Cycling UK Forum

NickWi wrote: ↑9 May 2023, 12:28pm It is worth reading the actual Act as it somewhat disagrees with many of the ideas batted around the forum:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/15/enacted
My bold & interpretation, but I read it as.

Part 1
1. Offence of locking on
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)they—
(i)attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land,
(ii)attach a person to another person, to an object or to land, or
(iii)attach an object to another object or to land,

(b)that act causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—
(i)two or more individuals, or
(ii)an organisation,
in a place other than a dwelling,and
(c)they intend that act to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.

(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.

(3)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences, to a fine or to both.

(4)In subsection (3), “the maximum term for summary offences” means—
(a)if the offence is committed before the time when section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales) comes into force, six months;
(b)if the offence is committed after that time, 51 weeks.

(5)In this section “dwelling” means—
(a)a building or structure which is used as a dwelling, or
(b)a part of a building or structure, if the part is used as a dwelling,
and includes any yard, garden, grounds, garage or outhouse belonging to and used with a dwelling.

2. Offence of being equipped for locking on
(1)A person commits an offence if they have an object with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section 1(1) (offence of locking on).
(2)A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(3)In this section “dwelling” has the same meaning as in section 1.

As I read this if you choose to lock your bike to either something or something stupid, and it causes serious disruption and they can prove you did it deliberately or you just didn't care that by locking it up where & how you did it cause disruption, then you have committed an offence, and frankly, quite rightly so. Just as we complain about cars parking in cycling lanes, pedestrian have the right to complain about bikes locked in stupid places, narrowing the pavement and causing problems for users, particularly those with prams, wheelchairs etc.

The law provides a defence of having 'a reasonable excuse' for locking your bike up how you did, and one bike locked parallel to some railings next to the shop your in sounds reasonable to me, parked at 90deg to the railings wouldn't. Only case law will decide what is or isn't a reasonable excuse. As for just carry a lock, the law states to commit the offence you must have the intention that it may be used in the course of or in connection with...... It's the similar sort of offence of having a baseball bat in your car. Show the officer the rest of your sports kit, or in our case that you're commuting to work & back, and they haven't got a leg to stand on. If however the same officer finds other things like cannabis in the car they've stopped, then having that baseball bat with you becomes a carrying an offence weapon wrap.

In the grand scheme of things, provided you've locked your bike up sensibly, you aren't blocking anyone and you're carrying a lock because it's necessary, (not because if you police did your job properly I would have to would I, though I wouldn't actually say that face to face with a confrontational officer), I don't see how this will really affect day to day cyclist.

The ‘Reasonable Excuse’ is not before arrest but can only be used after being charged. Which is a bit late as being arrested and charged has probably already ruined someone’s life.

“10. While there is a defence of having a “reasonable excuse”, as pointed out by Lord Paddick in relation to an identical defence for the offence of public nuisance, since it is a defence rather than a required element of the offence that the individual has no reasonable excuse for their actions, “the police would be justified in arresting and charging people who
11 Parliament, ‘Hansard (Lords Chamber), Volume 816: debated on Wednesday 24 November 2021’, column 979.
4

believed that they had a reasonable excuse because the reasonable excuse provision applies only once a person has been charged.”“

sore thumb wrote: ↑9 May 2023, 9:53am

a.twiddler wrote: ↑9 May 2023, 9:46am This looks like a case of unintended consequences following a piece of poorly thought out legislation. This itself arose from a knee jerk reaction by the government to people's right to protest as headlined in certain right wing media.

When a test case occurs, then we will know there is something to worry about. Meanwhile all cars have security and locking systems. Are the owners of these one ton blocking systems going to be arrested for obstructing the passage of more than one person, when they park on pavements, cycle lanes, and other inappropriate places? Without specialist equipment they are immovable objects. I very much doubt it.

I really think this legislation is a London centric sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. Is every cyclist in danger of being surrounded by swarms of police officers every time they secure their bike? In somebody's disordered and paranoid dreams. In most parts of the country you are hard pressed to find a police officer, let alone those who can be arsked to do the paperwork for even burglaries and downwards due to the reduction in numbers over the last decade or so.

