Our consultation responses are aligned with our Guide to Inclusive Cycling. They may be printed, electronically distributed or quoted provided credit is given to Wheels for Wellbeing.
Inconsiderate and Dangerous Riding: “Any person entering the pedestrian zone, identified in the map attached, 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 including but not limited to aggressive riding, riding at speed, weaving between pedestrians or performing stunts”
Response: Agree
“We are very pleased that the draft PSPO only restricts those who are being dangerous, careless or inconsiderate, or who are behaving in a way that is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress.
We have a minor concern that a few pedestrians can display unusual levels of alarm or distress (for example when they see a cycle -or even a wheelchair- in a space they are not expecting it, no matter how responsibly it is being used), so it is important that enforcement is only pursued against those whose behaviour is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to reasonable pedestrians, and we would like reassurance on that matter.
Enforcement officers need training to facilitate Disabled people using all kinds of mobility aids (including cycles and e-cycles) through the space, including supporting Disabled people who are being harassed by other members of the public.”
Condition of the bicycle / scooter: “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).”
Response: Disagree
“This proposed drafting of the PSPO with respect to e-scooters is very problematic. As drafted, it says that scooters and e-scooters must comply with legislation for cycles and e-cycles that they have never been designed to comply with. It actually has the effect of accidentally banning all scooters, even legal hire e-scooters.
Given that the law around e-scooters is likely to change during the lifespan of the PSPO, we recommend instead that it is drafted to say “all e-scooters, scooters, cycles and other devices capable of moving at above walking speed must comply with current UK construction and use regulations applicable to the relevant device”.
Exemption: An exemption will apply to any of the emergency services carrying out their duties where there is a necessity to ignore the PSPO, or a police community support officer or authorised officer of the council that is enforcing this PSPO.
Response: agree
Please comment on any aspect of the draft order you think could be improved or anything you feel has been missed?
“We are pleased that the proposals have been significantly revised since those of 8 October 2024 which we would have opposed very vigorously as discriminatory against Disabled cyclists. As it is, we are generally supportive of the proposed PSPO in the dramatically reduced area. It is important to make Disabled people safe from irresponsible and hazardous riding in the proposed area, where the presence of tram tracks present an additional hazard. At the same time, it is vital (to avoid discrimination) that Disabled people cycling and using manual scooters and e-scooters considerately and at reasonable speed are permitted to remain on our cycles and scooters. Any proposal to require Disabled people to “push and walk alongside” would discriminate against Disabled people as many are unable to do so, including people riding standard bicycles and e-scooters.
There are, however, significant problems with Birmingham’s use of shared space for cycling and walking/wheeling.
Shared use paths create particularly significant hazards for visually impaired pedestrians. We note LTN 1/20 summary principle 2: “…Shared use routes in streets with high pedestrian or cyclist flows should not be used…” Implementing a PSPO in no way is an adequate substitute for carefully designing space to minimise or eradicate shared use paths.
When considering the background to this PSPO, we accept that there are significant problems with illegally modified e-cycles: Legitimate users of the highway need protection from those using pedestrian spaces and cycle provision riding what are in fact unregistered e-motorbikes.
At the same time, there is a significant impetus for gig-economy delivery riders to illegally modify their e-cycles so as to achieve an income that is often still lower than the minimum wage. We believe that there is an urgent need for a change in the employment status of delivery riders so that their employers (‘platforms’) take responsibility for their behaviour and safety, and so that the ability to achieve a reasonable income is not dependent on making illegal and dangerous modifications, nor on riding in dangerous and antisocial ways. In the absence of such a (national) change in the employment status of riders, it is important that the council uses what influence it has on the platforms, including through licensing conditions. We have concern about negative commentary on delivery riders since they are disproportionately from minoritized ethnic backgrounds and this potentially adds to discriminatory rhetoric and practice: their behaviour is a result of effective pressure from their employers, not due to any ill-will or lack of consideration on their own part.”
