Round-the-world cyclist fined for riding his bike through Bedford town centre

robike wrote:

He's behaving a bit arrogant.  He clearly knew full well that it was a pedestrianised area and if he cared to think for a few seconds would have not missed the signs.

I think pedestrians deserve protection from all wheeled vehicles, including cycles.  Watching frail folk wince as they get passed in "shared areas" reinforces it even more.  It's how I feel when I hear a motor scooter coming up behind me – scared that their not that competent.

The local cyclists, who often moan about an 120 metre length of street that is no cycling for 8 hours each day, make me angry.  The "insane obstruction" (in their words) costs about 1 minute delay if you dismout and walk, or longer for the stubborn purists that "have to" detour and don't seem to know how to push a bike.

It seems strange to ban all cyclists just due to some allegedly dangerous cyclists (anyone got the KSIs for the pedestianised area?). It would be like banning all cars from a section of road when there's too much speeding or possibly too many crashes although the danger is far more real and extreme with motor vehicles so I think banning cars is a stronger argument.

robike wrote:

He's behaving a bit arrogant.  He clearly knew full well that it was a pedestrianised area and if he cared to think for a few seconds would have not missed the signs.

I think pedestrians deserve protection from all wheeled vehicles, including cycles.  Watching frail folk wince as they get passed in "shared areas" reinforces it even more.  It's how I feel when I hear a motor scooter coming up behind me – scared that their not that competent.

The local cyclists, who often moan about an 120 metre length of street that is no cycling for 8 hours each day, make me angry.  The "insane obstruction" (in their words) costs about 1 minute delay if you dismout and walk, or longer for the stubborn purists that "have to" detour and don't seem to know how to push a bike.

 

Yo're the one coming across as arrogant; & you have little to support your way of thinking.

The signs are easily missed, check on Google Street view. But that's not the point.

Shared areas teach respect not only to cyclists, but also to pedestrians towards cyclists; which respect is sorely lacking. It fosters consideration for others in pedestrians, others as in "other people", not just people on a bike.

Cycling is not anti-social (as such PSPOs would have you belive) as much walking or a Mum pushing a buggy with a child is anti-social.....although the latter can be as inconsiderate as the next person too.

The issue, which seems to be flying way above you head, isn't just the delay, it's the insanity, unfairness & hypocrisy of it all.

schlepcycling wrote:

You are not obliged to give your details to either a police office or a PCSO unless they inform you that they are reporting you for an offence.  A PCSO has no authority to ask you to provide ID to confirm the details you've given them, this is why many FPNs issued by PCSOs go unpaid because people give them false details take the ticket and walk/cycle away.

That's true - but they do have the ability to check with the PCN to confirm your details.

You must also not attempt to leave whilst they're actually issuing the FPN without having first checked their designation card - which they must provide you on demand, and may not make the provision of subject to any conditions ie; you can see my DC once I have your details.

If it doesn't expressly state that they have been given power to detain, then they have 30 minutes to get a police officer or otherwise authorised officer; after 30 minutes, just walk away. PRA2002.

Kingdom officers don't even get that 30min hold. If detaining isn't specifically listed on the DC, just leave, they can't do shit.

Post Deleted

Crippledbiker wrote:

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request. If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil. They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here. Turn around, walk away.

"citizen's arrest" isn't really a thing.

I looked into it a few years ago when somebody tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public place and it all started to get a bit heated. This person said he was going to citizen's arrest me, but thought better of it when I told him I'd happily defend myself, and squared up to him.

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

Cycling through a prohibited part of a town centre is unlikely to be an arrestable offence.

The way you arrest someone, and how quickly you hand them over to the police, makes all the difference. If you get it wrong then be prepared for the consequences.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request. If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil. They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here. Turn around, walk away.

"citizen's arrest" isn't really a thing.

I looked into it a few years ago when somebody tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public place and it all started to get a bit heated. This person said he was going to citizen's arrest me, but thought better of it when I told him I'd happily defend myself, and squared up to him.

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

Cycling through a prohibited part of a town centre is unlikely to be an arrestable offence.

The way you arrest someone, and how quickly you hand them over to the police, makes all the difference. If you get it wrong then be prepared for the consequences.

 

 

I believe that you're also supposed to explain that you are arresting them "because..." and are holding them pending the arrival of the police because you saw them committing an arrestable offence and don't believe that they will await the arrival of the correct law enforcement officials.

Also, going back to the original story, he says he was asked for ID. As I understand it, if the police ask for ID you actually have to present it at a station within seven days, and the Kingdom operative isn't police or even "deputised" so how would that work?

So what right would this council officer have to see your ID, and what do they do if you don't carry ID with you (many people don't)?

brooksby wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request. If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil. They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here. Turn around, walk away.

"citizen's arrest" isn't really a thing.

I looked into it a few years ago when somebody tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public place and it all started to get a bit heated. This person said he was going to citizen's arrest me, but thought better of it when I told him I'd happily defend myself, and squared up to him.