Leaving aside the morality of the Bill restricting people's rights to protest, this sounds like someone crying before they are hypothetically hurt.

It won’t apply to cars as cars are self locking and you do not lock a car to another object

It will apply to bicycles as you lock a bicycle using a lock to another object

However, the law might apply to a vehicle clamping company putting a wheel camp on your car.
So maybe we might see a test case from this as drivers don’t like clamping company’s. I wonder if this is not technically illegal as if you had two people in the car then putting the lock on does impede more than one person??

a.twiddler wrote: ↑9 May 2023, 9:46am This looks like a case of unintended consequences following a piece of poorly thought out legislation. This itself arose from a knee jerk reaction by the government to people's right to protest as headlined in certain right wing media.

When a test case occurs, then we will know there is something to worry about. Meanwhile all cars have security and locking systems. Are the owners of these one ton blocking systems going to be arrested for obstructing the passage of more than one person, when they park on pavements, cycle lanes, and other inappropriate places? Without specialist equipment they are immovable objects. I very much doubt it.

I really think this legislation is a London centric sledgehammer to crack a very small nut. Is every cyclist in danger of being surrounded by swarms of police officers every time they secure their bike? In somebody's disordered and paranoid dreams. In most parts of the country you are hard pressed to find a police officer, let alone those who can be arsked to do the paperwork for even burglaries and downwards due to the reduction in numbers over the last decade or so.

Leaving aside the morality of the Bill restricting people's rights to protest, this sounds like someone crying before they are hypothetically hurt.

It won’t apply to cars as cars are self locking and you do not lock a car to another object

It will apply to bicycles as you lock a bicycle using a lock to another object

Jdsk wrote: ↑9 May 2023, 7:33am Rozenberg's initial analysis, including bike locks and intent.

"Police regret anti-monarchy arrests. But who is to blame for rushing new offences into law?":
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/police ... hy-arrests
(Substack, restricted access but free trial)

Jonathan

Hi

Within this article it seems that he is asking those that carry bike locks (cyclists) to seek legal advise

This law is not looking good for cyclists

Quote
“ Those at risk of committing the new offence — people who carry bicycle locks, for example — can learn how the law has changed and seek legal advice.”


As a side thought, could the public order law affect bicycle insurance? Insurance company’s insist that you lock your bike, however locking your bike could be seen as potentially illegal? Would this stop insurance company’s asking you to lock your bike are they not asking you to carry out a criminal offence now?

cycle tramp wrote: ↑8 May 2023, 10:27pm

sore thumb wrote: ↑8 May 2023, 5:27pm It looks like the new Public Order Act has unintended consequences...

“11. The offence can also be committed where someone attaches an “object” to a person, another “object” or the land. Again, the ambiguity and vagueness of this wording is cause for serious concern. It would appear that the police would be fully justified in arresting someone for thoughtlessly locking up their bicycle where it might impede more than one person walking down the street, or someone who ties up their dog outside of a café while getting a coffee where the dog causes disruptive noise or otherwise impedes pedestrians.

https://files.justice.org.uk/wp-content ... y-2022.pdf

Also

Section 2 of the Bill also makes it an offence simply for ‘being equipped for locking on’.

https://www.gmlaw.org.uk/2022/09/13/no- ... rder-bill/

I’m concerned that people will make complaints about cyclists, cyclists locking their bikes up and the police now have powers that could be used to arrest cyclists just for carrying a bike lock or locking their bike to none bicycle designed stands such as a lamppost. One law designed for one purpose could be used in ways it was not designed for?

Thoughts?

What police? I have never seen the police in any of the centre towns I've visited in the last seven years.
The last time I saw them was the middle of last year, when they drove past me, whilst I was cycling on a pavement... they didn't even stop..

I can see that point, however in some parts of the country where police have targeted operations against cyclists such as pavement cycling or red light jumping, all a police officer has to do if they want to be difficult, is find out if your carrying a lock and then your arrested for carrying the lock. They might release you later without charge but don’t think that some officers won’t want to use this law as a reason to arrest someone.

