A cyclist caught riding his bike in Mansfield town centre, where cycling is banned under a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), has been ordered by a court to pay almost £600 in fines and costs, with Cycling UK saying that it reinforces the perception that “people on bikes aren’t welcome” there.
Christopher Cobb, aged 22, was spotted by a council neighbourhood warden heading on his mountain bike from Market Place to the Nottinghamshire town’s library, reports the Mansfield Chad.
He got off his bike after being told to do so, but 10 minutes later the same warden saw him riding on West Gate and given a fixed penalty notice in the sum of £100.
After failing to pay it, Cobb was summonsed to appear at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court but failed to appear and, with no plea entered, was fined £440 plus £100 costs and a victim surcharge of £44.
Mansfield District Council’s portfolio holder for safer communities, Councillor Bill Drewett, commented: “Cycling has been prohibited in the pedestrianised area of Mansfield town centre to protect pedestrians.
“There are alternative routes around the town centre or cyclists can act in a responsible fashion and get off and push their bicycles through the town centre.
“This cyclist had the opportunity to pay a much lower fixed penalty of £100 but chose to ignore it which is why he is now facing a much higher penalty as a result of the case having to go to court.”
Introduced last year in a bid to combat anti-social cycling, Mansfield’s PSPO received national attention in August after road.cc reported that Stage 4 of last month’s Tour of Britain was scheduled to start in the part of the town where cyclists are banned, with BBC News among the outlets that subsequently reported on it.
> Council that bans cyclists from town centre … hosts Tour of Britain stage start in town centre
Last year, Cycling UK, acting through the cyclists’ defence fund, said it was supporting an appeal by six cyclists against the PSPO in what is believed to be the only legal challenge yet brought against a local authority in connection with the controversial legislation.
That appeal has not yet been heard, with the charity telling road.cc that the case has been adjourned since the Home Office were revising their guidance on PSPOs, and the circumstances in which they should be made, and because Mansfield Council were prepared to consult again, with a view to varying the PSPO.
That consultation has now been launched in response to the revised Home Office guidelines. It remains open until 25 October and Cycling UK is currently drawing up its response.
The council proposes changing the times the PSPO is in effect from 24 hours a day to between 6pm and 7am, as well as reducing the area to which it applies.
Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK, told road.cc: “A fine of nearly £600 for cycling in the town centre sends a very simple message: people on bikes aren’t welcome in Mansfield, unless of course the Tour of Britain’s coming to town for a stage start, when all of sudden cyclists aren’t a menace and a danger to pedestrians, but can be welcomed with open arms.
“Hopefully Mansfield Council will reflect on the reputation they’ve created for themselves as the town that doesn’t like cyclists, and consider the revised Home Office guidance on PSPOs during its new consultation on proposed variations to the existing bicycle ban,” he continued.
“They might like to ask themselves whether they’re really tackling anti-social behaviour, or just imposing a ban because they think they can.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
81 thoughts on “Cyclist fined almost £600 for ignoring Mansfield’s bike ban”
He should have grabbed a car
He should have grabbed a car and ran the warden down….
Rather misleading headline.
Rather misleading headline.
For ignoring the rules the cyclist was asked to dismount. That could have been the end of it. That it just snowballed was his own responsibility at every turn.
If he carries on like this he could end up in gaol – but it won’t be for cycling in the pedestrianised zone.
Duncann wrote:
And yet the order is unlawful.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/4/chapter/2/enacted
S64:
(5)A public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over a highway that is the only or principal means of access to a dwelling.
(6)In relation to a highway that is the only or principal means of access to premises used for business or recreational purposes, a public spaces protection order may not restrict the public right of way over the highway during periods when the premises are normally used for those purposes.
Two ways to stop / defen – as
Two ways to stop / defen – as Paul J suggests, running the warden down was likely to cost around £600 and potential victim compensation of £50.
Alternatively, just claim that you were in the City of Mansfield recently and saw how bike friendly it was and that a large group of men on race bikes did the same thing.
Can’t help but think it’s a publicity opportunity for someone like Team Raleigh to pay it…
You get a smaller fine for
You get a smaller fine for driving over a cyclist 🙁
Quote:
Would I be correct in thinking that these alternative routes are likely to roads? Those very roads that appear on a daily basis in Road.cc’s close pass articles.
