Royal Parks penalty fine Hyde Park

[Biketourette]

Hi. Has anyone got experience of legally avoiding to pay a penalty fine for accidentally using the prohibited footpaths in Hyde Park or other Royals Parks in London. My experience on Thursday with the London Met Police bobbies was far from satisfactory. This is my second time through the park and thought I’d cut diagonally across the park at 730am on what I thought was a permissible foot path, for two bobbies in a marked car to stop me and immediately reach for their penalty book. No warning or ticking off, straight to what is a £60 fine.

I think the legal mistake I had was to be an honest citizen and hand over some ID when requested. If I refused to do so, I guess they could search me? Then if I refused to give my details verbally, could I have legally avoided the fine or would they have gone into full arrest mode?

Has anyone gone to a hearing and pleaded that first offence should have received just a verbal warning or should I just pay up and shut up?

[hondated]

My only comment is that they would be better deplored ha ha deployed doing something more useful.

[thirdcrank]

What offence is stipulated on the ticket? If there's detail of the legislation or a reference, it would be helpful to know that. I appreciaate that this was in a park, but if there's streetview, that would be useful too.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I once got a borlacking for riding faster than the 20 mph limit through there. I argued ( successfully) that I don’t have a Speedo, so I couldn’t know how fast I was going. The royal parks ‘authorities’ are a law unto themselves, using ancient bye laws, to enforce the rules. It all gets very messy when you challenge them.

[thirdcrank]

I once got a borlacking for riding faster than the 20 mph limit through there. I argued ( successfully) that I don’t have a Speedo, so I couldn’t know how fast I was going. The royal parks ‘authorities’ are a law unto themselves, using ancient bye laws, to enforce the rules. It all gets very messy when you challenge them.

You must have been dealt with by somebody who was unsure of the law. On normal public roads, conventional speed limits apply only to mechanically propelled vehicles including those slower mechanically propelled vehicles which are exempt from the requirement for a speedo.

Royal Parks are different, in that they are governed by bye-laws, which are not uniform across all the parks.

At one point, cyclists were being routinely prosecuted for exceeding the 20mph limit in one park because the bye-law specifies vehicles, rather than mechanically-propelled vehicles. A pedal cycle is a vehicle. In fact, there are two bye-laws one for vehicles and another for pedal-cycles. On a previous thread, I suggested to somebody who was being prosecuted for speeding that he should run the defence that the separate cycling bye-law meant that the vehicle bye-law was not intended to apply to cyclists. I don't know what happened but I'm pretty sure that we've had another thread since saying that the Metropolitan Police now accepts that the park speed limit does not apply to pedal cycles.

[gaz]

I think the legal mistake I had was to be an honest citizen and hand over some ID when requested.

The legal mistake you made was to cycle somewhere that cycling is prohibited.

Whatever options the officers may have to issue words of advice or a FPN, they exercise their own discretion in the matter not that of the alleged offender.

What offence is stipulated on the ticket? If there's detail of the legislation or a reference, it would be helpful to know that. I appreciaate that this was in a park, but if there's streetview, that would be useful too.

If the ticket details the wrong offence, or signing relevant to proving the offence was not in place you may be able to succesfully defend the charge.

... should I just pay up and shut up?

IMO if the ticket was issued correctly, yes.

Edit: https://www.royalparks.org.uk/managing- ... d-policies

Edit 2: After a little reading it appears to me that cycling is prohibited throughout the Royal Parks with the exception of park roads and cycletracks expressly marked as cycling permitted. Unless you have evidence that someone's stuck up some cycling permitted signs (erroneously or maliciously) on the path where you were stopped I don't think you're going to find a legal loophole.

[thirdcrank]

Something I forgot to include in my first post is to read and follow the instructions on the ticket because failing to do so will both reduce your options and may lose the benefit of any reduction for prompt payment. The clock starts when the ticket is issued. Eg if you want to contest the ticket, do so within the prescribed time or you will forfeit that option.

[horizon]

My only comment is that they would be better deplored doing something more useful.

What they've done is deplorable enough . . .

