Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Bedford cycling ban to remain despite consultation showing most people want it scrapped

Deputy mayor accused of ignoring evidence after recommending council keep PSPO in place for three more years

A ban on cycling in the centre of Bedford is set to remain in force after the town’s deputy mayor ignored the results of a consultation in which most respondents wanted it removed.

Some 54 per cent of the 574 respondents said they opposed the ban, while just 43 per cent were in favour of in the consultation held by Bedford Borough Council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and Labour, with 15 and 11 seats respectively plus the support of one independent councillor.

But The Bedford Independent reports that the town’s deputy mayor, Councillor Charles Royden, has recommended that the council’s executive keep the ban in force for a further three years when its executive meets next Wednesday.

The Liberal Democrat councillor claimed that local business are “overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the ban.”

But Green Councillor Lucy Bywater, whose ward includes the area of the town centre subject to the Public Spaces Protection Order under which riding bikes is banned, accused the deputy mayor of throwing cyclists “under the bus.”

“His party claims to be one of ‘democrats’,” she said. “What’s worse is that in the section on ‘Risk Implications’, the report totally ignores the increased risks to cyclists of being forced to cycle on adjoining roads (mainly ‘A’ roads and all public transport routes).

“It really feels like both democracy and cyclists are being thrown under the bus by the deputy mayor.”

Highlighting that the previous time a consultation was run, “public support” was highlighted as a key reason for retaining it, she added: “It is completely clear there isn’t public support for the ban now.”

> Bedford cycling ban extended for another three years

A spokesperson for the council said: “A decision has not yet been made on this PSPO extension, it will be discussed at the Executive meeting next week.

“With an overwhelming majority of local businesses and Bedfordshire Police in favour of retaining this ban on cycling, the report recommends that a PSPO continues to be in place prohibiting cycling between 9am and 6pm in the pedestrianised area of the town centre, alongside other measures around e-scooters and skateboards.

“This means people can continue to use this area of town to commute to and from work in those traditional peak periods, but it makes the pedestrianised area of town safer during the main shopping day.”

Local resident and traffic safety specialist Kate Carpenter told the Bedford Independent that the deputy mayor’s recommendation was undemocratic, discriminatory – including against people with disabilities who use cycles as a mobility aid – and not based on evidence.

“Overall this decision is appalling in my view and utterly disrespectful to the people of Bedford and detrimental to safety, accessibility and public health,” she said, describing it as “a very depressing decision by a short-sighted and ill-informed  authority.”

At a council meeting yesterday evening, Councillor Royden attempted to defend his decision as Green Councillor Ben Foley attacked his recommendation, saying there was no evidence supporting keeping the ban in place, especially given the consultation result.

Councillor Foley asked: “My question, which I guess is to the deputy mayor, is what evidence is there that, one, without the ban it would be unsafe, and two, that having the ban actually makes a difference, given that civil enforcement officers don’t have the power to stop reckless cyclists who refuse to stop.”

The deputy mayor replied: “I think cycling on pavements is a real hazard, that's why it’s unlawful in Highways Act, and I think that’s why it’s important that we've got a Traffic Regulation Order in the town centre.

“Albeit for the fact that actually we loosened it to allow commuters to cycle before 9 and after 6. I think it's really important that the Traffic Regulation Order prevents people from cycling in pedestrianised areas and pavements, because it causes accidents.”

He added: “I think it's crazy to talk about wanting to allow bicycles on pavements and pedestrianised areas, I think it’s crackers, I think it’s bad and we shouldn't be encouraging people to break the law.”

But Councillor Foley responded: “To be clear, Councillor Royden, I am not asking about cycling on pavements, I am asking about cycling on roads which have been closed to motorised traffic, which is something different.

“You know perfectly well what the difference is, you’re trying to obfuscate there.”

Specifically asking the deputy mayor, “How many people have been involved in crashes in that area, and over what time period? Is there that evidence?” Councillor Royden said, “You know I think I’m getting a bit fed up with Green Party councillors coming to this council meeting with spurious statements.

“And now you come along here and you're telling me there's no evidence that businesses want the cycles to be stopped from cycling on the pedestrianised areas, it’s in the report.”

In response, the Councillor Foley said: I’m astounded by the chutzpah of councillor Royden thereby claiming that I am the one that's distracting from the issue, he’s the one that didn’t answer my question.

