MY dastardly deed and the fixed penalty notice....

[Tygermoth]

Hi all,

 

While on my way home today i was stopped cautioned and given a fixed penalty notice.

 

My offence?

 

Cycling on the footpath.

 

This is so obviously a masive social menace, middle age women slowly peddaling home up a huge hill in the rain on their decrepid, ancent rusty bikes at eight at night in the empty town centre square.

 

I gently pointed out to the 'special constable' that there were no signs stating cycling is not allowed. however signage 'is the councils responsibility' apparently.

 

At this point he seemed to get really angry that i was questioning him and got really sh*tty so decided to caution me!

 

(please note here i was calm, polite and amenable during the whole episode, as was he, while still managing to be officious, obnoxious and utterly pedantic), did a background check and took the details of my bike and its serial number (all in the pouring rain btw) this took 45 mins

 

When i stated i would dispute the matter, it got even worse! he then wrote tonnes of crud in his note book and asked me to sign bits relating to my statement that i would 'dispute the matter'

 

We both during the affair were both cuttingly polite to each other but given half the opportunity .......GGGrrrrr

 

So if this fixed fine enforceable???

 

It better not be because i think i would rather rip my own arm off and eat it that give the satisfaction of putting my hard earned money towards this poxy fine.

 

(suffering with the rage)

 

Tygermoth

[Goldlady]

I am sorry but you made me laugh after a crap day - how utterly ridiculous! Why wasn't he dealing with some real criminals:o? I suspect it could be enforceable as I was told once by the police that if I turned left at a right-only junction on my pushbike I would be fined. I was stopped by the police once for not wearing a seat belt while 8 months pregnant - at the time their radios were screaming for assistance at a major pub fight in the area and I KNEW exactly why they had decided to pick on me at that particular moment.

 

My OH was cycling on a fairly main road a few years ago with our two sons in tow - then aged about 7 - he was stopped by the police and TOLD to cycle on the pavement for their safety.

[green_and_mean]

Cycling on footpaths is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice of £30 under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It also in the highway code that you should not cycle on the footway. I don't know what 'a real criminal' is but the law is there to be obeyed you cannot just pick and choose which ones you consider suitable to be enforced.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Worth challenging just for a laugh.

Highly likely that there will be no further action.

I'd take the risk.

[green_and_mean]

If you go to Court you can get a larger fine which will not be a laugh!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

If you go to Court you can get a larger fine which will not be a laugh!

Did you go to the Sybll Fawlty school of the bleedin' obvious!?

I made reference to the risk.

You have to be found guilty to be fined.

To be found guilty the CPS has to decide that it is in the public interest, the copper has to turn up, they have to give evidence, they are exposed to cross examination etc etc.

As I said I'd take the risk.

[Tygermoth]

Thanks for all your replies, im glad someone got a laugh out of it!!

 

(though now i am begining to see the funny side myself, when last night i was so upset/frustrated/angry i was in tears)

 

As stated to the 'officer' I will be disputing the matter.However regarding this reference to a 'larger fine' why would i be liable for a larger fine when i am disputing the matter for the purposes of clarification? is it not my right to ask how am i expected to know that the cycling is prohibited in the area when there are no signs (the only sign the 'officer' could show me was vandalised so you could not see the no cycling sign, also it was two streets away!)

 

I mean even while i was being cautioned 3 lads came out of McDonalds and were trying to explain to the 'officer' that you can cycle in this bit of town centre square!! (this just seemed to make the officer even more Sh*itty)

 

Well, ill be writing my letter today regarding the whole matter.

 

Thanks again,

 

Tygermoth

[Tygermoth]

Oh and while i was 'under caution' a total of 6, yes 6 people cycled by.......

 

have a good day peeps!

[patdavies]

As stated to the 'officer' I will be disputing the matter.However regarding this reference to a 'larger fine' why would i be liable for a larger fine when i am disputing the matter for the purposes of clarification?

 

To look at this dispassionately for a moment.

 

If you refuse the FPN and elect for a court hearing (and you must take positive action to do this; not just not pay) and are found guilty in court, then the Magistrates will set the level of the fine. Even if they keep it the same as the FPN, you still have to pay costs (about £35) and victim surcharge (£15)

 

is it not my right to ask how am i expected to know that the cycling is prohibited in the area when there are no signs

You are expected to know - ignorance of the law is no defence. It is illegal to cycle on the footway unless specifically permitted. The sign to which you referred is extra information; it is not required in law.

 

I mean even while i was being cautioned 3 lads came out of McDonalds and were trying to explain to the 'officer' that you can cycle in this bit of town centre square!!

If these three lads are right - and you need to check rather than rely simply on what they said - then being found not guilty at court is a given; but you need to check the facts very carefully about whether you are allowed to cycle in that bit of the town and also if the officer observed you cycling on the pavement before you entered the permitted area, but just happened to stop you there.