[horizon]

and thought I’d cut diagonally across the park at 730am on what I thought was a permissible foot path,

After a little reading it appears to me that cycling is prohibited throughout the Royal Parks with the exception of park roads and cycletracks expressly marked as cycling permitted. Unless you have evidence that someone's stuck up some cycling permitted signs (erroneously or maliciously) on the path where you were stopped

I would have thought it would also apply if the cycling permitted signs had been taken away. While lack of knowledge of the law isn't a defence, being unable to ascertain where the law applies seems to me to be a reasonable defence.

If we are to believe the OP and he really couldn't tell which were permissible paths or not then he at least has a moral case for starters. Photos of the permitted signs might help here. If you are going to have rules and you want your pound of flesh then the rules need to be clear. And those rules need to be clear enough for a first time user of the park, not just a pair of bored coppers driving around a Royal Park polluting the air and taking up valuable amenity space.

And here's your no cycling sign:

https://goo.gl/maps/JktEzZEHGsE2

[Cyril Haearn]

Had you refused to identify yourself they would have taken you into custody, God knows what might have happened

What is a police vehicle doing where cycling is not allowed, is driving allowed?

I have gone off the cops, saw one driving recently holding a lollipop in one hand
Saw a cop car driving through the pedestrian zone today Sunday, slowly, for no apparent reason, they should walk, Minus One

[hondated]

My only comment is that they would be better deplored doing something more useful.

What they've done is deplorable enough . . .

Thanks horizon made me

[thirdcrank]

Biketourette

Just to make clear what I was trying to say above, my feeling is that the way of legally avoiding to pay a penalty is the "loophole" approach: see what offence is alleged paying close attention to the detail of the legislation under which the penalty has been issued and see if the there are gaps.

Eg In other circumstances, cycling on a footpath doesn't apply to all footpaths, but only to those - termed footways nowadays - which are alongside a road or covered by bye-laws. We did have one example where a posse of police was photographed wrongly issuing tickets on a footpath which was not covered by the legislation. IIRC, the police remitted all the penalties.

"Regular readers" may know that I'm often suspicious about controversial threads from first-time posters. I'm pleased to see my suspicions were misplaced here and that you are a real person with a genuine grievance.

I saw this on your twitter account and I see that you are unhappy about the officers' conduct:

Had a very uncivilised experienced with the @metpoliceuk in Hyde Park this morning. I’m a decent individual treated like a yob for cycling down an unpermitted path. The spite and bitterness in their eyes was depressing. I caused no fuss. PCs showed little respect (My emphasis)

I'd hope they would treat everybody properly, yob or otherwise. However, the ticket relates to your conduct, not theirs.

[[XAP]Bob]

and thought I’d cut diagonally across the park at 730am on what I thought was a permissible foot path,

After a little reading it appears to me that cycling is prohibited throughout the Royal Parks with the exception of park roads and cycletracks expressly marked as cycling permitted. Unless you have evidence that someone's stuck up some cycling permitted signs (erroneously or maliciously) on the path where you were stopped

I would have thought it would also apply if the cycling permitted signs had been taken away. While lack of knowledge of the law isn't a defence, being unable to ascertain where the law applies seems to me to be a reasonable defence.

If we are to believe the OP and he really couldn't tell which were permissible paths or not then he at least has a moral case for starters. Photos of the permitted signs might help here. If you are going to have rules and you want your pound of flesh then the rules need to be clear. And those rules need to be clear enough for a first time user of the park, not just a pair of bored coppers driving around a Royal Park polluting the air and taking up valuable amenity space.

And here's your no cycling sign:

https://goo.gl/maps/JktEzZEHGsE2

So if you enter by the road and then take what looks like a path across the park (not open to motor vehicles) then you actually never pass a no cycling sign?

[mjr]

What is a police vehicle doing where cycling is not allowed, is driving allowed?

Police vehicles are usually permitted by traffic regulation orders or bye-laws, even when cycling is not and not only on blue lights. We can argue whether that's fair but that's the usual situation ATM so they were probably allowed.

To the OP: it sounds like you gambled on using an unclear path and lost. Pay up and maybe write to your MP about this discouragement of cycling and ask for direct (not CS3's huge dogleg) cobble-free (so not the Broad Walk) cycle routes across the park.

[horizon]

So if you enter by the road and then take what looks like a path across the park (not open to motor vehicles) then you actually never pass a no cycling sign?

I would have thought that there is lots of opportunity for (genuine) confusion and therefore an argument. Had it been a ticking off, that's one thing. But this is a case for Portia or a Philadelphia lawyer.