Council takes swipe at “cycling groups using media outlets to curtail consultation” on controversial city centre cycling fines, as cyclists slam “pissy, insulting” response

Birmingham City Council has hit out at cycling campaigners who it claims have attempted through the media to “curtail” any discussion on the local authority’s plans to introduce a controversial cycling order in the city centre, described by activists as “clumsy and unworkable”.

However, these campaigners have criticised the council’s “pissy” response to their opposition to the proposed PSPO, which the local authority has since insisted will only apply to “dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate” cycling – prompting active travel groups in Birmingham to dismiss the entire initiative as “watered down”, “insulting”, and a “waste of paper”.

First mooted in October following a report which called for a clampdown on delivery couriers “moving around the city centre at speed and without care for pedestrians”, Birmingham City Council’s attempt to introduce a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) on cycling has attracted vociferous criticism from active travel campaigners, who claim the move will make parts of the city centre “impermeable for cycling”, discriminate against people who use cycles as mobility aids, and fail to stamp out nuisance or dangerous behaviour.

As we have reported on road.cc on a regular basis, several cycling-related PSPOs have been implemented in towns and cities across the country in recent years, brought in with the stated aim of cracking down on anti-social behaviour and often criticised by campaigners and groups such as Cycling UK for effectively criminalising cycling, deterring people from cycling to shops and amenities, and stifling active travel initiatives.

[Image copyright BicycleBen/fiets.uk]

> “If you don’t want cycling on footpaths, support bike lanes and 20mph zones”: Town centre cycling bans and the fight against “cowboy” wardens

When Birmingham City Council’s plans, which would see cyclists fined for riding their bikes in certain parts of the city centre, were first reported in October, Better Streets for Birmingham called the proposed cycling ban “clumsy and unworkable”.

“The PSPO seeks to address unacceptable cycling behaviours that are already illegal in several ways while suggesting banning all cycling in pedestrian areas and making parts of the city centre impermeable for cycling,” the group said at the time.

“Food couriers cause issues on high streets across the city, however we must also acknowledge that they are exploited by delivery platforms such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, who appear to have little interest in fixing the problems of illegal parking and dangerous cycling that they create.

“We would rather see existing legal orders (TROs) in the city centre revised to enable safe and considerate cycling – that the council’s own report appears to be happy with – while assisting those on illegal modified e-bikes to transition to legal bikes.”

Then, in November, the council seemingly backtracked by insisting that any PSPO enacted would not be “a ban on cycling”, but that the action was “merely a reflection of how cycles are used in the city centre”.

This softening of the initial talk of a cycling ban continued when the council formally launched a consultation on the proposals before Christmas.

> Council insists controversial cycling fines in Birmingham city centre will only target "dangerous, careless or inconsiderate" riders, but campaigners continue to criticise "waste of paper" PSPO

According to the proposals, the consultation on which will run until 30 January, the council states that cyclists “must not ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner and/or in a manner that is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any pedestrian”.

“This includes but is not limited to, aggressive riding, riding at speed, weaving between pedestrians, or performing stunts,” it continues.

road.cc contacted Birmingham City Council and asked directly if the local authority could confirm this means that cyclists who do not ride in the “dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate” manner mentioned will avoid fines and would be free to continue cycling through the restricted areas of the city centre.

When asked twice, the council did not answer the question directly and only shared links to the consultation, although the wording does appear to suggest safe cycling will continue to be allowed.

The proposals also outline the areas of the city centre that will be covered by the PSPO, and include areas around the Bullring shopping centre, along New Street and around to Centenary Square.

The consultation states: “This is to enhance public safety and address anti-social behaviour in respect of irresponsible and dangerous use of bicycles, skateboarding, manual scooters, E-bikes and E-scooters in the pedestrian areas. The area specified in this proposed PSPO is pedestrianised and has high footfall at peak times.

