RTW cyclist fined £75 for cycling through Bedford town centre during prohibited hours

[thirdcrank]

What's the problem?

Overall, I'll suggest that cyclists being stereotyped as delinquents is being used to undermine the promotion of cycling as sustainable transport.

In the short term, a cyclist apparently shopping has been docked £75 under legislation intended to suppress anti-social behaviour. In the longer term, this type of policy is contagious and other authorities are likely to adopt this wheeze as part of an equivocating strategy to claim to support cycling in general, but to do the opposite in real life - one motive being to get the grants etc for promoting cycling. (IIRC, Bedford has form for this.)

What is to be done?

It seems that the cyclist does not intend to pay the fixed penalty which may well mean a bigger ultimate penalty and confirmation in some quarters that cyclists are, indeed law-breakers.

I'll suggest that ways should be explored of challenging the legality of making the order under which the FPN was issued. This is outside my area of knowledge, but I believe the best way to make such a challenge is by way of a judicial review. The first problem is that AFAIK it's expensive: bill in tens of thousands. The next is that losing would open the floodgates to more of these orders as well as the bill for the other side's costs.

Bearing in mind the success of the crowd-funding for the close-pass mats, if not the success of the mats themselves, raising the dosh might be possible.

I'll reiterate that I'm only a layman here, but AFAIK, all the judge has to do is decide whether whether the actions of the public body are within its powers. I'd stress that I think that it's the policy of treating cycling as delinquent which is to be challenged: the issuing of this ticket is just an example of the results of this policy.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/civil-court/judicial-review/

[thelawnet]

I'll suggest that ways should be explored of challenging the legality of making the order under which the FPN was issued. This is outside my area of knowledge, but I believe the best way to make such a challenge is by way of a judicial review. The first problem is that AFAIK it's expensive: bill in tens of thousands. The next is that losing would open the floodgates to more of these orders as well as the bill for the other side's costs.

Bearing in mind the success of the crowd-funding for the close-pass mats, if not the success of the mats themselves, raising the dosh might be possible.

This is apparently the Cycling UK forum, and Cycling UK were (via its Cyclists' Defense Fund) apparently involved in a challenge to Mansfield Council's PSPO.

This was September 2016

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release ... -cycle-ban

There is some more here suggesting that Newport, South Wales had made a dodgy PSPO from 11-midnight which had to be revised to 11-5pm as it did not match the TRO

https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncando ... wport-blog

It is not clear whether CUK is finished with Mansfield, but in February 2018 the PSPO was changed to apply only 10am-6pm.

https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Man ... ling/14817

It is slightly unfortunate that there is not much information about what CUK/CDF is doing. The CDF news section was last updated January 2016

https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/blog

Last tweet was September 2016 https://twitter.com/CyclistsDefence/sta ... 6067553280

In terms of Mansfield, the PSPO seems rather more reasonable:

http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/CHttpHandle ... =10096&p=0

"A person who fails to dismount when asked to do so by an authorised officer in the specified area, commits an offence."

Cf. Bedford

https://bbcdevwebfiles.blob.core.window ... .04.18.pdf

where the offence seems to be absolute.

Here for example in Mansfield a cyclist was stopped, told not to cycle, then spotted again 10 minutes later, and was issued with a FPN.

https://road.cc/content/news/230292-cyc ... ed-almost-£600-ignoring-mansfields-bike-ban

[Cyril Haearn]

Have you been using 'can' and 'may' correctly?

[thelawnet]

Have you been using 'can' and 'may' correctly?

Who, what, when?

[Cyril Haearn]

Have you been using 'can' and 'may' correctly?

Who, what, when?

In the first post on this thread I read that a cyclist 'can' cycle in the pedestrian area when I think 'may' was meant

[thelawnet]

Have you been using 'can' and 'may' correctly?

Who, what, when?

In the first post on this thread I read that a cyclist 'can' cycle in the pedestrian area when I think 'may' was meant

Not at all.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/can-or-may

The use of 'can' was in any case not a quote from the legislation, which uses 'shall', as in 'no vehicle shall', the implication of which is slightly different from permission as it is active in terms of the behaviour that constitutes an offence.

