Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2276
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby hondated » 8 Jan 2019, 6:02pm

pwa wrote:I have no experience of that, but if you made a mistake you are just human. My inclination in your position would be to go along, state what happened and your reasoning / confusion at the time, and do it with an apologetic smile. I wonder if in fact you were confused because what you were meant to do was not made clear enough on the ground.

It sounds to me like you are a law abiding person who takes pride in that, and feel sullied by finding yourself on the wrong side of some local regulation. But nobody gets it right all the time. We all get something wrong once in a while. Be easy on yourself.

Well said pwa +1

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 1979
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby The utility cyclist » 8 Jan 2019, 6:17pm

Dafydd17 wrote:
iandusud wrote:I regularly use cycle path that is shared with pedestrians and as such I moderate my speed and always give way to pedestrians.

Ian

If you are not quite in a minority of one, you are most certainly in the minority. It's unfortunate that the black looks you are getting from pedestrians are probably due to the previous cyclists who have whizzed by them at silly speeds, often from behind, with no warning whatsoever, thus scaring the daylights out of them. Please don't tell me this doesn't happen, I have seen this from both sides, and have now got to the point that I'm reluctant to take my dogs for a walk on my local path, which is shared use, with signage asking cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Some do, but one never knows if an approaching cyclist is one or not. A simple "Hello" to let me know they are there, and give me a chance to get out of the way, is all that's needed, but that's too hard, it seems. OK, rant over.

What is 'whizzing' and what is 'silly speeds'? Do you expect people on bikes to slow down to less than jogging speed and move onto the road instea dof passing within a metre or so, often greater than received by motorists at three and four times the speed? Pedestrians are no more vulnerable than people on bikes, whilst you can/should take caution for pedestrians who cannot see you, being disgruntled because a cyclist came past you at a reasonable distance given the harm posed at 2-3 times LESS than the posted speed limit for motorvehicles just 3-4 feet away is ludicrous.
Pedestrians over react far too often, they get a bee in their bonnet over nothing, you always hear, 'nearly hit me', funny how that's a very common theme and government stats prove that peds put themselves in danger and do not take care when it comes to collisions with pedestrians, 50% worse when it comes to deaths. So the evidence shows us it's not cyclists not taking care but pedestrians, that's even through the eyes of those wanting more laws and wanting to punish people on bikes greater than they already are.

Let's not start down the route of using subjective language like 'whizzing' and 'silly speeds' when they are meaningless, particularly when the facts show us pedestrians take less care than people on bikes for their safety despite the similarities in vulnerability.

My advice to the OP, avoid Royal Parks, they are nothing short of an anti cycling playground with those policing it simply there to penalise rather than try to modify behaviour through advice and despite no actual threat being posed. Unlike the way police behave when it comes to actual life-threatening behaviour. Typical double standards.

User avatar
hondated
Posts: 2276
Joined: 27 Mar 2008, 7:59am
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby hondated » 8 Jan 2019, 6:18pm

Dafydd17 wrote:
iandusud wrote:I regularly use cycle path that is shared with pedestrians and as such I moderate my speed and always give way to pedestrians.

Ian

If you are not quite in a minority of one, you are most certainly in the minority. It's unfortunate that the black looks you are getting from pedestrians are probably due to the previous cyclists who have whizzed by them at silly speeds, often from behind, with no warning whatsoever, thus scaring the daylights out of them. Please don't tell me this doesn't happen, I have seen this from both sides, and have now got to the point that I'm reluctant to take my dogs for a walk on my local path, which is shared use, with signage asking cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Some do, but one never knows if an approaching cyclist is one or not. A simple "Hello" to let me know they are there, and give me a chance to get out of the way, is all that's needed, but that's too hard, it seems. OK, rant over.

Have to agree with Ian here as the few times I decide to ride on a path for safety at a moderate speed like him I either get accosted or given a look of disdain.
When I should approach pedestrians from behind I either say excuse me or make the sound of a bell with my mouth but unfortunately many times this has no effect as they are wearing earphones and are not even aware I am there.

Today out on a ride and to avoid a busy road junction I rode on a pavement where there was not even one person and what did I hear a passing motorist abusing me as they drove past. Great !

bogmyrtle
Posts: 844
Joined: 5 Mar 2008, 10:29pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby bogmyrtle » 8 Jan 2019, 6:40pm

Was it a fixed penalty you were issued?
If so, pay the fine and then forget about it. There should be no repercussions.
A fixed penalty is basically a lawful bribe which if accepted by the recipient, avoids a court case. The issuing officer should only ever serve one if they have sufficient evidence to take the matter to court in the event of non payment of the fixed penalty.

Apologies, just reread the initial post. Seems this advice is too late.
Get legal advice.
Dont let it get you down. Put it down to experience.
A bike does more miles to the banana than a Porsche.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 44231
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby Mick F » 8 Jan 2019, 6:48pm

bogmyrtle wrote:Was it a fixed penalty you were issued?
If so, pay the fine and then forget about it. There should be no repercussions.
A fixed penalty is basically a lawful bribe which if accepted by the recipient, avoids a court case. The issuing officer should only ever serve one if they have sufficient evidence to take the matter to court in the event of non payment of the fixed penalty.
I found a fixed penalty parking ticket on the ground in a multi storey carpark once. The reg number on it wasn't any of the cars that I could see nearby, so I can only assume that the parking transgressor had pulled it off his front window and scarpered.