Go to a cycling campaign die-in and the police could arrest most of the cyclists if they want now, just for carrying a lock.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑8 May 2023, 9:19pm I thought it was clear that I was referring to the link immediately above the comment

No intent necessary here

I assure you that I have quoted it in the utmost good faith as being a relevant bit of the link apparently being used to contradict me. If you feel the need to check now I've copied and pasted it please feel free.

There is intent I believe. I intended to lock my bike and intended to leave my bike locked so someone does not steal my bike (attaches an ‘object to another ‘object’) — the object is your bicycle and the other object is what you are locking your bike too

The lords appear concerned that the act essentially makes locking your bike up illegal if it impedes more than one person as below

“11. The offence can also be committed where someone attaches an “object” to a person, another “object” or the land. Again, the ambiguity and vagueness of this wording is cause for serious concern. It would appear that the police would be fully justified in arresting someone for thoughtlessly locking up their bicycle where it might impede more than one person walking down the street, or someone who ties up their dog outside of a café while getting a coffee where the dog causes disruptive noise or otherwise impedes pedestrians.”

https://files.justice.org.uk/wp-content ... y-2022.pdf




Reading this paper has really opened up my eyes to this Act, it looks like that even paramedics providing treatment to someone that is committing an offence according to this act is also committing an offence.

I hope the college of paramedics look at this, because this law criminalises paramedics as well. As below

“13. Of further concern is the offence of being equipped for locking on, which criminalises an even wider breadth of conduct. A person commits the offence, and is liable for an unlimited fine, where they have an “object” with them with the intention that it will be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person for an offence of locking on. Given the enormous width of the offence, it is difficult to appreciate how many activities involve “objects” that will be used “in the course of or in connection with” locking on.
14. This would appear to capture and criminalise paramedics supervising locking on protests with emergency medical equipment,”




That’s slightly off topic as I’m the wider concern of the unintended implications that it essentially makes it illegal for cyclists to carry a lock and could be seen as a criminal offence if you lock your bike up and it causes an impediment to people


Thoughts

We have seen cases where cyclists have sworn on their own cameras when they have been nearly killed by a drivers actions, the cyclists have submitted these videos to police and then the police have threatened the cyclist with a public order offence.

Don’t think that the police won’t use these powers against cyclists if and when they see fit.

CyclingUK need to give some advice to members or a statement on this law and how it could affect cyclists.

As well as a bike lock, I also carry a tiny amount of superglue and the rubber glue if I need to make repairs. I also carry small amount of gaffa tape again for repairs. I also carry some pliers which also has a tiny knife on for repairs. All these items that a few weeks ago were legal could carrying them now be used as an excuse to arrest a cyclist?

A few circumstances that came to mind where this law could be used against cyclists directly could be :-

At a local cycling organised group that want to protest against a cycle path being removed or maybe a cycling die-in to protest against cyclist deaths. Any cyclists that turn up with a bike lock could get arrested.

Or maybe a local shopping centre landowners security are not happy where you have locked your bike, and call the police to get you arrested

It looks like the new Public Order Act has had the unintended consequences of essentially making it illegal for a cyclist to carry a bike lock and also a cyclist could be arrested if locking up their bicycle, if it impedes just one person.

I would like to know what legal advice Cycling UK can now give to members to reassure them that this law won’t be used t against cyclists going about their innocent public activities.



“11. The offence can also be committed where someone attaches an “object” to a person, another “object” or the land. Again, the ambiguity and vagueness of this wording is cause for serious concern. It would appear that the police would be fully justified in arresting someone for thoughtlessly locking up their bicycle where it might impede more than one person walking down the street, or someone who ties up their dog outside of a café while getting a coffee where the dog causes disruptive noise or otherwise impedes pedestrians.
12. Though, as stated by Baroness Williams, “t is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for carrying the equipment in question. For example, carrying a bike lock for the purposes of locking one’s bike to a designated space for bikes could be considered a reasonable excuse”, it is surely alarming that people will need to have “reasonable excuses” for carrying out these peaceful actions in order to avoid the potential for up to 51 weeks in prison and an unlimited fine. The remit of the criminal conduct must be more narrowly confined, as it is highly concerning that individuals can be arrested and charged for actions such as locking up their bicycle.”

https://files.justice.org.uk/wp-content ... y-2022.pdf

Also

Section 2 of the Bill also makes it an offence simply for ‘being equipped for locking on’.