But hey, we’re only cyclists until election time.
don simon wrote:
The alternative route is the inner ring built back in the 70’s when the idea of getting around on a bike had no place in the modern world of the Austin Allegro.
Compare and contrast…
Compare and contrast…
“A West Norfolk motorist who knocked down and killed a seven-year-old boy while talking on her mobile phone was fined just £90 and given five points on her driving licence.”
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/clenchwarton-motorist-fined-90-for-crash-which-killed-seven-year-old-boy-while-on-her-mobile-phone-1-4553091
scouser_andy wrote:
Dear gods, that is bizarre and horrible. So where’s the demands from Briggs, the Daily Fail and Jesse pointless Norman for all phone usage to be banned in cars?
Why did he even bother to
Why did he even bother to stop, should have just kept going or refused to give the cockwomble warden any details. I suspect the wardens don’t have the power to detain. Stop for the police but not for these numpties.
schlepcycling wrote:
So you’re suggesting he flout the law, and a previous poster suggested he run the warden down (hopefully that was a ‘joke’) ???
And we wonder why cycling is getting a bad rap at the moment!
In my view, he disregarded a law he found inconvenient, then ignored the legal process that follows. What an idiot.
Motorists are not going to treat us with respect if some of us behave so irresponsibly.
jaysa wrote:
Why should anyone treat motorists with respect, using your logic?
Did you even read the linked news item on Scouser_andy’s post?
Are you seriously suggesting motorists would all behave perfectly towards cyclists if all cyclists miraculously became perfectly well-behaved? What colour is the sky on your world?
And what’s with the ‘we’? There’s no ‘we’, certainly I don’t agree to being a member of any group with anyone as clueless as you.
jaysa wrote:
You seem to be treating cyclists as a collective group and suggesting that we’ll all get punished (close passes? “get off the road and use the cycle path” taunts?) if any one of us behaves improperly.
However, that kind of collective punishment is actually considered a war crime and I’d like to direct you to article 33 of the Geneva Convention as to why punishing “cyclists” is illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_33:_Individual_responsibility.2C_collective_penalties.2C_pillage.2C_reprisals
jaysa wrote:
New around here are you ? 😀
Look, as much as RLJer’s annoy me to a minor degree for the same reason, the fact remains that the same usual twats will find the same usual shite to throw at cyclists despite how few offenders there are. Likewise the same old ‘road’ tax, insurance, blah fecking blah. I’ve had arguments on my local area forum with these same sort of knobbers and all they see is ‘arrogant’ cylsts for daring to be cluttering up ‘their’ road.
*sigh*
jaysa]
Whereas if we rode around like drivers do ie speeding/tailgating/using phones etc/and jumping red lights they would?
schlepcycling wrote:
What exactly did this Warden do to deserve you calling them a “cockwomble” and a “numpty”? As far as I see it they were perfectly reasonable as they gave a warning first and did not resort to a fine until the cyclist was later discovered to be ignoring the earlier warning. From what I have read, the only person deserving of the labels “cockwomble” and “numpty” is the cyclist who ignored warnings and court summons.
ClubSmed wrote:
1) They are a jobsworth warden 2) enforcing a stupid rule.
They probably have other attributes, but cockwombliness and numptiness can be assumed with some confidence.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
What exactly did this Warden do to deserve you calling them a “cockwomble” and a “numpty”?
— ClubSmed 1) They are a jobsworth warden 2) enforcing a stupid rule. They probably have other attributes, but cockwombliness and numptiness can be assumed with some confidence.— schlepcycling
There is no indication that this warden was a jobsworth, in fact he did not fine initially which would actually indicate that they were not a jobsworth.
As for the rule itself, I do not agree with it but equally having never lived in the area and have not researched it so I do not know what sort of issues they were having to deal with that led to this order being put in place. Until either of these 2 criteria are met then I will try and keep an open mind. If, for example, they had issues with bag snatchers on bikes operating in the area then it would make as much sense as installing bollards at each end of a pedestrianised area to stop ram raiders. If they were just doing it because they are all backward and have issues because they feel children should hibernate between the ages of 12-20 and not be seen hanging out in public space on their skateboards and bikes it is another matter….