“So the evidence, the evidence which I asked for, in the years 2016 to 2020 there were precisely zero crashes recorded with pedestrians being hit by cyclists in the area of the ban, precisely zero.

“You say that we all know that there are still people cycling in that area, there are still people getting scared in that area because the council enforcement officers aren’t able to stop people.

“But still, regardless of that there are no injuries, there is no safety case for this ban.

“There might be other reasons for it and councillor Royden might wish to distract my questions around the number of people that responded to the consultation.

“I did not ask about that, I asked about the safety case, and the safety case alone,” he added.

Cycling UK has campaigned against PSPOs, which it says have the effect of criminalising cycling when they are used to enforce bans against people riding bikes in specific areas.

Previously, the charity’s head of advocacy and campaigns Duncan Dollimore. Has said: “Some councils have used PSPOs as a geographically defined version of an ASBO to restrict the use of public space and criminalise behaviour not normally regarded as illegal.”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

15 comments

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
3 likes

Why am I not surprised when I google images of anti-cyclists and discover they are mostly obese. This isn't a personal insult, it's a fact. It's great news that doctors can now prescribe cycling, it may wake people up that it's more than about not burning fossils.  

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Muddy Ford | 1 year ago
3 likes

As the saying has it, cars burn money and make you fat, bikes burn fat and save you money.

Avatar
Simon E replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
3 likes

I first saw that posted by Carlton Reid in 2008 (and set as the desktop background on my work computer for a while):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/4646637491/

Another great one by Carlton in 2010, the TomTom billboard advert "You Are Not Stuck In Traffic, You Are Traffic":

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carltonreid/5260106747/

Avatar
Zazz53 | 2 years ago
0 likes

Would another option be to impose a 5mph speed limit? Personally I find fast runners in shopping areas more of an issue than slow cyclists.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Zazz53 | 1 year ago
0 likes
Zazz53 wrote:

Would another option be to impose a 5mph speed limit? Personally I find fast runners in shopping areas more of an issue than slow cyclists.

And mobility scooters: the traditional ones with an elderly or obese person squinting as they speed along through a shared-use or pedestrianised area faster than any cyclist.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
2 likes

“Albeit for the fact that actually we loosened it to allow commuters to cycle before 9 and after 6. I think it's really important that the Traffic Regulation Order prevents people from cycling in pedestrianised areas and pavements, because it causes accidents.”

Looking forward to bedford installing grade seperated crossings to keep pestrians safe, because we know mixing cars and pedestrians in the same space causes accidents.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
2 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:

“Albeit for the fact that actually we loosened it to allow commuters to cycle before 9 and after 6. I think it's really important that the Traffic Regulation Order prevents people from cycling in pedestrianised areas and pavements, because it causes accidents.”

Looking forward to bedford installing grade seperated crossings to keep pestrians safe, because we know mixing cars and pedestrians in the same space causes accidents.

Shurely the original should have been "I think it's really important that we're rolling out lots of dedicated cycle paths, cycle streets, filtered permeability and 'unbundling' walking and cycle routes from motor vehicle access to make cycling more convenient and attractive so more people can choose a cycle trip over a car trip, because having fewer cars reduces accidents".

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 years ago
5 likes

I think it's always simpler and fairer to have things designed to be "self-enforcing" and only apply extra "rules" as a last resort.  In general cyclists are a minimal threat to pedestrians so should be permitted - though not encouraged - through "pedestrian" areas.  It's self-limiting because if there are quite a lot of pedestrians cyclists will naturally slow down. If there are tons you can't cycle so people won't, they'll take another route *.  After that for idiots racing about / kids menacing people we've got - or should have - enforcement. And if you constantly have gangs of young people about the place your problem isn't "cycling" or "cycle routes...

Finally if you actually have a sensible transport system lots of your pedestrians will be dismounted cyclists about to pop into a shop.  So it should be easy for them to get as close as possible to their destination.  Some of those cycles are mobility vehicles too - think of the old and disabled!

Yes there may be some cultural issues.  Since the UK has prioritised motor vehicle travel to a overwhelming extent in our towns and cities pedestrians are very sensitive about the remaining spaces they feel safe from cars in.  We've also deliberately set up conflict by designating the same small spaces as for both cycling and pedestrian use.  Finally the people who continue to cycle in the UK might be more "marginal" folks e.g. those who can't afford cars and the contrarians (I'm going to cycle here regardless).