I put the ticket back on the ground where I found it, but I wonder what the repercussions would have been.
Perhaps it wasn't affixed properly and the car driver never saw it .......... or that would be his defence.
Mick F. Cornwall

gbnz
Posts: 1365
Joined: 13 Sep 2008, 10:38am

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby gbnz » 8 Jan 2019, 6:55pm

bogmyrtle wrote:Was it a fixed penalty you were issued?
If so, pay the fine and then forget about it. There should be no repercussions.
A fixed penalty is basically a lawful bribe which if accepted by the recipient, avoids a court case. The issuing officer should only ever serve one if they have sufficient evidence to take the matter to court in the event of non payment of the fixed penalty.


Have to admit I'd agree with the above.

The costs involved in fighting a £60.00 FPN aren't worth it (Nb. Time, money, potential outcomes) and given that it has no long term consequences it can be ignored from a pragmatic perspective

thirdcrank
Posts: 28000
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby thirdcrank » 8 Jan 2019, 7:28pm

Trawling for further information, I came across this discussion on how to deal with a fixed penalty in a Royal Park
http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/i ... 62582.html

It may - or may not - come as a bit of comfort to those who believe that enforcement targets only cyclists.

st599_uk
Posts: 43
Joined: 4 Nov 2018, 8:59pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby st599_uk » 8 Jan 2019, 9:53pm

pete75 wrote:When the Metropolitan Police say they're not bothering to investigate low level crimes like shoplifting and burglary due to lack of resources it's somewhat astonishing they are bothering with petty incidents like this one.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... nding-cuts


I think when the Royal Parks Constabulary was subsumed in to the Met in 2004, their budget and responsibilities were ring-fenced. So the Met may not be investigating low-level crimes, but the Parks Police (in their branded vehicles) still do.
A novice learning...
“the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”

Dafydd17
Posts: 79
Joined: 14 Dec 2013, 3:56pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby Dafydd17 » 8 Jan 2019, 10:10pm

The utility cyclist wrote:What is 'whizzing' and what is 'silly speeds'? Do you expect people on bikes to slow down to less than jogging speed and move onto the road instea dof passing within a metre or so, often greater than received by motorists at three and four times the speed? Pedestrians are no more vulnerable than people on bikes, whilst you can/should take caution for pedestrians who cannot see you, being disgruntled because a cyclist came past you at a reasonable distance given the harm posed at 2-3 times LESS than the posted speed limit for motorvehicles just 3-4 feet away is ludicrous.
Pedestrians over react far too often, they get a bee in their bonnet over nothing, you always hear, 'nearly hit me', funny how that's a very common theme and government stats prove that peds put themselves in danger and do not take care when it comes to collisions with pedestrians, 50% worse when it comes to deaths. So the evidence shows us it's not cyclists not taking care but pedestrians, that's even through the eyes of those wanting more laws and wanting to punish people on bikes greater than they already are.

Let's not start down the route of using subjective language like 'whizzing' and 'silly speeds' when they are meaningless, particularly when the facts show us pedestrians take less care than people on bikes for their safety despite the similarities in vulnerability.



Thank you so much for clearing that up for me - I just hadn't realized! Let me see if I've got it right, if I'm on my bike, I can ride as fast as I like regardless of danger to pedestrians, should I hit one it's their own silly fault. And if I'm on foot, well, I deserve everything I get for being in the way. Well, that's OK then.

1066enthalpies1939
Posts: 42
Joined: 16 Jul 2018, 10:33pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby 1066enthalpies1939 » 8 Jan 2019, 10:33pm

EllaSquish wrote:Hi everyone,

I'm completely new here and I'm grateful to have found this forum, which I did because of my mad googling about a charge I've been given. I'd really appreciate any advice!

I cycled over a pedestrian footbridge in regents park in November and was given a £60 fine. The police office took my details and I'm ashamed to say I wasn't very nice to him (not swearing, more crying in anger! the shame...). He told me if I wanted to appeal it I can and when I read the piece of paper it said something about court but he said something along the lines of it probably won't get to that... well it has. I've just received a "written charge, attendance required" at court. I'm pretty sure I was in the wrong, as I definitely cycled over the bridge, My only defence is that I really wasn't sure what bit I could/couldn't cycle over, so I got off and back on at one point. The police officer said he caught me on camera.

Has anyone got any experience of this or advice on how to proceed? Feeling quite scared about the repercussions, not just monetary.

The official title of the regulation is:
Regulation 3(4) of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 and section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926.

Thanks so much,
Ella


I know Regents Park very well I would be very surprise if you had not ridden over a no cycling sign or wording to that effect mark on the path.