ClubSmed wrote:
It’s always for that latter reason, miserable misperception of ‘yoof’ – same as the moaning about kids pulling wheelies. Plenty of posts about it being nonsense.
I’m confident it’s a bullshit rule implemented for bullshit reasons.
And we have someone who has taken a job to uphold nonsense like this, who has actually upheld this rule.
I’m confident they’re a jobsworth.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
What exactly did this Warden do to deserve you calling them a “cockwomble” and a “numpty”?
— ClubSmed 1) They are a jobsworth warden 2) enforcing a stupid rule. They probably have other attributes, but cockwombliness and numptiness can be assumed with some confidence.— Helmut D. Bate
There is no indication that this warden was a jobsworth, in fact he did not fine initially which would actually indicate that they were not a jobsworth.
As for the rule itself, I do not agree with it but equally having never lived in the area and have not researched it so I do not know what sort of issues they were having to deal with that led to this order being put in place. Until either of these 2 criteria are met then I will try and keep an open mind. If, for example, they had issues with bag snatchers on bikes operating in the area then it would make as much sense as installing bollards at each end of a pedestrianised area to stop ram raiders. If they were just doing it because they are all backward and have issues because they feel children should hibernate between the ages of 12-20 and not be seen hanging out in public space on their skateboards and bikes it is another matter….
— ClubSmed It’s always for that latter reason, miserable misperception of ‘yoof’ – same as the moaning about kids pulling wheelies. Plenty of posts about it being nonsense. I’m confident it’s a bullshit rule implemented for bullshit reasons. And we have someone who has taken a job to uphold nonsense like this, who has actually upheld this rule. I’m confident they’re a jobsworth.— schlepcycling
Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?
I for one do not want a Warden deciding not to enforce parking fines for cars parking on double yellows in a cycle lane because they believe it’s “a bullshit rule implemented for bullshit reasons”
I have a lot of respect for Wardens, they do a job in very bad circumstances and get no recognition for it. I would like to see more Wardens out there enforcing traffic regulations and making it harder for drivers (and other road users) to ignore the rules that are there for a reason.
*Edit
I may be confusing Neighbourhood Wardens with Traffic Wardens (as I am not sure what the difference is or if there even is one)
*Edit part II
I was confusing the roles as a Neighbourhood Warden seems to deal with community wellbeing and issues fixed penalty notices for antisocial behaviour such as dropping litter, graffiti and dog fouling. So a better analogy would be, should a Neighbourhood Warden be allowed to not enforce graffiti laws because he is a Banksy fan? My opinion is no, because it is not their role to pick and chose which rules to enforce, it is their role to enforce them. If anyone has issue with this then they should take it up with the relevent authority and not bully the person trying to make a difference to the community.
ClubSmed wrote:
I don’t.
I’m second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with.
The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?
— Helmut D. Bate I don’t. I’m second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.— ClubSmed
They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is “telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems” so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.
You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.
*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????
ClubSmed wrote:
Unemployable in a proper job where you’re paid to use judgement and not just follow rules belched up by fat, jealous motons.
We disagree. You’ve been personal. I haven’t. And I’m closed-minded, self-opinionated and a bully?
You’re a warden, aren’t you…
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?
— Helmut D. Bate I don’t. I’m second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.— ClubSmed
They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is “telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems” so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.
You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.
*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????
— Helmut D. Bate Unemployable in a proper job where you’re paid to use judgement and not just follow rules belched up by fat, jealous motons. We disagree. You’ve been personal. I haven’t. And I’m closed-minded, self-opinionated and a bully? You’re a warden, aren’t you…— ClubSmed
You have singled someone out and refered to them as a “little Hitler”, “Genital” and “Cockwomble” and you claim that you have not been personal?
You have jumped to a conclusion without any evidence to back it up which would indicate that you are closed minded and self opinionated and your name calling of the Warden without any provocation would indicate that you were a bully. If I have confused the definition of these terms I apologise, but they are what I believe are the correct definitions at the moment and as such stand by my conclusion as to how your post portray you to be.
*Note that I have only stated how I believe your posts portray you and not directly attacked you personally as I do not know you so could not possibly comment
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?
— Helmut D. Bate I don’t. I’m second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.— ClubSmed
They did not reach for the fine book straight away which would indicate that they are not some little Hitler. Another part of their job according to the .gov website is “telling the council and other authorities about environmental problems” so it would seem that questioning the rules and status quo is actually a part of their role.