 

In short, there is no mileage on a rant or trying to laugh it off as ridiculous. You have been accused of a criminal offence and given a chance to settle it by FPN to avoid going to court. If you believe that you are not guilty of the offence, then research your case very carefully and produce evidence to refute the officer's decision.

[green_and_mean]

Even if they keep it the same as the FPN, you still have to pay costs (about £35) and victim surcharge (£15)

 

And of course there is also the time wasted spending the day at Court and the time of a Police Officer wasted who could be out doing better things.

 

A exemption to allow cycling on the footway will be clearly be marked by signage showing a pedestrian and a cycle on a blue back ground which would have been evident along with footway markings. You do not see signs telling car drivers not to drive on the path why would cyclists be any different and need signs.

 

If you think its laughable I would say its comical that you would think a couple of 'lads' from Mcdonalds know the law better than a sworn Police officer!

[awf]

Comical but it's sad that three lads would actually appear to know more G_a_M. How much do the police destroy their own reputations the more they enforce crap like this? (regardless of whether a bit of parliamentary paper says it's illegal or not).

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Something to consider:

If you contest and lose, does a conviction create problems if you need a US visa waiver? Don't know the answer but worth investigating.

[Tygermoth]

Once again thank you for your replies.

 

i have considered the matter and have decided i will go to court.

 

The justice system was created to give you the opportunity to go to court to have them arbitrate and if the 'special constable' wants to issue fines to me he best do his job fully and explain the reasoning to both me and his peers.

 

I feel a day lost leave and the risks you have named well worth exercising my rights.

 

Have a good weekend all.

 

tygermoth

[green_and_mean]

Comical but it's sad that three lads would actually appear to know more G_a_M. How much do the police destroy their own reputations the more they enforce crap like this? (regardless of whether a bit of parliamentary paper says it's illegal or not).

 

So if I leave Mcdonalds and tell a copper they cannot arrest someone for an offence it automatically means I'm correct does it? The law is there for a reason imagine a bike hitting a child or a pensioner walking down the street would that be funny to?

[green_and_mean]

Once again thank you for your replies.

 

i have considered the matter and have decided i will go to court.

 

tygermoth

 

Don't forget and come back to tell us how much the fine was.

[Goldlady]

I would think statistically there is more chance of being hit by a car, bus or lorry while cycling on a main road. I would not cycle anywhere other than the footpath these days and most towns have cycle routes anyway. Even the footpath over the Tyne Bridge is a cycle route for safety reasons. And if the local council have not taken the necessary steps to ensure the safety of cyclists is this not an argument as well? We are constantly encouraged to save energy and cut congestion after all...

[green_and_mean]

I would think statistically there is more chance of being hit by a car, bus or lorry while cycling on a main road. I would not cycle anywhere other than the footpath these days and most towns have cycle routes anyway. Even the footpath over the Tyne Bridge is a cycle route for safety reasons. And if the local council have not taken the necessary steps to ensure the safety of cyclists is this not an argument as well? We are constantly encouraged to save energy and cut congestion after all...

 

 

Many deaths on the road are motorcyclists hit by cars maybe they should use the footpath too?

[Goldlady]

Hmm - well what about motorised wheelchairs? They can go at quite a speed and as far as I am aware you don't need to have any particular skill or insurance to use one.

[green_and_mean]

I usually travel at 25-35mph when cycling the thought of being allowed to cycle legally on the footway at those speeds is ridiculous. There are shared use paths but these are clearly marked by law to warn pedestrians of the danger but we are talking about a regular footway here. The argument of allowing you to ride on the path because you find roads frightening would be like allowing nervous drivers on the motorway to drive on the hard shoulder to avoid the traffic.

Also bare in mind that most cyclist have no insurance so if they hit a pedestrian they could be sued in Court for any damages which could run into thousands of pounds since being on the footway would in most cases make them automatically at fault.

[patdavies]

Hmm - well what about motorised wheelchairs? They can go at quite a speed and as far as I am aware you don't need to have any particular skill or insurance to use one.

 

If they are restricted to 4 mph or less, they are for footpath use only.

 

If they can exceed 4 mph, but not 8 mph they must use the road

 

This site helps

[blueskies]

I notice you keep putting Special Constable in inverted commas as though it makes a difference.

 

A Special Constable has exactly the same powers as a regular Constable and, if he/she is issuing Fixed Penalty Notices, has the same level of training in the laws behind them.

 

I hate hearing the words "Why aren't they out catching real criminals?". I got this myself from a driver that had half a crate of beer in his bloodstream.

Laws are there to protect people, this one trying to protect the large number of people that are injured and, in some cases killed, by cyclists riding on pavements. Before you say that you were being careful, listen to what the cyclists who have had accidents have said afterwards.