* as long as you've actually provided other safe routes for cycling. Oh, it's the UK, no we didn't, we provide for cars everywhere then all other modes have to fight over what's left.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
1 like
chrisonatrike wrote:

.  Finally the people who continue to cycle in the UK ....

I think part of the issue is that if we rank peoples tolerance to risk on a scale from 1-10, the 10s will be the type who will cycle iresponsibly, potentially endangering others, but anyone with a risk tolerance lower than 8 will probably refuse to cycle for transport at all due to lack of "safe" routes.

This of course ignores the long term risks from lack of activity, and that people are generally bad at assessing actual risk.

So those anti social cyclists will be a higher proportion of the reamining cyclists, because all the low risk people have been scared away.

It's also worth noting that those same people will be high risk when they drive, and even walk, but because everyone does those things, they become one of many, rather than one of few.

 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
0 likes
wycombewheeler wrote:
chrisonatrike wrote:

.  Finally the people who continue to cycle in the UK ....

I think part of the issue is that if we rank peoples tolerance to risk on a scale from 1-10, the 10s will be the type who will cycle iresponsibly, potentially endangering others, but anyone with a risk tolerance lower than 8 will probably refuse to cycle for transport at all due to lack of "safe" routes.

This of course ignores the long term risks from lack of activity, and that people are generally bad at assessing actual risk.

So those anti social cyclists will be a higher proportion of the reamining cyclists, because all the low risk people have been scared away.

It's also worth noting that those same people will be high risk when they drive, and even walk, but because everyone does those things, they become one of many, rather than one of few.

 

Damn. You got me.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 2 years ago
6 likes

I'm surprised no councillors brought up the new hierachy of road users and guidance for cyclists using shared spaces in the highway code. That is a definite change since their decision to ban cyclists and quite a strong argument for allowing cyclists to use the space, as it further enhances pedestrian safety.

Avatar
David9694 replied to HoarseMann | 2 years ago
4 likes

I'm not, I mean imagine inconveniencing drivers...

Free parking in Bedford’s multi-storey car parks this weekend thanks to technical fault

While the machines were still able to take cash, Bedford Borough Mayor Dave Hodgson (Lib Dems) said paying by cash was an “inconvenience” and has approved the temporary lift to parking charges.

https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/free-parking-in-bedfords-multi-stor...

LMFTFY : Council Tax Payers in Bedford to subsidise drivers "even more than usual" due to technical fault.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 2 years ago
7 likes

“Albeit for the fact that actually we loosened it to allow commuters to cycle before 9 and after 6. I think it's really important that the Traffic Regulation Order prevents people from cycling in pedestrianised areas and pavements, because it causes accidents.”

And when the Green Party councillor challenged him to produce the figures for these accidents, the response was laughable:

“You know I think I’m getting a bit fed up with Green Party councillors coming to this council meeting with spurious statements."

I was going to say that it's good to know that LibDems, even though no longer in coalition with the tories, still adhere to their principles of lying, deflecting and obfuscating  when called upon to justify their absurd, anti-democratic decisions: but it isn't.

Everyone knows that consultations are only taken seriously when they disadvantage cyclists, not when they might help them.

Every day, I'm little bit more glad that I'm in the Green Party.

Avatar
iandusud replied to eburtthebike | 2 years ago
4 likes
eburtthebike wrote:

“Albeit for the fact that actually we loosened it to allow commuters to cycle before 9 and after 6. I think it's really important that the Traffic Regulation Order prevents people from cycling in pedestrianised areas and pavements, because it causes accidents.”

And when the Green Party councillor challenged him to produce the figures for these accidents, the response was laughable:

“You know I think I’m getting a bit fed up with Green Party councillors coming to this council meeting with spurious statements."

I was going to say that it's good to know that LibDems, even though no longer in coalition with the tories, still adhere to their principles of lying, deflecting and obfuscating  when called upon to justify their absurd, anti-democratic decisions.

Everyone knows that consultations are only taken seriously when they disadvantage cyclists, not when they might help them.

Every day, I'm little bit more glad that I'm in the Green Party.

Sounds very much like BJ: Don't answer the question, certainly don't let facts confuse the issue and spout forth lies. Whatever happened to integrity in politics? 

Avatar
RoubaixCube | 2 years ago
3 likes

thats one way to lose votes.

Latest Comments