Bedford’s deputy mayor said he is getting a bit fed up with Green Party councillors’ “spurious” statements – but chose not to answer the question a Green councillor put to him, despite being given two opportunities to do so.
Councillor Ben Foley (Green, Castle Ward) said that it had been reported in local media that a council spokesperson said that the ban on cycling in the town centre makes the area safer during the main shopping day.
“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,” he asked.
Real hazard
Councillor Charles Royden (LibDems, Brickhill Ward), deputy mayor and the portfolio holder for environment, highways and transport, said: “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.
“When I became portfolio holder the mayor encouraged me to look at ways in which we could help people who were complaining about being hit by cycles in the town centre.
Councillor Royden said businesses approached him asking for help as shoppers were
“frightened” by cyclists whizzing around.
“Now I can tell you that things are much, much, better since our officers have been able to enforce the Traffic Regulation Order, much better,” he said.
Businesses support cycling ban
“And business are pleased with that, and I can give you evidence of that by the consultation process which we’ve just been through, where overwhelmingly businesses support a ban on cycling when shoppers are going through pedestrianised areas.
“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.”
Councillor Foley said: “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.
“I also didn’t ask you for your prepared speech on why you want to ignore the majority view amongst those who responded to the consultation.
“What I asked was about real, solid, evidence about the harm to people from cycling in the area. You said,’ well, people don’t like it, businesses don’t like it’, what is the evidence?
“How many people have been involved in crashes in that area, and over what time period? Is there that evidence,” he asked.
Green Party’s spurious statements
Councillor Royden replied: “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.
“And I can tell you the proof that we’ve got is that we are getting much reduced incidences of people cycling in the town centre because we are giving them fines.
“It’s important that we continue to do so, and people who cycle on pavements should be fined.
“Now sadly the police are not able to give the time that they need to enforce that, sadly, but the police have asked us to take these powers.
“Let’s be clear about that, the police, and the police and crime commissioner support us taking these powers so that we can help them enforce the law.
“Business support this.
“I completely agree, 64 people were the majority of people who wanted to cycle in the town centre, 64 people. That’s not many in a town of this size, but the businesses support what I have proposed, and the executive will make a decision on it.
“But please stop making cycling such a problem area in this council, because we are doing so much for cycling.
“I know you don’t agree with this because we said ‘you know we’ve done so much for cycling’, [and you said] ‘you haven’t got anything for cycling’, well go and sit in the cycle store in the town centre, which we provided to give safe secure storage out of the weather for cyclists.
“Go and use the new cycle lanes that we brought in place.
“If you keep hammering the hard work of our cycling team in this council they will lose the enthusiasm they have, and that’s something that you should be really wary of.
Take up cycling
“You should be encouraging people to take up cycling in this town, you should be encouraging them to take advantage of all the provisions that we’ve made for them, instead of harping on in this manner. I think it’s shameful,” he said.
In his closing statement, 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 said.