You appear from all your comments that you are just being a closed minded, self opinionated bully.
*Also, if he is unemployable how can he be employed in this role????
— Helmut D. Bate Unemployable in a proper job where you’re paid to use judgement and not just follow rules belched up by fat, jealous motons. We disagree. You’ve been personal. I haven’t. And I’m closed-minded, self-opinionated and a bully? You’re a warden, aren’t you…— ClubSmed
No I am not a Warden, however I did (many, many years ago) go to school with someone whose father was a (traffic) Warden. They got bullied for the fact that their father was a traffic warden, no doubt because of idiotic stereotypes presented as facts from their parents. Parents with (what I assume to be) small minded attitudes like yourself, as “little Hitler” was one of the taunts used which I would assume would have been learnt from one of their parents. The end result of this small minded bigotry was that the child attempted suicide due to this bullying, not long after they moved schools. I hope that the school that they moved to had children with more open minded parents.
If a shop rule is to not give refunds it is the shop staff’s job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a call centres rule is to not give sensitive information out over the phone it is the telephone agent’s job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a bank rule is to not give loans to unemployed customers it is the bank branch staff’s job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a delivery companies policy is to only deliver 9-5 it is the delivery driver’s job to stick to this and they should not be given abuse for this
If a train companies rule is to not allow people to travel without a ticket it is the conductor’s job to enforce this and they should not be given abuse for this
Nobody should have to face abuse for just doing their job, in person or online!!!
ClubSmed wrote:
But traffic wardens do a worthwhile job. Personally I’ve always taken their side against whinging motorists.
My complaint, however, is that there don’t seem to be any of them around any more. Haven’t seen one for decades.
I’m not so sure that ‘neighbourhood wardens’ (a New Labour initiative I believe) serve as much of a useful purpose.
What if your job is being a professional troll and bully, incidentally? Like certain media figures? Why should those whose job is to throw abuse not expect some of it back? Does your rule really apply to the likes of Katy Hopkins or Jeremy Clarkson?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Nobody should have to face abuse for just doing their job, in person or online!!!
— FluffyKittenofTindalos But traffic wardens do a worthwhile job. Personally I’ve always taken their side against whinging motorists. My complaint, however, is that there don’t seem to be any of them around any more. Haven’t seen one for decades. I’m not so sure that ‘neighbourhood wardens’ (a New Labour initiative I believe) serve as much of a useful purpose. What if your job is being a professional troll and bully, incidentally? Like certain media figures? Why should those whose job is to throw abuse not expect some of it back? Does your rule really apply to the likes of Katy Hopkins or Jeremy Clarkson?— ClubSmed
I couldn’t agree more with your views on Traffic Wardens, and I too have noticed a decline in their numbers. Not sure why this is because with the amount of fines they give out they must surely pretty much pay for themselves? Maybe it’s because no-one wants to do the job because of the abuse that they get from people who call them “Jobsworths” and “Little Hitlers”?
I too am not sure on the Neighbourhood Warden role, I have never met one and did not know such a thing existed until this thread. I have read the job description and it sounds like it could be worthwhile, and maybe a good move given the degradation of communities to give them back a voice?
On the subject of professional bullies I believe that it is fair for anyone to get back what they give out, it’s basic Karma. They should not however be subject to escalated abuse or personal threats. Whilst I do not like (and detest) people like Katy Hopkins and Jeremy Clarkson, I do believe they have their place. There are people who think like them and we need people like Jeremy and Katy to bring those views to the fore so that they can be debated properly and hopefully as a result re-educate those like-minded individuals as to how things really are.
I know this is all silver lining points of view and there is a possibility that thinking this way is how we end up with people like Trump, but I am not sure that the alternatives are better.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Why on earth would you think that Wardens should be able to pick and chose what restrictions to enforce?
— Helmut D. Bate I don’t. I’m second-guessing the type of unemployable little Hitler that applies to be a warden in the first place, then continues in the job, unquestioningly enforcing the rules that other social deviants in the local council have come up with. The rule is horseshit. The warden is a genital.— ClubSmed
I don’t think that issuing fines is what Hitler was most well known for…
brooksby wrote:
Indeed, his lightness of foot in a foxtrot and his mastery of watercolour brushwork are still talked about to this very day.