 

I agree that cycling on the roads isn't necessarily safe but this should be where you should put your efforts in, campaign for cycle routes etc. I live in Newcastle too and the cycle routes here are very good.

[Tygermoth]

Once again thank you for your responses, to which some have helpful suggestions.

 

!. I never implied the lads that came from McDonalds were in the right or knew more that the 'special constable' it was to illustrate the fact that the area is not locally known to be pedestrianised

 

2.I have never implied that the cyclists should be allowed on pavements

 

3. And i have put the 'special constable' in inverted commas because he did himself during the conversation, i think during the whole affair he mentioned it several times, possibly more. i cannot think of the gentlemen in question without those inverted commas popping up in my head.

 

4. I have not laughed the matter off, nor disregarded the severity of the issue, however i do feel the placement of the signs an local knowledge gives sway to the fact that the area in question is not pedestrianised. As advised on this forum I am in the process of researching the matter and taking advice, early indications seem to show in my favour.

 

5. I respect the law and in all my years have never once had to deal with a policeman, fine or caution. i would not even consider refuting the case if i felt that i deserved the FPN. I never said that they should be out catching 'real criminals'.

 

6. I feel that i should outline the offence mentioned was 'riding on a footpath' but in fact i was on a road. the 'special constable' advised me that the road was within an pedestrianised area. to which the sign noting this had been vandalised. (photographs of the three vandalised signs have been taken and the 'special constable' also noted that they were illegible)

 

7. 3 years ago i was hit by a car while cycling home from work. On busy Saturday afternoon, sunny day and wearing all my protective & reflective gear. Due to the way i impacted with both the car and the floor i broke all my front teeth, my jaw, hand , wrist and elbow. The gentleman in question stated that he 'just didn't see me', scraped me and my teeth off his car then fled the scene. as such i can understand (not necessarily agree) why some people chose to take the pavement rather than the road. I am lucky in the fact the local area is fairly rural and we have quite a few cycle paths so i do not have to make the choice!

 

I suppose i am unhappy that the 'special constable' chose to take the matter that far, asking me to dismount and advising me that the area was not for the use of cycles would have been sufficient and dare i say expected? however the hardcore posters on this thread may feel for this transgression in law that he had every right... that may be the case but somehow i feel this was all a bit unnecessary.

 

I will be happy to return to this thread and update you with any fine that is given or advice from my experience.

 

Kind regards

 

Tygermoth

[blueskies]

Once again thank you for your responses, to which some have helpful suggestions.

 

!. I never implied the lads that came from McDonalds were in the right or knew more that the 'special constable' it was to illustrate the fact that the area is not locally known to be pedestrianised

 

2.I have never implied that the cyclists should be allowed on pavements

 

3. And i have put the 'special constable' in inverted commas because he did himself during the conversation, i think during the whole affair he mentioned it several times, possibly more. i cannot think of the gentlemen in question without those inverted commas popping up in my head.

 

4. I have not laughed the matter off, nor disregarded the severity of the issue, however i do feel the placement of the signs an local knowledge gives sway to the fact that the area in question is not pedestrianised. As advised on this forum I am in the process of researching the matter and taking advice, early indications seem to show in my favour.

 

5. I respect the law and in all my years have never once had to deal with a policeman, fine or caution. i would not even consider refuting the case if i felt that i deserved the FPN. I never said that they should be out catching 'real criminals'.

 

6. I feel that i should outline the offence mentioned was 'riding on a footpath' but in fact i was on a road. the 'special constable' advised me that the road was within an pedestrianised area. to which the sign noting this had been vandalised. (photographs of the three vandalised signs have been taken and the 'special constable' also noted that they were illegible)

 

7. 3 years ago i was hit by a car while cycling home from work. On busy Saturday afternoon, sunny day and wearing all my protective & reflective gear. Due to the way i impacted with both the car and the floor i broke all my front teeth, my jaw, hand , wrist and elbow. The gentleman in question stated that he 'just didn't see me', scraped me and my teeth off his car then fled the scene. as such i can understand (not necessarily agree) why some people chose to take the pavement rather than the road. I am lucky in the fact the local area is fairly rural and we have quite a few cycle paths so i do not have to make the choice!

 

I suppose i am unhappy that the 'special constable' chose to take the matter that far, asking me to dismount and advising me that the area was not for the use of cycles would have been sufficient and dare i say expected? however the hardcore posters on this thread may feel for this transgression in law that he had every right... that may be the case but somehow i feel this was all a bit unnecessary.

 

I will be happy to return to this thread and update you with any fine that is given or advice from my experience.

 

Kind regards

 

Tygermoth

 

Thank you for the clarification of the issues in this post. If the place you were cycling was, in fact a pedestrianised road then the case is different. There would have to be clear signs stating whether bicycles (or any other vehicle for that matter) were prohibited and at what times. If this is not the case then you should have a fairly good chance in court.

 

I wish you luck and will follow this thread with interest.