If you want to do more to help overturn this crazy ban, please fill in details on the right.

What is wrong with the ban?

• What the council should be doing is stopping the dangerous and antisocial bike riders, while promoting responsible cycling
• It doesn't work
• It makes cyclists less safe
• It adds to traffic congestion
• It discriminates against disabled people
• It discriminates against women
• It means people don't get the health benefits of cycling
• It deters people from shopping in central Bedford
• Well designed public spaces are safe for cycling for all
• It discriminates against poorer people
• It discriminates against people from ethnic minorities
• It doesn't make pedestrians safer
• It encourages people to drive, with environmentally damaging consequences
• Dangerous cyclists are the ones who get away without paying, while the safe and considerate cyclists pay
• Deterring cycling costs the council much more through added health/social care costs than any possible benefit or any revenue raised
• On the council's own plans, the area is shown as cycle routes
• People who are already disadvantaged in more than one way are disproportionately disadvantaged by this ban

It just doesn't make sense to continue the ban on cycling in the pedestrianised centre of Bedford from 9am to 6pm.

Those who support the ban will claim that even if they didn't renew the PSPO, cycling would still be banned: let's be clear - that is a council decision too. If they don't renew the PSPO to ban cycling, they can also lift the Traffic Regulation Order banning it. They might claim the consultation is only about enforcement, but that's because they want to pretend the ban isn't their choice. We are campaigning for the end of the PSPO and the end of the TRO.
Those who support the ban will also claim that people that oppose the ban support people cycling on pavements. Roads that have been closed to motor traffic are different from pavements alongside open roads: that is true both in law and in people's minds. What really encourages people to cycle on pavements is a council that doesn't do enough to make it safe to cycle on the road, and doesn't provide enough cycle paths that are separate from both the road and the pavement (and which puts up loads of signs advertising duel use pavements where cycling is permitted, adding massively to the confusion).

To explain...

* What the council should be doing is stopping the dangerous and antisocial bike riders, while promoting responsible cycling.

There is no doubt some bike riders are dangerous and antisocial. Regardless of this ban, that is illegal. The company who are paid by the council to issue the penalties under this ban can't stop people who are riding dangerously, recklessly or inconsiderately, though. So if they refuse to stop, the worst riders are exactly the ones who the ban doesn't affect. Meanwhile it allows the council to pretend it is doing something about the dangerous and antisocial bike riders, when they are not in reality.

* It doesn't work.

The sheer number of penalties issued shows there is still a lot of cycling in the area covered by the ban.

* It makes cyclists less safe

If they obey the restriction, cyclists are forced onto nearby streets – virtually all the routes surrounding the pedestrian area are ‘A’ roads (the A600, formerly A6, or the A4280, formerly A428). These main roads have heavy lorries and heavy traffic. The health benefits of cycling are so big that it is still safer to cycle than not cycle. BUT forcing cyclists onto unprotected spaces on these surrounding roads makes cyclists less safe than they could be. In the five years since the ban was introduced there have been three serious crashes with cyclist victims on roads that cyclists use to avoid the roads where there is a ban. By contrast, in 15 years prior to the ban - three times as many years, there was only one serious crash (and two minor ones) in the pedestrianised zone with a pedestrian victim and a cyclist: and cycling dangerously, recklessly, carelessly or inconsiderately was already illegal. And in the five years since the ban was introduced, there have been three pedestrian casualties caused by crashes in the pedestrianised area (none caused by cyclists).

*It adds to traffic congestion

Many of the 'A' roads surrounding the cycle ban area that cyclists are forced onto don't have cycle lanes, meaning that cyclists are much more likely to hold up traffic. These include the High Street, St Pauls Square, Horne Lane and River Street (all the A600, former A6). On top of that, every cyclist who is persuaded to drive rather than cycle into Bedford adds even more to traffic congestion.

* It discriminates against disabled people

Many disabled people use a cycle as a mobility aid. By banning them from cycling in the town centre, this can mean that they can't get within their limited walking distance of the town centre shops. To quote one "I have a chronic pain condition and sometimes walking is very challenging. Cycling into town is so much easier than parking up and walking"

* It discriminates against women

Many women are less worried about strangers if they are travelling faster, on a cycle, than if they are walking. In addition, Women tend to have less access to cars, so more often women depend on cycling than men do.

* It means people don't get the health benefits of cycling

The ban means some people don’t come into central Bedford, while others drive in. Either way round, people are not cycling when they would have been. Cycling is excellent exercise with big health benefits.

* It deters people from shopping in central Bedford

Many people who have been given £75 fines have decided to stop shopping in Bedford, and others have decided it is too risky to come into Bedford. Bedford is putting off potential customers. Dee, with arthritic knees says "I was driven out of shopping in the town centre as I used to, when this ban started"

* Well designed public spaces are safe for cycling for all: the council should be working on a better design for spaces that include cyclists, not on excluding them

A design for the town centre that helped pedestrians know to expect cyclists, and helped direct cyclists to where pedestrians expected them, would make things better for all.

* It discriminates against poorer people

Poorer people are much less likely to have a car, and so are more likely to be cycling. In addition the £75 penalty means much more to a poorer person if they get caught or try to ‘risk it’ cycling in the town centre.

* It discriminates against people from ethnic minorities

People from some ethnic backgrounds have higher risk of diabetes and heart disease. This means that for them cycling is even more beneficial in health terms. They are additionally disadvantaged by being put at more road risk in order to cycle.

* It doesn't make pedestrians safer

All round the country, studies show good cyclists slow and/or get off when there are lots of pedestrians. The dangerous and reckless cyclists are the ones who ignore the ban anyway.

* It encourages people to drive, with environmentally damaging consequences

Cycling can offer massive advantages of convenience if you can cycle to a secure cycle rack right by the shop. If shoppers have to walk as far as they would walk from a car parking space, some will decide to take that option, but all cars give off pollution. As well as fumes from engines, even electric cars cause pollution with particles coming from tyres and brakes, as well as all the materials involved in production.

* Dangerous cyclists are the ones who get away without paying, while the safe and considerate cyclists pay

The company the council pay to catch people cycling in the town centre aren’t allowed to do anything that might be risky, so reckless cyclists are very unlikely to get stopped. The cyclists who end up paying are those who are riding slowly and carefully and who are prepared to stop.

* Deterring cycling costs the council much more through added health/social care costs than any possible benefit or any revenue raised

The exercise benefits of cycling keeps people healthy, mobile and able to do things. If people cycle less, more of them get health problems and need social care of sorts that have to be paid for by the council.

* On the council's own plans, the area is shown as cycle routes

In the councils planning documents used to help decide what can be built where, cycle routes are marked in the “policies map”. These cycle routes include Midland Road/Silver Street, Harpur Street/Harpur Square and Allhallows.

* People who are already disadvantaged in more than one way are disproportionately disadvantaged by this ban.

This intersectionality means people who are at the same time in several disadvantaged groups (eg a disabled ethnic minority woman) are particularly hard hit by the extra disadvantage of something like this ban.