ClubSmed wrote:
They enforced a cockwomble, numpty rule. That shows quite clearly that they are a cockwomble, numpty.
What harm was he ACTUALLY
What harm was he ACTUALLY doing by riding his bike in that area? Probably none.
Did he endanger the safety of any other people or cause any inconvenience whatsoever to other road users or pedestrians? Probably not.
Just senseless enforcement of a blatantly anti-cyclist local order devised by petty-minded bureaucrats who have never and will never ride a bicycle themselves. All they know about bicycles and cyclists and all they want to know is that they don’t like ’em.
Grumpy17 wrote:
What harm would a car travelling down a pedestrianised street at ~5mph do? Probably none.
Would it endanger the safty ofany other people or cause any inconvenience whatsoever to other road users or pedestrians? Probably not.
Should it be fined for not following the ban on vehicles in pedestrianised areas? Yes
Same rules should apply to all
ClubSmed wrote:
Nobody brought cars into the argument, except you.
This has nothing to do withcomparisons between car drivers and cyclists or who has the rougher deal as a road user.
It’s all about petty rules loved by petty-minded people, includng yourself it would appear.
Grumpy17 wrote:
Petty rule? Why is it a petty rule? I do not know about the circumstances around this order being put in place and what antisocial aspects it was supposed to resolve and if it has or has not resolved these issues. I am happy to be educated in these circumstances and whether the order addressed the route cause or not though
Grumpy17 wrote:
Oh the Jeremy Clarkson approach. “What harm does a little speeding on an open road ACTUALLY do?”
I don’t agree with this rule, but it is the rule and legally and properly in place. He was warned. He was given a FPN then he played more silly buggers. Since we are vulnerable road users I think it would be better if all road users obeyed the rules and the laws. I am fine with drivers being fined for any number of infringments that they could easily argue aren’t doing any harm and they do claim that all the time.
If you want the roads to be a free for all with everyone deciding for themselves which laws and rules they do or don’t want to follow then I suggest a bike isn’t the strongest suit in that game.
oozaveared wrote:
Home office guidance. Helps if you read it, it was released when fixed penalty fines for riding on the pavement were brought in.
Misleading- there was no
Misleading- there was initially no penalty for cycling where not permitted. For the second offense within minutes he was fined £100. The larger fine was only for not appearing at the magistrates court
rdmp2 wrote:
This.
There are areas we can’t ride, we can’t drive, we can’t walk. Fact. He was warned.
He clearly has no respect for the laws and deserves the fine.
simonmb wrote:
Because the law is ALWAYS right, as Mrs Pankhurst used to say.
Mansfield – about 4 miles
Mansfield – about 4 miles from Sherwood Pines MTB trails and a million miles away from welcoming cyclists.
In Leicester, just down the road, all our main city-centre shopping streets are either shared use or have purpose built cycle lanes. We have a few moaners, but I doubt very much that the accident rate is any higher. It just feels like a modern European city.
dafyddp wrote:
Leicester may be a modern city, but it has a disinterested police force.
I have exchanged several letters with Lord Bach, Leicestershire Police and Crime Commissioner to try and figure out how I can submit footage of close passes. During this exchange, I was told I could report online. This is not true as when I tried, I was told “this is not classified as a crime under National Crime Recording Standards” so they ignored the report.
I was also told that the close pass initiative was carried out during the summer because there are more cyclists on the road. They seemed to have missed the point that it’s not cyclists but traffic that carry out close passes, and during the summer traffic levels drop significantly. They didn’t find a single instance of a close pass so have concluded that there isn’t a close pass problem in Leicester and so won’t allocate any resources to policing the problem.
So the videos I have of motorists getting too close, going on the right-hand side of keep left bollards to overtake me, emerging from junctions into my path, and swearing at me for simply existing (many of whom drive without MOT and/or Tax) must be a figment of my imagination then
tonyleatham wrote:
Uninterested. Having a disinterested police force is pretty important.
Morgoth985 wrote:
[quote=Morgoth985]
Uninterested. Having a disinterested police force is pretty important.
Really?
BarryBianchi]
Yes, really. Roughly speaking:
Uninterested = don’t care.