[Cyril Haearn]

A tragedy, English is loosing the distinction between things that are possible but not allowed (can) and things that are possible and allowed (may), experts observe and record but do nothing

How may one oppose This Madness?

Is there another way to distinguish between things that are allowed and not allowed?

[paddler]

A tragedy, English is loosing the distinction between things that are possible but not allowed (can) and things that are possible and allowed (may), experts observe and record but do nothing

How may one oppose This Madness?

Is there another way to distinguish between things that are allowed and not allowed?

Oppose it by getting it right!

[thirdcrank]

Had this been about a cyclist being prosecuted for doing something alleged to be dangerous * we'd have had a dozen pages of indignation within the first couple of days. A rider is criminalised for apparently doing no more than riding and it attracts no significant interest. Can anyone explain what I'm missing?

* A controversial concept.

[AndyK]

A tragedy, English is loosing the distinction between things that are possible but not allowed (can) and things that are possible and allowed (may), experts observe and record but do nothing

How may one oppose This Madness?

Is there another way to distinguish between things that are allowed and not allowed?

Apparently English is also losing the distinction between "losing" and "loosing".

[thelawnet]

A tragedy, English is loosing the distinction between things that are possible but not allowed (can) and things that are possible and allowed (may), experts observe and record but do nothing

How may one oppose This Madness?

I blame the Welsh.

[Cyril Haearn]

Loosing, did I mean loosening?

[drossall]

Can we move the grammar argument to a "private" thread please? The actual topic of this thread is quite interesting...

[thelawnet]

Here are some bits about the 2013 Act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... view=plain

"The public spaces protection order (referred to as the community protection order (public spaces) in the White Paper) is intended to deal with a particular nuisance or problem in a particular area that is detrimental to the local community’s qualify of life, by imposing conditions on the use of that area. The order could also be used to deal with likely future problems. It will replace designated public place orders, gating orders and dog control orders. Examples of where a new order could be used include prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public parks or ensuring dogs are kept on a leash in children’s play areas. It could also prohibit spitting in certain areas (if the problem were persistent and unreasonable). This is currently covered in local byelaws.

Orders will last for up to three years before requiring a review (section 60(1)), however there is no limit on the number of times an order can be reviewed and renewed. The review requirements will be different depending on the prohibitions or requirements being applied – for instance, an order requiring dogs are kept on their leash in a children’s play area is unlikely to necessitate the same level of review as an order prohibiting any access to a public place to deal with a short-term issue such as localised crime. An order can be varied or discharged at any time by the authority that made it (section 61).

The two-part test for issuing the order will be that the authority is satisfied on reasonable grounds that that activities carried on, or likely to be carried on, in a public place are detrimental to the local community’s quality of life, and that the impact justifies restrictions being put in place in a particular area. The behaviour must also be ongoing and unreasonable (section 59(2) and (3)).

The order can prohibit certain things (for example, drinking alcohol), require specific things to be done (for example, keeping dogs on leashes), or both (section 59(4)). Unlike the orders this power will replace, only one order will be required to deal with a specific place, with one consultation. For instance, a single order could be used to prohibit drinking in a specific park as well as ensuring dogs were kept under control, through either being kept on a leash or limiting the number of dogs an individual can walk at one time."

The Act extended the powers of PCSOs to cover more cycle offences, and some context is given in the debate

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... licingBill

"Minor issues can also be annoying to officers. For example, a PCSO can issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling on a towpath—we do not have many towpaths in my constituency—but they cannot issue one for cycling without lights. There are a number of other similar areas; I cite those two examples simply to illustrate my argument. If we follow the Bill’s logic and its welcome measures on, for example, dispersal, we will see that PCSOs could take on more powers in tackling antisocial behaviour and that that would free up police officer time."

Further

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/201 ... licingBill

"I turn first to new cycle powers. Failing to comply with road regulations can expose both cyclists and their fellow road users to danger, including pedestrians, as we sometimes see. That is why we want to do more to ensure that road safety regulations are well understood and adhered to. In addition to giving police community support officers the power to issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling without lights, the amendments will give them power to issue a fixed penalty notice for cycling through a red light, failing to comply with a traffic direction and carrying a passenger on a cycle. We believe that giving police community support officers a more comprehensive package of cycle-related powers will put them in a better position to drive improvements in cycle safety.

