Appeal a Fine?

[Vorpal]

I would have a good look again at the location to see if there are any cycle path signs you may have missed. If none, then you'll just have to accept it.

Particularly if it is like this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4930271 ... 384!8i8192

It may be worth sending a request to the traffic management team to find out the basis for that sign. It isn't visible to people coming from the other direction, or out of the station.

If the OP was coming from the other direction on Hammersmitth Rd, there is shared use marked on both sides of the road.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4930331 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4930874 ... 384!8i8192

There is nothing to indicate that the cycle facility has ended.

[Pete Owens]

It may be worth sending a request to the traffic management team to find out the basis for that sign.

Presumably because there is a problem with scofllaw cyclists at that location.

[Pete Owens]

There is a cycle route (London Cycle Network 44 on OSM) which runs along the south edge of the roundabout, mostly under the flyover. It's twisty, convoluted and has several light-controlled crossings, but importantly for this discussion, much of it is pavement with blue signs,

Which is doubly evil in this particular case since cyclists are prohibited from the direct route over the flyover.

[mjr]

It may be worth sending a request to the traffic management team to find out the basis for that sign.

Presumably because there is a problem with scofllaw cyclists at that location.

That is not by itself justification for misuse of that sign, which would usually indicate that cycling is not allowed on any of the highway there, including the adjacent carriageway. I have also seen it used incorrectly in place of a blue sign in Norfolk (and had it replaced).

If the opening poster has been fined for failing to obey that sign (rather than directly for cycling on the footway), they should get off on a technicality.

[Vorpal]

That is not by itself justification for misuse of that sign, which would usually indicate that cycling is not allowed on any of the highway there, including the adjacent carriageway. I have also seen it used incorrectly in place of a blue sign in Norfolk (and had it replaced).

If the opening poster has been fined for failing to obey that sign (rather than directly for cycling on the footway), they should get off on a technicality.

To expand on what mjr has said, that sign generally should be used to indicate prohibition of cycling made under an order or byelaw, acording to the Traffic Signs Manual. I don't think that there is anything that prevents it from being used to indicate no cycling on the pavement, but it is not clear where cycling is prohibited.

If it's not indicating a prohibition under a traffic regulation order (TRO) or byelaw, it is not being used correctly. If it is indicating a prohibition under a TRO or byelaw, it should be clearer where cycling is prohibited.

Considering that the google van filmed cyclists on the pavement, I would suppose that it is common, and an engineer somewhere has decided that this is a problem, and A SIGN WILL FIX EVERYTHING, when in reality, there is no legal basis for the sign.

I just got a FPN for cycling on the pavement outside Hammersmith station. The Hammersmith roundabout is really large and busy without a segregated bicycle path so I feel it is much too dangerous to cycle on the road. There's also a very confusing pedestrian/cyclist traffic light that goes onto the pavement so I genuinely thought I was allowed to cycle there. For the minute or so during my commute that I cycle on the pavement, I always cycle very slowly and keep a lot of space between me and pedestrians. Is it worth appealing this or is it lost money?

It may be worth fighting.

The law is pretty clear about not cycling on the pavement, but IMO, it's not clear in that particular place because of the shared use facility that leads onto it.

I would advise you, if you wish to appeal it, to obtain legal advice. Certainly, do not ignore the penalty. I believe that you can only plead "not guilty" if you request a court hearing. Perhaps one of our members with more knowledge about such things will be along to comment.

If you are a member of Cycling UK, they may be willing to assist you in this matter. If you aren't, it may be worth ringing them, anyway for advice.

The Cyclists' Defence Fund has supported cases like this in the past, e.g. the case of Kristian Gregory who was given a FPN for riding on the pavement when he strayed from a sub-standard cycle path. CDF supported Kristian’s claim that prosecuting him was not in the public interest and that the contradictory signage at the location made it impossible to tell what is legal.

[mjr]

. I don't think that there is anything that prevents it from being used to indicate no cycling on the pavement, but it is not clear where cycling is prohibited.

While it can be used on footpaths and private land more freely, Paragraph 1(1) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... art/5/made prevents the no-cycling sign being placed by a road without a Traffic Regulation Order or similar prohibiting cycling on that road. As such, the sign is an unauthorised mark on the highway punishable by a £100 fine under https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/132

But we don't know exactly where this happened. Hopefully UKcyclistnewby will return to clarify.

[simonineaston]

Is it worth appealing this or is it lost money?

The latter... pay up and take advantage of the discount for early payment. That way, at least you have the benefit of kidding yourself you got off with half price !!

[Pete Owens]

While the sign may well be incorrect, I just posted it to point out to those here suggesting that the OP looks for nearby cycle signage that it might not help his cause.

The OP made it clear that he was riding on the footway because there was no cycleway - and somehow thought this would be OK because of a nearby crossing. He never suggested that he genuinely believed that he was riding on a cycleway - and to advocate that he retrospectively search for signs that they could later claim in court that he had been misled by is conspiracy to perfert tho course of justice.

[Vorpal]

The OP made it clear that he was riding on the footway because there was no cycleway - and somehow thought this would be OK because of a nearby crossing. He never suggested that he genuinely believed that he was riding on a cycleway

Or, maybe they did...

There's also a very confusing pedestrian/cyclist traffic light that goes onto the pavement so I genuinely thought I was allowed to cycle there.

[cycle tramp]

I just got a FPN for cycling on the pavement outside Hammersmith station. The Hammersmith roundabout is really large and busy without a segregated bicycle path so I feel it is much too dangerous to cycle on the road. There's also a very confusing pedestrian/cyclist traffic light that goes onto the pavement so I genuinely thought I was allowed to cycle there. For the minute or so during my commute that I cycle on the pavement, I always cycle very slowly and keep a lot of space between me and pedestrians. Is it worth appealing this or is it lost money?

Really? Loads of police cars pass me and I ride on the pavement (although I do stop and get off if I spot a pedestrian) and I've never had an issue.
Always worth an appeal.
Who issued the fine? It's always worth doing a google check if it has been issued by a third party company. I remember a lady being fined for littering by a third party company in Wales - apparently a length of cotton fell from her coat, and that apparently was enough for the third party company issuing the fine

[Pete Owens]

Has someone been deleting posts?

[De Sisti]

I just got a FPN for cycling on the pavement outside Hammersmith station.

How much is the fixed penalty notice (fpn)?

[gaz]

The Cyclists' Defence Fund has supported cases like this in the past, e.g. the case of Kristian Gregory who was given a FPN for riding on the pavement when he strayed from a sub-standard cycle path. CDF supported Kristian’s claim that prosecuting him was not in the public interest and that the contradictory signage at the location made it impossible to tell what is legal.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campa ... -go-courts

I'd just pay it.

[Darkman]

You could probably try quoting something out of the Magna Carta - that seems to be the de-facto "get out of jail free" card lately.

Seriously tho - don't cycle on pavements. Just pay the fine and don't do it again.

[jgurney]

The Hammersmith roundabout ... without a segregated bicycle path

I go past there on route to work. Where are you coming from and going to? I may know an avoiding route.

There are some East-West and North-South cycle routes around Hammersmith gyratory but they are neither well designed nor clearly signposted.

The Hammersmith roundabout is really large and busy ...so I feel it is much too dangerous to cycle on the road.

It is not as bad as it looks. I often ride around it as I can't be bothered weaving about on the poor quality cycle paths. My own experience suggests that a cyclist is probably more likely to have a collision with a pedestrian or another cyclist using the cycle routes than a collision with a motor vehicle on the carriageway.