In RP you are permitted to ride around the outer and inner circle and down the broad walk excluding the section south of Chester Road. It is all clearly marked . If you rode over the bridge I think you did by the boating lake you would have gone past a sign.

iandusud
Posts: 184
Joined: 26 Mar 2018, 1:35pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby iandusud » 9 Jan 2019, 8:17am

Dafydd17 wrote:
iandusud wrote:I regularly use cycle path that is shared with pedestrians and as such I moderate my speed and always give way to pedestrians.

Ian

If you are not quite in a minority of one, you are most certainly in the minority. It's unfortunate that the black looks you are getting from pedestrians are probably due to the previous cyclists who have whizzed by them at silly speeds, often from behind, with no warning whatsoever, thus scaring the daylights out of them. Please don't tell me this doesn't happen, I have seen this from both sides, and have now got to the point that I'm reluctant to take my dogs for a walk on my local path, which is shared use, with signage asking cyclists to give way to pedestrians. Some do, but one never knows if an approaching cyclist is one or not. A simple "Hello" to let me know they are there, and give me a chance to get out of the way, is all that's needed, but that's too hard, it seems. OK, rant over.


The local path I'm referring to is one that I use regularly as both a cyclist and a walker. I can assure you that I'm not in a minority. I find virtually all the cyclist who use this path, and they are many, are careful and courteous. The biggest problem I have when cycling on this path is with dog walkers who can't / don't control their dogs. I regularly have to come to a halt to avoid a collision. This is usually accompanied by an apology from the dog walker and a friendly "no problem" from me. I accept that as a shared use path I'm going to have to live with this sort of thing. I just wish that all users of this "shared use" path understood what the word shared means.

With regard to cyclists who "whizz by at silly speeds", I have never witnessed this on this path. It is a path popular with both walkers and cyclists but cyclists wishing to ride fast avoid it for this reason, as do I if I'm off for a spirited ride or on weekends in the summer when it is very busy.

i don't doubt that you have experienced the behaviour of inconsiderate cyclists, and I'm sorry to hear it, but I do not believe that considerate cyclists, as consider myself to be, are in a minority. Quite the contrary and I think you owe the members of this forum an apology.

Ian

robing
Posts: 941
Joined: 7 Sep 2014, 9:11am

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby robing » 9 Jan 2019, 8:45am

Going back to the initial incident, did the OP have to give their name and address to the cop, or could they have just chosen the right to remain silent? It's a bit a grey area. They could in theory arrest you, but for what, a bye law?
Last edited by robing on 9 Jan 2019, 9:44am, edited 1 time in total.

eileithyia
Posts: 7699
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby eileithyia » 9 Jan 2019, 8:57am

pwa wrote:I have no experience of that, but if you made a mistake you are just human. My inclination in your position would be to go along, state what happened and your reasoning / confusion at the time, and do it with an apologetic smile. I wonder if in fact you were confused because what you were meant to do was not made clear enough on the ground.

It sounds to me like you are a law abiding person who takes pride in that, and feel sullied by finding yourself on the wrong side of some local regulation. But nobody gets it right all the time. We all get something wrong once in a while. Be easy on yourself.


+1
Welcome to the forum.I am not familiar with London and it's park bye laws. But guess we all make mistakes... years ago I got a parking fine. Across the road the sign indicated what time I could park on the road. Went off to the shops, came back 20mins later and found the ticket. That was when I realised you could park one side of the road between certain hours and the other side between different hours... and of course I had got it wrong. Nothing to do but suck it up and pay up.

We are human, we make mistakes, we have to accept it and move on. It is annoying but no one died... and life is too short.
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells

thirdcrank
Posts: 28000
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Jan 2019, 9:46am

Going back to the initial incident, did the OP have to give their name and address to the cop, or could they have just chosen the right to remain silent? It's a bit a grey area.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997

General
5. Where a constable has reasonable ground for belief that a person has contravened any one or more of these Regulations, that person shall give on demand his name and address to that constable.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997 ... ion/5/made
===================================================================================
To anticipate the next question, this is the relevant police power of arrest, edited for clarity

110
Powers of arrest

(1)For section 24 of PACE (arrest without warrant for arrestable offences) substitute—
“24 Arrest without warrant: constables
.......
(2) If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.
(3) If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—
(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(4) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.
(5) The reasons are—
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name); ...
(My emphasis.)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/section/110

There's unintended irony in the title of this legislation:
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

st599_uk
Posts: 43
Joined: 4 Nov 2018, 8:59pm

Re: Royal Park cycling - charged with offence

Postby st599_uk » 9 Jan 2019, 12:03pm

robing wrote:Going back to the initial incident, did the OP have to give their name and address to the cop, or could they have just chosen the right to remain silent? It's a bit a grey area. They could in theory arrest you, but for what, a bye law?


Under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 a police officer can arrest
anyone that he/she believes has committed an offence, is committing an offence or is
about to commit an offence. He/she also has to consider that the arrest is necessary
for one of a number of reasons, including to get the person’s name and address,
because he/she doubts that the name or address given are correct, to prevent injury or
damage to property or to allow for the prompt and effective investigation of an offence.
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/s ... ent-a5.pdf

Probably not worth the hassle.
A novice learning...
“the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”