- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Sheep Street cycling ban (Google Maps/Bicester Bike Users Group)Residents claim “jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists will cause “carnage at the expense of pedestrians” as controversial cycling ban to finally be lifted on shopping street to “improve choice of routes”
A council is set to reverse a controversial cycling ban on a pedestrianised shopping street in Bicester and start a trial which would allow people to ride on it at all times of the day, leading to comments from residents who claim that “jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists will cause “carnage” and pose a risk to pedestrians, especially children and the elderly.
Sheep Street in Bicester has long been a contentious spot, with plans to implement the cycling trial earlier this year being put on hold and a consultation announced instead, after opposition from outspoken local councillors succeeded in piling pressure on the transport chief.
And then in August with the consultation underway, local traders came out in force to resist the idea of cycling on the street which has been pedestrianised for 30 years. Despite local cyclists arguing that removing the ban would provide a “great boost” to a “struggling” area, critics believed that allowing “speeding” cyclists to ride on the street would “frighten” the elderly.
Now, Bicester Advertiser reports that the cabinet member for transport management in Oxfordshire County Council, Andrew Gant, is set to introduce an Experiment Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) and approve a trial that would see the cycling ban being lifted on Sheep Street at a cabinet meeting tomorrow.
Gant is also recommended to request officers to “continually review in detail and stop the trial if there are any pedestrian safety concerns that cannot be suitably promptly addressed.”
Provided the trial gets approved tomorrow, the council will begin another six-month consultation to seek the locals’ views on cycling on Sheep Street. At the end of the consultation in May 2025, a decision will be taken, which can either result in the ETRO being made permanent with its current rules, or it can be called off and have the cycling ban reinstated.
The council said that the goal of lifting the ban is to “enhance active travel in Bicester by making Sheep Street more accessible to cyclists”. It added it aims to “provide significant benefits for cyclists by improving the choice of routes across Bicester”.
Now, with the latest news of the trial making riding bikes legal on the street, comments from residents have once again targeted cyclists. One person wrote: “No one cares about cyclists except Gant! And cyclists have ANY road or path they choose to use! Why should pedestrians be put at risk so some jumped-up arrogant cyclist can shave a couple of minutes off their journey time?”
Another person said: “So, in order for entitled cyclists to have their own way again, you obviously don't care about the elderly, disabled pedestrians etc getting hurt along the way? Just so you get what you want?! Shall we just ban the ones I mentioned, from going out, or even better, let them only come out at night when the proposed lights out at night come into effect? That way you are warmly tucked up in bed.”
Yet another person added: “As someone who cycles a lot, I can't understand the logic of this decision. People cycle down there anyway but who is going to have the right of way, who is at fault if someone gets hit? Silly idea. If it's a pedestrian area, park the bike and walk through, it's not a big distance!”
However, one local cyclist that Sheep Street is part of Route 51 of the National Cycle Network. “Cyclists are currently prevented from using a designated national cycling route. No alternative route was ever put in place. It highlights how poor and disconnected the UK cycling infrastructure is,” they added.
> Allowing “speeding” cyclists to ride on “struggling” high street would lead to “carnage” and “frighten” elderly, say traders opposed to lifting cycling ban in pedestrianised shopping area
Previously, Bicester Bike Users’ Group has said that the 25-metre wide street with defined pavements and road areas has “ample” room for bicycle riders and pedestrians to co-exist safely and is the “ideal place for cycling”.
In March, the chair of the campaign, Catherine Hickman, told road.cc: “Sheep Street in Bicester is the main shopping street, as well as the only safe and direct route between the north and south of the town and the two railway stations.
She added: “If we don't give it a go, it's hard to know how well it will work. It would be a great boost to the struggling high street, as well as encouraging healthy and sustainable travel choices. The current situation is unworkable because the current blanket prohibition is not enforced anyway. This means that the least responsible cyclists cycle regardless, causing aggravation and resentment towards cyclists.
HGV on Sheep Street in Bicester (Catherine Hickman, Bicester Bike Users Group)
However, locals who work on the street argue that the trial would make matters worse and make the street more “dangerous”. “We don’t need it,” Holly Lewis, who works at Lewis’ Butchers, said. “People will speed along here – when it’s busy on a Friday you can’t see up the street. I think it will be a bit dangerous.”
