those causing the problems are not "cyclists" as such, they're riding illegal electric moped type machines in a lot of cases, the law already exists to deal with that.

Also strange how this knee-jerk reaction is applied to cyclists based on little more than some handwringing but when someone is knocked over and killed or seriously injured by a car, no-one suggests banning cars from that road. It's "policy" based on hysteria, whataboutery and a steadfast refusal to actually do anything positive to address it like putting in some decent segregated facilities or build proper community space.

[Bmblbzzz]

Cars are normal and necessary and used by people. Bikes are unusual and frivolous and used by cyclists.

[Stevek76]

The only safe option for pedestrians is a ban on cyclists - unfortunately that will lead to increased risk for cyclists.

That is not safer because the problematic cyclists ignore such bans, don't stop to be ticketed and police on bikes are usually reluctant to cycle in ban zones even if there are enough police.

The only safe option is to make cycle routes that are safe at 20mph and not slower than footway cycling, like government has said since at least 2008.

Agreed, cycling in busier pedestrian areas is not a high utility option for route choice so if people are doing through trips in these locations the issue and solution lies with the lack of proper routes around.

Also these are usually not enforced by police but by 'enforcement officers'. I.e. a private contractor who has little interest in endangering its employees (who similarly have no interest in endangering themselves) so will have zero incentive to stop a 'yoof' and will absolutely pick on the low hanging fruit of people who were causing no problems anyway. Let alone the additional complication of those using various cycle type devices as mobility aids to various degrees.

[JohnI]

I've read the article twice now and I still don't understand whether it's talking about councils bringing in new restrictions on cycling or becoming more aggressive in enforcing existing restrictions - or perhaps both?

[Jdsk]

"Cycling will be more dangerous due to council clampdowns, say campaigners":`
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/o ... ils-danger

Quite a lot to do with delivery riders and a comment from Cycling UK. Birmingham, Colchester, Bedford, Grimsby.

The original article had an incorrect link to the report to Birmingham City Council. So I told them and 75 minutes later it was corrected and I had a reply. I was impressed.

"City Centre Public Space Protection Orders":
https://birmingham.cmis.uk.com/Birmingh ... Ff55vVA%3d

Jonathan

[toontra]

I absolutely agree that problem cyclists need to be dealt with but since most of those causing the problems are not "cyclists" as such, they're riding illegal electric moped type machines in a lot of cases, the law already exists to deal with that.

But it's not being dealt with - that's the problem. Laws may be in place but enforcing them is nigh on impossible, so we have a situation (certainly in central London where I live & commute) that electric hire and delivery bikes are running amok, and as an un-powered cyclist I am in constant danger of being wiped out by one of these idiots. As a pedestrian I 'm also extremely nervous, particularly in pedestrianised areas such as my local street market where my shoulder is brushed by electric bikes on a regular basis.

I don't have any answers though but there is a real and rapidly increasing problem which is going to have to be addressed somehow. It's unsustainable.

[Bmblbzzz]

The only safe option for pedestrians is a ban on cyclists - unfortunately that will lead to increased risk for cyclists.

That is not safer because the problematic cyclists ignore such bans, don't stop to be ticketed and police on bikes are usually reluctant to cycle in ban zones even if there are enough police.

The only safe option is to make cycle routes that are safe at 20mph and not slower than footway cycling, like government has said since at least 2008.

Agreed, cycling in busier pedestrian areas is not a high utility option for route choice so if people are doing through trips in these locations the issue and solution lies with the lack of proper routes around.

If the cycling causing the problems or complaints is food delivery, then it can hardly avoid the busy pedestrian areas where restaurants and takeaways are generally situated. Or indeed if the utility is to visit those shopping areas. And then councils do muddy the waters by situating bike racks in these areas.

[axel_knutt]

I've read the article twice now and I still don't understand whether it's talking about councils bringing in new restrictions on cycling or becoming more aggressive in enforcing existing restrictions - or perhaps both?

They're banning cycles from town centres, I've seen numerous stories about it on the news and on Twitter recently.

Personally I think this became inevitable and entirely predictable the day they allowed unregulated use of motorised vehicles, because nobody's interested in the difference between a pedal cycle, an EAPC, and a motorbike. I've had numerous arguments about it on Twitter, people don't care what the law says, if it's got pedals on it's a bicycle, and the rider is just one more antisocial cyclist. They seem to think that the police are there to uphold their opinion, not the law. Nobody's heard of 'EAPC', the only term people know is e-bike.

The genie's out of the bottle now, e-bikes are endemic, and I don't think that even a ban on all e-bikes would fix the problem, so they've just succeeded in handing society another brush to tar cyclists with. Good luck persuading people to use active transport when they can't access the shops and town centre with it.

[toontra]

Personally I think this became inevitable and entirely predictable the day they allowed unregulated use of motorised vehicles, because nobody's interested in the difference between a pedal cycle, an EAPC, and a motorbike. I've had numerous arguments about it on Twitter, people don't care what the law says, if it's got pedals on it's a bicycle, and the rider is just one more antisocial cyclist. They seem to think that the police are there to uphold their opinion, not the law. Nobody's heard of 'EAPC', the only term people know is e-bike.

The genie's out of the bottle now, e-bikes are endemic, and I don't think that even a ban on all e-bikes would fix the problem, so they've just succeeded in handing society another brush to tar cyclists with.

I agree with all of that. Motorists don't look closely to see if someone has an electric bike or not - all they see is "cyclist", and I actually understand their anger because I feel it as a cyclist as well! BTW in London electric bikes of various varieties now outnumber unpowered bikes by a ratio on 4 or 5 to 1, so much so that I'm now slightly surprised when I see another "traditional" bike. The landscape has transformed dramatically in the last 5 years.

I'm also unsure how much traffic electric bikes have displaced from the roads. Anecdotally the vast majority of trips in London on electric bikes would otherwise have taken place on foot, public transport or a combination of both - certainly not private cars.

[axel_knutt]

Motorists don't look closely to see if someone has an electric bike or not - all they see is "cyclist"

And they're even less likely to look and see if it's 250W or not. They do see pedals though, and if it's got them they're adamant it's not a motorbike. A cyclist recently retweeted a police Tweet about seizing an e-bike to point out that it's an illegal electric motorbike, not just an e-bike, and scores of motorists piled in to ridicule him because it's a pushbike not a motorbike. I lost count of the number of times I posted a link to the EAPC criteria on that thread. I don't know if any of it sunk in, but even if it did, it's p!ssing into the wind anyway.

[axel_knutt]

I'm also unsure how much traffic electric bikes have displaced from the roads. Anecdotally the vast majority of trips in London on electric bikes would otherwise have taken place on foot, public transport or a combination of both - certainly not private cars.

Agreed, so much so that I've even considered taking a clipboard and setting up shop on a street corner myself, asking e-bike/scooter users how they previously made their journeys.