Thread by @RantyHighwayman

OK then Worcester folks. I put in a FOI for the cycling ban in the town. They *didn't* undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (although they are not a legal requirement in England because the ConDems stopped them being so). My question and answer;

@BikeWorcester

The actual decision background paper states the following. So if no EqIA was undertaken, then there should presumably be something written down which deals with the proposal being screened. I need to read everything and see if a further FOI is required.

The ban includes pedal cycles (number of wheels unlimited) which probably means handcycles are OK - @CrippledCyclist knows more.

At this point, I am unsure where this leaves us because as someone who is not a Disabled person, I have no grounds to challenge the scheme. However, at the very least it reinforces the view that the county council (egged on by the city council) doesn't want people cycling there.

One interesting thing is the "authority to advertise a Traffic Regulation Order with the support of Members" form was signed off by Cllr Geraghty as a local member, but it wasn't signed off by the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Highways. I don't know if this is a

mistake, omission or usual if the order is relatively small (which this is geographically).

Of course, there are countless restrictions around the UK like this which can be linked back to wider network management issues, but I've picked on this one because an existing ban has been extended to evening commute times which makes a bad arrangement worse.

OK, I popped in a further FOI on the matter of the proposal being screened with regard to people with Protected Characteristics. My question;

The screening was undertaken in April 2019. In terms of "policy objectives" the only thing really mentioned is to improve pedestrian safety by extending the ban - reference to any actual published policies (eg planning or transport).

In terms of any prior consultation, it's limited to "wide-scale public consultation undertake by Worcester City Council [so 2018]. Worcester BID has consulted businesses." Presumably the City will be able to provide full details.

In terms of assessing people with Protected Characteristics, the screening states this "people in Protected Groups will benefit because their safety and peace of mind may increase during the extended period when most traffic is not permitted". Utter tosh.

The screening then asks "is there any evidence of potential or unplanned variations in the participation levels or use of the policy between different groups (existing policies only)".

Under age, the response goes on about pedestrians being vulnerable road users (especially the elderly or very young) and this will reduce the potential conflict with *motor* vehicles. Not a word about cycles. For Disabled people it's basically ditto.

The only other group looked at comes under religion and all that is about maintaining existing exemptions for a church (weddings and funerals) and access to parking for Disabled people visiting the church. The dead have more rights here than people cycling.

The final conclusion is that an EIA is not required (remember they are not an English legal requirement as mentioned earlier in the thread).

So Disabled cyclists have certainly been completely ignored by this. If we push in the same way as elderly on the very young, then they are essentially ignored if they want to cycle (but less clear cut than for Disabled people).

My personal view is the politicians (both city and county) wanted to exclude people cycling all along (ever since the original ban). In the extension, they have completely missed the fact (as many authorities do) that Disabled people are also excluded by such decisions.

Of course we're also back at the issue of the network. Highway authority fails to provide safe cycling around a town or city centre, so people cycle through. A few people whine about it and so we ban people cycling. People carry on cycling so we extend the banned hours.

It's a policy approach which fails everyone in my view, including the businesses who were apparently consulted. All in all, it's a bad look for the city and county here. I need to reflect on what's next.

"Peace of mind". What complete and total nonsense.