Disinterested = making decisions unbiased by the prospect of personal gain.
Morgoth985 wrote:
You have fallen into the common misconception trap. As the OED will reveal, Distinterestd also means “Having or feeling no interest in something; uninterested.”
Not good.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Well well well. Interesting, if you’ll pardon the slightly weak pun. I didn’t know that. I was of course writing originally without the benefit of the OED in front of me, but I just went and looked it up and you are indeed correct.
However, my copy (it’s the Shorter OED, but that will have to do) also has a footnote pointing out that the meaning you have given is now (ie in modern times, not historically) commonly regarded as incorrect. I think in light of this I’ll stick to having it my way. But amusing to know that nothing is ever as clear cut as you think.
Have a nice day.
Morgoth985 wrote:
I find the “NFI” generally covers all angles of the Dibble.
U2
The correct headline should
The correct headline should be: Arrogant Twat Accumulates Fines of £600.
And it can be published everywhere – it wasn’t a cycling-specific story until road.cc made it one.
Why not just go round the
Why not just go round the town square ? Is that too tricky to ride somehow ?
I think the cyclist is being a bit silly.
He was probably a chav on a
He was probably a chav on a BSO so I’m not too bothered about this.
Unless you actually gave your real name how would they get you unless you were known to them anyway?
If I got stopped by ‘warden’ for a triviality I wouldn’t tell them anything and just ride off. What would they do about it? I doubt they are allowed to physically retrain you anyway.
I wonder how they’d react to
I wonder how they’d react to me on my handcycle?
Any order to dismount is going to be met with a smart-arsed response along the lines of “and how do you propose I do that then?”.
I’ve had this discussion with a warden in Guildford, who basically told me that they didn’t care about careful cycling on the (pedestrianised) highstreet and only went after cyclists who were acting like tits.
Tempted to go to Mansfield, just to tell them to shove it…
Crippledbiker wrote:
Which is sensible, and actually follows the (home office ?) guidance brought in a decade or more ago.
Complete non-story.
Complete non-story.
Useless twunt gets a warning and told don’t do it again. Gets spotted doing it again within a short space of time, gets fined, doesn’t pay the fine and then creates a court case as a result of not paying fine and doesn’t show up. Deserves everything he got.
But as for the case highlighted by @scouser_andy that is utterly horrifying. How could a judge impose such a lenient punishment on someone who has killed someone while driving using their mobile phone.
“Amy made and received seven calls while driving from her mum’s in Leverton.” and “The inquest heard that she was on the phone at the time – and a number of calls made on her phone had been deleted after the crash.” and “She claimed she had no idea how that calls had disappeared and said her mobile had been placed in the pocket of the driver’s door on loud speaker when the collision happened.”
After reading all of the above statements I call bullshit – She was driving while using the phone with no hands free, once she realised she hit the child she deleted the phonecalls to try and cover her tracks. Did the judge get someone to go and sit in a stationary car with the phone on loudspeaker in the drivers door pocket and call into the court while on loudspeaker…. because the chances of either side of the conversation being viable would be about zero.
“One has a moral obligation
“One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws” MLK said that. He was always riding his bike in town centres I reckon.
Anyway do these neighbourhood warden chaps have the power to detain, or to order you to identify yourself?
Having been to Mansfield a
Having been to Mansfield a few times I’ve always thought it was an unfriendly dump. This confirms it.
I’ll do my best to avoid it in future. There are much nicer places to visit and spend my hard-earned.
Pretty silly to be cycling in
Pretty silly to be cycling in a toilet anyway.
The reasoning behind the
The reasoning behind the introduction of the PSPO was to remove a minority of individuals intent on causing trouble whilst in possession of a bike from a shared user space . The PSPO cycling restriction banned cyclists from this area 24 hours per day 7 days per week
The effect was to force responsible commuter cyclists onto a busy ring road with little or no cycling provision whilst pedestrian areas at commuter times remained deserted. Induviduals intent on causing trouble whilst in possession of a bike ignored the PSPO.
Mansfield District council are currently out to consultation proposing the no cycling restriction is relaxed to allow cycling before 6.00am and after 7.00 pm. Not sure how this will benefit the average commuter?