Meanwhile, Janette Lee, who works at Nash’s Bakery and says she is a cyclist, added: “We all cycle here and we don't think they should [allow the trial] because it’s not fair on the old people. It’s an accident waiting to happen.”
“There’s nothing more frightening than someone coming up behind you,” her colleague Angela Stephens agreed. There’s so many things that need doing in Bicester, it’s not a priority.”
Hickman pointed out that “those who cite safety seem almost completely unconcerned about big trucks, vans, and cars regularly driving along the street, even on market day”.
“Their priorities seem all wrong,” she said. “Cycling responsibly along the street would be relatively low risk, particularly as there is space, and it would provide a safe route given that there are no alternative routes that actually have safe cycle provision. It’s also worth mentioning that Sheep Street is part of the NCN route 51.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Rome73 4 sec ago
'Meanwhile, the council says that the anti-cycle lane opponents’ suggested alternative route – through a nearby parkland – would mean a greater...
- Pub bike 1 hour 30 min ago
The owners of the private car park made reasonable attempts to contact Lime and ask them to remove the bikes that were fly-tipped on their property...
- Pub bike 1 hour 36 min ago
Could be for cyclists with congenitally long arms.
- mark1a 7 hours 18 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- chrisonabike 9 hours 39 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Hirsute 12 hours 26 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 12 hours 44 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 13 hours 13 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- brooksby 18 hours 26 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
39 comments
Solution: Put these up everywhere.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs
Personally, I would not choose to cycle in an area shared with pedestrians. Mainly because my bikes require cleated shoes which clip in. However, on visits to Cambridge I have seen crowded, shared areas working well - presumably because people are used to sharing, but also because both cyclists and pedestrians take care and look out for one another.
Each to their own of course, I never find there's a problem in the several areas I ride through (it's allowed) morning and evening where there are a lot of pedestrians in a shared space, e.g. the new Battersea power station development and the US Embassy quarter; I have SPD pedals on all my bikes, although on the ones I use for commuting the tension isn't as high as on the out and out road bike. If there are a lot of people about (but not so many that I need to get off and walk, as I'm happy to do if necessary) I just unclip, move my foot an inch or so forward and pedal more with the middle of my foot so I can touch down quickly if necessary. An alternative of course would be to have dual pedals, flat one side and clips the other.
It's just easier to "negotiate" when both parties are much more similar in vulnerability, manoeuvrability, speed, width, etc. than those in motor vehicles and those not. And who don't have their vision and hearing limited by being in a metal, plastic and glass box.
On the other hand shared-use areas are generally not something we should aim for for efficient through-transport. In that case cyclists and pedestrians flow better (and are happier) with their own clearly marked paths.
Why are people bothering to reply to the troll?
Remember, that's the only thing they want - interaction with people as they sit alone and have no friends (for obvious reasons). By telling them how wrong you are, you're validating their posting of nonsense.
People - we're not the idiot whisperers, so just leave them alone and they'll soon get bored and get laughed at elsewhere instead.
Thanks to ublock origin, I don't have to see their posts.
Oh dear, another new nutter name. Prevent topic bloat! Don't respond
You shouldn't mock the afflicted. The typical 'village idiot' have their own peculiar charm, this one's particularly amusing
Been around a few months as I recall, they were the one who memorably claimed to own a Formula One motor car that they were only allowed to use on racetracks so cyclists who want to ride fast should have to go to a velodrome (it was on one of the Richmond Park speed limit threads).
Just another story highlighting the fact that [some] cyclists are arrogant and treat the roads and pathways as if they own them. Simple solution, make it law for them to wear helmets and hi-viz, and ban them from single carriageway roads where the national speed limit is in force
I like this idea. Give me a perfect excuse never to go into the office.
"ban them from single carriageway roads where the national speed limit is in force"
How to write something without engaging brain.
Please explain how I would get home on bike? You are now forcing me to drive everywhere.
I take it your ban extends to pedestrians using nsl roads.
I look forward to be banned from this road.