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

Cycling through a prohibited part of a town centre is unlikely to be an arrestable offence.

The way you arrest someone, and how quickly you hand them over to the police, makes all the difference. If you get it wrong then be prepared for the consequences.

 

 

 

I believe that you're also supposed to explain that you are arresting them "because..." and are holding them pending the arrival of the police because you saw them committing an arrestable offence and don't believe that they will await the arrival of the correct law enforcement officials.

Also, going back to the original story, he says he was asked for ID. As I understand it, if the police ask for ID you actually have to present it at a station within seven days, and the Kingdom operative isn't police or even "deputised" so how would that work?

So what right would this council officer have to see your ID, and what do they do if you don't carry ID with you (many people don't)?

You are not required to identify yourself to police unless certain criteria are met; if they aren't, you are under no obligation but should not give a false name; that would potentially be an offence.
The police can still ask, and it's your decision to either know the criteria and clearly state that as they are not met, you are not required to identify yourself at this time, or to ask them if you are legally required at this time (knowing full well you are not).

It's actually an offense to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer; However, I have never encountered a Kingdom Rep who could provide me with anything to indicate they are an authorised officer, and, where they have attempted to fine me for being on my handcycle in these sorts of areas[1], my response at this point has always been the same; leave.

As to Citizens Arrest; it's only really in play with offenses such as arson, theft, assault etc, as set out by PACE 1984 24A (1984 c.60 part III Section 24A).

[1] Funny thing; check the actual wording on the RTO or other instrument used to put the restriction in place; they almost always say bicycle or pedal cycles. Handcycles are neither (Pedal cycle safety regulation act 2003, 2010 section 2; bicycle means two wheels and pedals - handcycles don't have pedals!), so they simply don't apply and I can and do ignore them utterly.

Crippledbiker wrote:

It's actually an offense to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer; However, I have never encountered a Kingdom Rep who could provide me with anything to indicate they are an authorised officer, and, where they have attempted to fine me for being on my handcycle in these sorts of areas, my response at this point has always been the same; leave.

It certainly seems a bit of a lapse on their part, if they don't carry something to prove that they are an "authorised officer"   But, if they can't show it then it seems they have no more right to see ID than any other random person who walks up to me on the street...  Thanks for your detailed reply 

ConcordeCX wrote:

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

It's an indictable offence - one that can be tried in a crown court.
Although what constitutes this requires a lot of detailed knowledge. I don't think an FPN would mean going to a Crown Court though.

Pms wrote:

... If their motivation really was pedestrian safety, they would be better served by placing their staff at the entrance to the zone bringing the sign to people’s attention. ...

But they are not really interested in safety or anything else "civic".  These companies are taken on by councils, they don't charge for their services (allegedly) but get to keep a proportion of the FPN charged; their 'officers' also get (allegedly) paid bonuses based on how many FPNs they issue.  Allegedly  

wknight wrote:

Well ignore the fine and this will happen. 

The matter will get sent to the magistrates court, if you don't turn up you will end up with a monster fine and costs. Fail to pay that and the balliffs will come around, ignore them and you will end up in court facing the magistrates who give you two options, pay up or go to prison.  At this point everyone pays up.  Oh and I have seen people in court for fines that are 10 years old, so they will always find you in the end. 

BTW  failing to stop for a PCSO will get you charged with failing to stop for an officer. 

Never ignore council imposed fines because they are dealt with in the magistrates court where as all other so called fines, such as those from parking companies go to the civil court and they dont have the power to send you to prison. 

If you live in England.  Won't be any bailiffs at his home in Scotland.

thelighterthief wrote:

I live there and have also been fined after riding my bike into the area. I parked at the cycle rack - inside the no cycling zone - and  I was told incorrectly that i was being charged under the environmental protection act and had commited a criminal offence. The area is no cycling between 9-6 and this makes sense as it is a busy pedestrian area. I didnt like it but it is a tiny bit of the town that i cant ride through during the day. Swings and roundabouts. 

Here in Bristol, the main pedestrianised area (Broadmead) is shared use and cyclists can use it. However the authorities removed lots of the cycle parking from there (well, they removed it all when they put up the Christmas markets and never put them back). So the best cycle parking is in an adjacent pedestrianised area called Quakers Friars. Except that QF is semi privatised land with wandering security guards and although it looks the same and there's no actual dividing line, you are not allowed to ride a bike there (confusing or what...?)

HowardR wrote:

Re: "The enforcement firm tasked with patrolling the latter raked in £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in just over a year as part of its contract with the council"

Somethings fucking wrong with this England.

*ding*

maviczap wrote:

 Council's are making extra bucks by introducing these measures

This isn't about money.  This is about punishing cyclists for refusing to conform to the car-driving norm.  It's about making the act of cycling as unattractive and as inconvenient as possible, so that as many people as possible, are discouraged from doing so. 

Every person forced off a bike, is a person (potentially) forced into a car, and that suits the people who run Britain - the neoconservatives with interests in oil companies and car manufacturers.