The ironies:-
a) Vehicle access for loading and unloading is permitted Sunday to Monday all day and before 10.00am and after 4.00pm Thursday to Saturday.
b) Vehicle access for persons with mobility difficulties is still allowed
c) The PSPO was recently withdrawn when the Tour of Britain stage was started within the PSPO area. This means that cyclists are welcome in a Mansfield but you must be a member of a professional cycling team to be welcomed!
d) Mansfield has recently been awarded the title of the most obesee area in Nottinghamshire and is regularly in the top 5 areas in the country for adult obesity.
The facts!!!
Spike64 wrote:
— Spike64
are you sure? – the above article says, “The council proposes changing the times the PSPO is in effect from 24 hours a day to between 6pm and 7am…” which makes more sense, even though it’s some unsociable hours for those wardens to work through
beezus fufoon wrote:
the article is wrong. The PSPO restriction would prevent cycling between 6.00am and 7.00 pm. The councils opinion is that there is busy pedestrian traffic in the 13 hours between 6.00am and 7.00pm.
What a twonk.
What a twonk.
Leaving aside the fact that
Leaving aside the fact that this guy was an utter cockwomble for not doing as he was told in the first place, I’m assuming that the fines for cyclists aren’t anywhere near in proportion for parking fines in Mansfield?
.
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’ve met my wife?
I am amused by contributors
I am amused by contributors who write expressions like “motorists aren’t going to treat us with respect unless x, y and z”.
This misses the truth. Motorists aren’t going to treat people on bikes with respect. They just aren’t. The behaviour of anyone under any circumstance has no impact on this fact.
It is ok to cycle through the
It is ok to cycle through the pedestrianized center of one of the most prosperous shopping towns in the UK – Kingston.
kingleo wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt: is that “upon Hull” or “on Thames “?
brooksby wrote:
Kingston upon Thames.
I’ve posted before to the
I’ve posted before to the effect that there are cyclists and then there are ignorant and disrespectful louts who don’t give a monkey’s about how or where they cycle. Some on this thread seem not to give a damn about who upsets who when out on a bike. A shame if we make a bad name for ourselves. Speaking as someone who regularly has to step out of the way of cyclists in my locality who ride at speed up the footpath on my street, I do get fed up with those who have no regard for this simple, safety orientated distinction – footpaths and pedestrianised areas are for pedestrians. Only a few days back I saw a ‘yoof’ weaving through our crowded pedestrianised high street, phone in hand and no hands on the bars. If I’d of said anything to him I’d undoubtedly have been abused. I strongly wish our local authority would take similar action to the Mansfield’s. Perhaps a little more respect both for one’s fellow man and authority (Suggesting running down a warden? I find it hard to believe anyone would write that, even in jest) might be in order because what goes around comes around, I find.
As for the subject of this article, I hope Cycling UK are not wasting my sub to them in supporting him as I feel he’s only got himself to blame for what appears to be his arrogance. Also, are they seeing the whole picture by trying to get the ban overturned? Is there a history of anti-social behaviour in the area that justifies control? I can’t believe the local authority would go to the expense of putting this order in place without some good reason in such cash-strapped times.
Who gets hurt by being asked to dismount and walk a short way?
HV3 wrote:
Depends. Like you said, you don’t have the whole picture. You’re assuming that the council have brought in a reasonable, evidence-based rule that will neatly alleviate a particular situation. I assume it’s a cockheaded, heavy-handed approach to a situation that is being blown out of proportion, possibly tied to the’ craze’ where teenagers pull wheelies, which harms absolutely nobody apart from causing offence to miserable twats who don’t like kids expressing their freedom and think cars should be able to bomb down residential streets.
We all make assumptions, just like I’ve assumed you’re an ignorant lout for using I’D OF instead of I’D HAVE.
Helmut D. Bate]
More personal abuse.
The Gavalier]
We all make assumptions, just like I’ve assumed you’re an ignorant lout for using I’D OF instead of I’D HAVE.— Helmut</strong><br />[quote=The Gavalier
More personal abuse. — Helmut D. Bate
… taken completely out of context after the original poster had intimated that the lad on a bike was an ignorant lout.
But yay you.
Helmut D. Bate]
… taken completely out of context after the original poster had intimated that the lad on a bike was an ignorant lout. But yay you.— Helmut D. Bate
No he didn’t, the only thing that he assumed about the “lad on a bike” was “arrogance” (I assume for his ignoring both the Warden’s warning and court letters). All the rest of the post was about their personal experiences and feeling around similar matters from what I understand.