So. Please advise me. How will I get to and from my work if cycling was to be banned from single carriageway roads with the NSL? The government needs to be producing PIFs so communicate to the motorists what their responsibilities are towards other road users and that these responsibilities don't cease the moment they receive their full licence. Oh. And HiViz and helmets are a red herring to road safety.
Any resident who talks about "jumped-up" cyclists has by doing so revealed their inherent bias that cyclists are some form of lower order getting ideas above their station. IMO.
Also, it's very 'jumped up' to judge that someone is 'jumped up' - without even knowing them.
Says more about the person making the claim than the cyclists.
At the end of the consultation in May 2025, a decision will be taken......
Surely all they would have to do is count the pedestrian bodies? I just hope the council worker tasked with sweeping them up gets overtime. And the coroners court, they'll be working 24/7.
About thirty years ago, after many such concerns were raised about cyclists and pedestrians sharing, the DfT studied places in Europe (you know, civilised places) where it already happened, and reached the conclusion that there really wasn't a problem, but who needs facts when you've got prejudices and opinions?
Iirc the Dutch have research that found in most places legalization reduced incidents!
Where you have a problem the solution is providing preferable parallel routes - bans won't get enforced, so all that banning does is chase off careful, law abiding cyclists - who provided a good example for other riders passing through, while also making pedestrians take less care.
People argue about liability in source, but even where cycling is legal, the cyclist is pretty much going to be held liable in pedestrianised areas (unlike shared use including cars...)
Why not have a 5mph speed limit as part of the ETRO? Only a dick would ride fast through an otherwise pedestrianised street.
As usual, one suspects that the Venn diagram of people who object to "cyclists shaving a couple of minutes off their journey time" (which of course is hardly the point anyway, given that most cyclists would gladly have a few minutes added onto their journey time if it means riding on a safer route) and the people who object to LTNs if they add a couple of minutes onto their journey time would be pretty much a perfect circle.
A twenty-five-metre-wide street (looked on Google Maps, it's not that wide all the way down but even at its narrowest point it's about twelve metres) for heaven's sake! Literally wider than a six lane motorway*, you seriously can't find space for cyclists to ride safely?
* UK standard width for single motorway lane, 3.65 m, 25/3.65 = 6.8
Cyclists don't (currently) contribute financially to anything. Conversely, they slow traffic flow. I'm all in favour of cycle lanes, but somebody needs to fund them, and cyclists should be legally obliged to use them where they exist.
When you look at the figures, and add the costs of externalities (which are often just brushed under the carpet) to the motorists themselves, I think you'll find that it is motorists who are subsidised quite heavily by *every single taxpayer in the country*.
Oh my lord. It's no surprise that we have these commenters like @footballcock345678 aka Hivizalways come here from twitter with their half brained bile.
They were bad enough when just on Facebook, but now they spread insidiously, like a pool of steaming vomit.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
"Fresh research from Transport for London (TfL) has added to a previous paper that revealed that people walking, cycling and using public transport spend more than motorists in local shops"
So not only do they contribute to a lot of things they also help contribute to environments where people spend more than when they are driving.
But you already knew that as you are clearly an obsidious troll
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/11/16/cyclists-spend-40-mo....
My money's on the one second right
https://obsidious-band.com/en-gbp/
So paying income tax, council tax, paying VAT on everything they buy? What more do you expect a cyclist to contribute? Your statement is really odd!
What exaclty are you trying to achieve?
All you are doing is advertising you are trolling.
I can't bothered to list all the taxes paid by cyclists as you would have been told this time after time.
Directly, as in a vehicle tax, no, but indirectly, health benefits etc. (not just to themselves but the reduction in local pollution to communities) gives a reduction in financial stress on things like the NHS.
Driving on the other hand, despite having a direct vehicle tax, is subsidised by the general tax payer (whether they drive or not) for infrastructure and that's before you even include the additional strain put on things like the NHS or the lost hours by people sat in traffic jams (which you'll probably be surprised to know are caused by cars, not bikes).
How many people don't drive/own a vehicle?
(A lot, in case you didn't realise.)
Should they be excluded from using pavements/roads, or from being passengers in other people's cars?
Do you also complain about empty pavements or bus lanes with stationary queues of private motor vehicles next to them?
Pages