This is perhaps a more challenging and alarming provision and it holds that someone commits an offence if they have in their possession ‘outside a dwelling’, i.e. in public, equipment that may be used for ‘locking on’. As pointed out by JUSTICE, an object could be as simple as having a bike lock in your bag. This is concerning, as unrelated and perfectly innocent public activities could land you with a fine and act as a strike towards the above-mentioned offences, possibly resulting in a prison sentence.

https://www.gmlaw.org.uk/2022/09/13/no- ... rder-bill/

I’m concerned that people will make complaints about cyclists, cyclists locking their bikes up and the police now have powers that could be used to arrest cyclists just for carrying a bike lock or locking their bike to none bicycle designed stands such as a lamppost. One law designed for one purpose could be used in ways it was not designed for?

Thoughts?

Don’t read the daily Mail

And not using Twitter helps me but does not stop the hate and does not change that the anti cycling posts when a cycling organisation is posting is fuelling reducing cycling numbers.

Unfortunately just ignoring the increasing cycling hate could be allowing it to increase

Sadly the increasing cycling hate would make anyone think twice even just putting up a nice picture of a nice ride on social media. Put anything about cycling on social media, and you get a pile on of anti cycling trolls.

Is the negative cycling posts due to a very vocal minority and/or a true representation of society’s opinion of cyclists?

Can anything really be done, or do we just accept the abuse?

I’ve stated to notice that when cycling groups/organisations post anything about cycling to promote or encourage cycling that the majority of the reply’s are directly anti-cycling or passive aggressive anti-cycling posts.

I’m wondering if the increasing anti-cycling targeted hate posts generally that are replying to cycling organisations are a result of the alleged lack of filtering of hate / aggression by Twitter and the alleged failure of twitters reporting system, or a result of how our society is generally anti-cycling at the moment.

In that past when I have reported hate I’ve had action taken but more recently when I’ve reported cyclist hate I’ve not had a single action taken.

Are we seeing a targeted hate against cyclists increasing in society and then seeing this increase in social media and/or is it a potential failure in certain social media companys that are failing to prevent the increase in hate posts

A sad result of this, is no one can post anything nice about cycling without being bombarded by a large amount of targeted cyclists hate. I’m sure some will just block and ignore these types of posts, but a lot of people won’t be able to cope with the stress of this and could also become more fearful of cycling and fear that there appears to be an increase in cyclists being targeted out on the road.

It’s putting me off even reading CyclingUKs Twitter feed as most reply’s are now anti-cycling, reading the reply’s just makes you depressed and makes you feel frightened and that you as a cyclist are just hated so much.

Such a sad society we are living in at the moment. There is no tolerance

Seen an article in cycling weekly regarding cyclists having to stop to allow drivers to pass?.

Could this rule in the Highway Code give drivers an excuse to criticise cyclists behaviour on social media and as such drivers will have the belief that cyclists must stop for them?



What are your thoughts and are cycling organisations aware of this Highway Code rule?




Article link below

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/are- ... de-changes

When in court it will be a jury that almost all will probably drive, the police that will almost all drive, the judge that will probably drive and the lawyers that will also probably drive.

It's a culture in this country to dislike cyclists and motoring offences and offences against cyclists are not seen as real crime.

So can cyclists really see crime committed against them dealt with correctly and true punishment dealt.

No, not whilst it is a true motorist culture with a dislike against cyclists.

Because a cyclist was assaulted nothing will be done.

If a person is assaulted whilst not having a bike on their person then a different story.

When you book not told of any issues for the weekend.

Get there and see signs that noise will not be tolerated after 10.00.

Then a wedding party starts, two big white marquees. All permitted by campsite owners.

The 80s disco music only stopped at 10.30pm.

So owners to obey their own rules and should have told me when I booked as I would not have booked.

Ruined my weekend.