HV3 wrote:
The ignorant and disrespectful louts are also cyclists.
I don’t think we differentiate between “real motorists ” and “ignorant and disrespectful louts who happen to be driving a car”, do we?
HV3 wrote:
Well, clearly, everybody. If doing so acts as a disincentive for using bikes as a means of transport, and contributes to some choosing to drive instead. If there’s no safe alternative route provided, than that would apply.
HV3 wrote:
But should you not take that up with the criminal justice system, which, by repeatedly sparing killer motorists jail time and levying fines as small as £90, clearly sends the message that running people down and killing them can indeed be less serious than cycling in pedestrian areas?
The suggestion was just pointing out the logic of our legal system.
Why are you so disgusted with the messenger, while not addressing the authorities who clearly endorse such behaviour?
HV3 wrote:
I get massively frustrated every time I go to town. The way that people walk makes me think I’m in a Verve video. People step through doors, then immediately stop. people get to the top of escalators, then immediately stop. People walk right across a pavement and expect the oncoming pedestrian to get out of the way.
I’d hate to burst your bubble, but it’s people that are twats (since 1979), whether they’re walking, cycling, driving or running the USA.
I hadn’t made it personal
I hadn’t made it personal about YOU, not the dangleberry warden in our internet story. You really should have got that from the words I wrote, you rod-arsed, prissy, simpleton.
*Note that that’s my best guess of what you’re really like, based on my excellent judgement and experience of internet arguments with prim arsewipes with disturbing faith in authority. I’m right about you, and even if I’m not, you can shove your apology… if it will get past the rod.
The kid attempted suicide
The kid attempted suicide because they were bullied because their dad was a traffic warden. That’s it – it was that simple. Attempted suicides are almost always related solely to bullying that only ever has one cause, most often their father’s job.
Me throwing a few comedy insults at a warden over a bike forum is also entirely comparable to persistent bullying of the offspring of a warden.
Similarly, all those rules you use as examples are excellent parallels with taking a job largely to enforce rules, at least one of which is a nonsense infringement on the right to ride a bike somewhere safe.
I applaud your comprehensive grasp of this situation.
End of Sarcasm.
We are very different people and see this from different angles. However, I accept that there are different viewpoints here. I also know I’m a belligerent prick and occasionally try to temper it.
But I think you really have no idea how simple you and your views are. Your attempt at being the forum warden is similarly misguided, coming, as it does, from your very simple worldview and enslavement to it, and the rules you have created for yourself. By all means, follow them – but STFU with your preaching and get over your expectation that other people need to follow your Idiot’s Guide too, and that if they refuse, they’re not automatically Bad People.
Do you really think some
Do you really think some nobody on an Internet forum referring to a warden as a jobsworth, Little Hitler or cockwomble constitutes abuse and bigotry?
Or do you just like playing the drama queen?
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Let me slightly amend your question to reflect all that you have posted on this thread:
Do I really think some
nobody on an Internet forum referring to a warden as a jobsworth, Little Hitler, Genital, dangleberryorand cockwomble without provocation or justification constitutes abuse?At the risk of being rude by answering a question with a question, do you really believe that this behaviour does not constitute refering to someone in an insulting and offensive way? Personally, as a general rule, I always consider that if something that I say could be poorly recieved in person, then it is highly likely to be the same online.
ClubSmed wrote:
Let me slightly amend your question to reflect all that you have posted on this thread:
Do I really think some
nobody on an Internet forum referring to a warden as a jobsworth, Little Hitler, Genital, dangleberryorand cockwomble without provocation or justification constitutes abuse?At the risk of being rude by answering a question with a question, do you really believe that this behaviour does not constitute refering to someone in an insulting and offensive way? Personally, as a general rule, I always consider that if something that I say could be poorly recieved in person, then it is highly likely to be the same online.— Helmut D. Bate
I read those bold bits and just laughed. I don’t know where you live, or grew up, I suspect alongside Janet and John, but that isn’t abuse, in my humblest of opinions. It isn’t even banter.
Anyhow, seeing as another Mackleberry Twin is on the case, you win. I’m going to hell etc.