“In responding to this consultation, please recognise the council is under a duty to deal with anti-social behaviour as well as seeking to create a welcoming and positive impression for those working, living, or visiting Birmingham city centre. We would welcome any suggestions on alternative solutions or different conditions for the proposed PSPO.

“Any person entering the pedestrian zone shown in the map, riding, cycling, skateboarding, riding a manual scooter or using an E-bike or E-scooter, within the restricted area must not ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner and/or in a manner that is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any pedestrian. This includes but is not limited to, aggressive riding, riding at speed, weaving between pedestrians, or performing stunts.

“The condition of the bicycle/scooter must comply with The Pedal Cycles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983, The Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 (as amended) and The Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations (1989). Any person may push and walk alongside their bicycle, manual scooter, E-bike, or E-scooter through the restricted area.

“It is a criminal offence to breach the requirements of a PSPO. This may result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) being issued by a police officer or council officer. If the FPN is not paid, the offence may be reported to the magistrate’s court and a person can be fined up to £1,000.”

The council also notes there are proposed exemptions for emergency service riders and that, if implemented, the PSPO is expected to last three years.

> Hundreds more cyclists fined by "enforcement officers" under town's controversial cycling ban, months on from rider ordered to pay £1,050

In the proposed consultation document, the council cites “investigations” that have been undertaken in which local officers found evidence of illegally modified e-bikes being used, with more than half the “examples of the types of activities this PSPO is seeking to restrict” involving delivery riders.

Over a five-day period in September, local officers who were tasked with documenting instances of unsafe riding within the selected zones also reported two instances of schoolchildren allegedly riding bikes at high speed and nearly colliding with pedestrians, as well as a man who they claimed to have been “cycling rapidly” along New Street, forcing people to move out of his path.

The consultation’s supporting documents also criticised the response from cycling campaigners to its initial plans to implement the PSPO following reports of near misses and collisions.

“It is recognised that mixed feelings surround this issue and that there will not be 100 per cent agreement,” the council said.

“Some cycling groups have already utilised media outlets to try and curtail any consultation regarding this subject, citing such programmes as active travel etc. However, the Council’s travel plans and active travel includes walking, cycling, and public transport.

“Government guidance on these matters indicates that pedestrians should be given higher regard due to the safety implications where mixed road use is allowed. This is supported by recent changes to the Highway Code.

“For this reason, the consultation seeks views to determine how best to tackle the anti-social behaviour observed in the city centre.”

> Fines issued to pavement cyclists will be based on “behaviour, not location” says council, in town where female cyclist was fined £100 for riding on cycle path and others threatened with £1,000 penalties by “cowboy wardens”

However, both the proposal itself and the council’s criticism of the city’s cycling and active travel groups have been condemned by activists in Birmingham, who have branded the planned PSPO “a waste of council resources”.

Martin Price, policy lead for Better Streets for Birmingham, said the PSPO “has now been watered down to something not worth the paper it’s written on: a limit on anti-social riding through some streets. Supporting documents show they can already enforce this.”

He continued: “The supporting documents get pissy about Better Streets for Birmingham’s public statement on the proposals. Accusing us of utilising media outlets to curtail any consultation. Not the case as we just publicly called out silly policy and called the PSPO clumsy and unworkable.

“Clumsy as in too blunt a tool being suggested without considering the unintended consequences, which is clear given the climbdown. Unworkable as in the people breaking the law are on very fast illegal vehicles – is Darren the imaginary Civil Enforcement Officer really going to catch up with one?

“Anyway – we’re now being proposed a bit of text that says you shouldn’t ride a micromobility vehicle dangerously on a collection of streets in the city centre.”

Another campaign group, Save Station Street, also said it had responded to the consultation and branded the PSPO “frankly the single stupidest thing I can remember Birmingham Council proposing”.

“Honestly, the amount of time, effort and money wasted on this absolute c**p instead of actually addressing the root problems (motorcycles posing as bikes/ food delivery apps prioritising speed/restaurants not taking responsibility for using the services) is insulting,” the group said.