I turn to new traffic powers. We are introducing a new package of measures to give police community support officers additional powers to issue fixed penalty notices. These include ... driving the wrong way down a one-way street, sounding a horn at night, ... I want to be clear that these measures are not intended to provide a means to pick on drivers or cyclists, or to raise revenue. Our focus is improving safety for all road users and to do that we must ensure that road regulations are respected and enforced.​"

"If we are asking police community support officers to use their discretion as to whether they issue fixed penalty notices to erring motorists or cyclists, considerably more training needs to be given to them on the circumstances in which they should use that discretion. As I say, there is a clear danger that the distinction between the police and police community support officers will be eroded if slowly but surely we give police community support officers more and more powers."


So on the one hand there were further discretionary powers given to PCSOs to ticket cyclists, apparently for safety-related reasons, and on the other, there were sweeping powers given to local authorities to create an army of rentacops on bonuses for ticketing as many people as possible.

The conditions for the PSPO to be issued are:

The first condition is that—
(a)activities carried on in a public place within the authority’s area have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, or
(b)it is likely that activities will be carried on in a public place within that area and that they will have such an effect.

The second condition is that the effect, or likely effect, of the activities—
(a)is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature,
(b)is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and
(c)justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

It could be argued that if there is a TRO prohibiting cycling, then cycling is inherently unreasonable.

However, it seems that 'the activities' is the set of a given activity. In other words, if there are 100 vomiting drunks smashing bottles on people, and 1000 people peacefully having a small glass of wine, then 'the activities' of drinking are having a detrimental effect.

Similarly if there are certain cyclists who run over old ladies at 25mph then that would make 'cycling' a detrimental set of activities, notwithstanding that there are those who cycle considerately.

There seems to be a reasonable argument in terms of the timing of these restrictions, with timed cycle restrictions in shopping areas quite standard, it would seem that at the very least it would be unjustifiable to restrict cyling at say 3am.

Here is a set of cycling-related PSPOs:

Peterborough: no cycling on Bridge Street at any time (very wide pedestrianised street); wider city core subject to 'dismount' order if riding 'furiously'

Mansfield - no cycling in pedestrianised area 10am-6pm, offence committed only if cyclist fails to dismount

Bedford - no cycling 9am - 6pm

Coventry - cycling must be safe and considerate, and if the officer's opinion is that it is not, they should dismount or commit an offence

Ropemakers - no reckless, nuisance or dangerous cycling

Addlestone - "An authorised person may request a person to dismount if they are cycling, skateboarding, hover-boarding or using similar devices within the restricted area where they reasonably suspects that the person is riding in a malicious and/or dangerous manner as to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person within that area."

Chiltern car parks "Use any part of the Restricted Area for cycling in a manner which is (or may reasonably be perceived as) intimidating or threatening to any other member of the public;"

Beechdale, Walsall "Cause annoyance, nuisance, alarm or distress" with any kind of vehicle

Swindon "Cycling in the restricted area"

Weymouth - Cycling 10am-5:30pm on the promenade, Good Friday - 31 October


Oxford 'No person shall cycle within Queen Street or Cornmarket Street outside the permitted cycling times of 6 p.m. to 10 a.m.'


The Streetview on Cornmarket Street is worth a look for the amount of anti-social behaviour going on unrelated to cycling.


https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7524307 ... 312!8i6656

I see:

* chugger
* numerous vendors selling toot from carts
* sandwich board man advertising bureau de change
* multiple buskers
* man asleep on the pavement
* ice cream cart
* large guided tour group of foreign school children

It's hardly a surprise there's no room to cycle with all the other nuisances....

[thirdcrank]

Can we move the grammar argument to a "private" thread please? The actual topic of this thread is quite interesting...

IMO, it's fundamental to any promotion of cycling for utility purposes. Local authorities everywhere are engaged in a desperate but seemingly futile struggle to preserve town centres from the twin problems of the motor car and mail order, especially internet-based shopping. For those involved, especially retailers it must be a worrying time. It seems irrational to me to demonise cyclists who are shopping. It might not be so bad if cyclists who locked their bikes and walked weren't likely to return to find them nicked.

By coincidence, the decline of town centres is in the news today and the minister Joke Berry is promising action.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47307865