Round-the-world cyclist Josh Quigley has been handed a £75 fine for riding his bike in Bedford town centre. The Livingstone cyclist, who is just a week into his trip, tore up the ticket and says he won’t pay. He argues that local councils should be encouraging people to get on their bikes, not punishing them.
Bedford is one of a number of towns to have imposed a cycling ban using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). Cycling is not permitted in certain parts of the town centre between 9am and 6pm.
PSPOs have drawn criticism from Cycling UK for the way in which they target cycling as a whole rather than only those who cause a danger or nuisance through the manner of their cycling.
Quigley said: “I must have been going about 3mph; like walking pace; literally just on the bike, but not really pedalling; just going through the town centre so I can get to the other side to continue cycling.
“I just stopped at Tesco to get something to eat, and as I was doing that an officer approached me and said, ‘Stop the bike, sir.’
“And I got off – and I was calm and I never argued with him once – and he said, ‘Do you know you can’t cycle here?’ and I was like, ‘Oh no, I didn’t know that. I’m not from this area, just passing through.’”
Quigley was asked to produce ID and then, with no further questions, he was handed the ticket.
The cyclist was somewhat taken aback. “I thought, ‘Seventy-five fucking pounds for riding my bike through a town centre?’”
He added: “If they’re doing this to me, who else are they doing this to? If somebody’s just riding their bike through a street and they punish them with a £75 fine? For cycling a fucking bike?”
I GOT A £75 FINE
I got fined for riding my bike through Bedford town centre.
No warning or telling off.
Bedford Council, you can shove your fine up your arse!!
Don’t punish people for cycling.
Let’s create a culture that encourages people to be more active!!
— Josh Quigley (@JoshQuigley92) February 14, 2019
The Bedford Independent reports that Quigley is currently making his second attempt to ride around the world after aborting a 2016 attempt after 10,000 miles.
Quigley attempted to take his own life in 2015 and says cycling has helped him address mental health issues and ‘saved his life.’
On a video uploaded to YouTube, he tore up the ticket, saying: “I don’t think we should be punishing people for riding their bike. I think we – local councils, police, government – should be supporting people in getting onto bikes and getting out walking and doing anything that’s going to be a bit more active.”
A Borough Council spokesperson said: “We encourage cycling in Bedford as a green method of transport and a great way to keep fit, with numerous cycle routes and cycle paths across the Borough.
“However, cycling in Bedford town centre is a major concern for local residents following collisions with cyclists and reports of injuries. The Council was asked by shoppers and businesses to introduce a restriction on cycling in the town centre to keep pedestrians safe.
“The order restricting cycling in our town centre pedestrianised area has been in place for over two and a half years and signage is in place at the entrances to the pedestrianised area of the town centre to make people aware of this restriction.
“We have this restriction in place to help keep pedestrians safe whilst visiting Bedford and this is reducing the number of offenders. Anybody who does not agree that a fine should have been issued can decide to have the case heard in court.
“If anyone is aware of any mitigating factors for why a fine should not have been issued, we would encourage them to contact the Council and this will be looked into on a case-by-case basis.”
Other towns to have imposed PSPOs targeting cyclists include Mansfield and Peterborough, where a great many cyclists have faced fines.
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.
50 thoughts on “Round-the-world cyclist fined for riding his bike through Bedford town centre”
I like him. He’s my kinda guy
I like him. He’s my kinda guy.
Bedford council… less so.
Quote:
…we don’t want anyone to use cycling for general transport or to go to the shops, dammit! That’s why they invented the car!” (my edit)
Sadly typical of Bedford.
Sadly typical of Bedford.
As to “numerous cycle routes and cycle paths across the Borough” the very clear majority of these are poorly marked shared use pavements that can only count as an annoyance to both pedestrians & cyclists.
The borough does have the potentially useful facility of NCN route 51, but to the West that’s a mixture of round-the-houses labyrinth & arsehole attracting rat-run and to the East, which follow the course on an decommissioned branch line, it generally suffers from being a favourite dog walking track & in the summer it ceases to become a practical transport route when it becomes over-popular with families with young children and those wobbling along on their once-a-year bicycle outing.
All of the above is pretty damnd frustrating as the place is small enough & flat enough to make a bicycle the most rational mode of transport for many people for much of the time.
I sympathise with Josh, and
I sympathise with Josh, and if there were no warnings in the area that he was cycling in saying it is cycling-prohibited, then I don’t see how they can enforce it.
However, if there were/are plenty of warnings then conversely I don’t see that he has a leg to stand on, legally. We might think the laws are draconian, but we can’t decide which laws to obey or flout depending on whether we agree with them or not – not without expecting punishment anyway.
Kendalred wrote:
‘If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so…‘
(Thomas Jefferson)
Local Police, surely a
Local Police, surely a warning would have been appropriate? Motorists mostly get an offer of driver education for minor speeding infringements.
I suspect sadly that not paying the fine will end up with him with a CCJ and costs awarded as well. Best to take it on the chin, pay up and then say his piece from the rooftops unless he really thinks he has a strong case.
PRSboy wrote:
It’s not plod though – the Bedford Indy, in the article, refer to a ‘Council Officer’, not a police officer. So in hindsight Josh should just have refused to take the slip of paper, refused to give deatils and walked off. I can’t see the Council officer being able to physically restrain him?
He’s gone about this the
He’s gone about this the wrong way. He should have just cleared off and that would have been that. The ‘officers’ don’t have any power to pull you from your bike, detain you or anything.
No use being all enraged about this and say you’re not paying when you could have just done one in the first place.
Rick_Rude wrote:
+1
Just ride off, if it was a PCSO they don’t have the right to demand you produce ID, they can ask you for your details but you are not obliged to give them and unless they are in the process of writing the FPN then they have no right to detain you. You should also ask to see their ‘Designation Card’ which is like a regular policeman’s warrant card and lists all the powers that have been designated to them, they MUST show you this card on demand.
Rick_Rude wrote:
It doesn’t really matter whether the ‘enforcement officers’ have power to yank him from his bike. They’d have done it anyway, and later claimed (and if necessary, had sworn under oath and on the biggest stack of bibles this side of the Vatican) they the cyclist assaulted them.
And curiously enough, the CCTV in the town centre would have been ‘broken’ that day.
Rick_Rude wrote:
He is Scottish and hence is probably unaware of the rules around these ‘officers’. Scotland doesn’t have this shit going on.
Not that Scotlad is perfect by any means. t has lots of other stuff going on though.
Rick_Rude wrote:
.
I feel a freedom of
I feel a freedom of information request coming on, following collisions and reports of injuries.
nniff wrote:
It’s already in…
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/collisions_between_cyclists_and_3
aegisdesign wrote:
Well done! Let us know what happens please.
Hmm should have took a car
Hmm should have took a car and drove down the bus lane, it would have been cheaper, intact any other road offence appears to be cheaper…
https://www.bedford.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-travel/parking/street-parking/fines/
Despicable behaviour for a
Despicable behaviour for a town with an air pollution problem.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/aqma/details?aqma_ref=618
Public Space Protection
Public Space Protection Orders: a perfectly reasonable goal to stamp out antisocial behaviour from the yob minority who make town centres into rubbish festooned, threatening environments that smell of wee has been turned into a money grabbing exercise where privately contracted wardens tackle old people who drop a few crumbs and young mothers who’s kids drop something out the pushchair. Some arseholes on bicycles do need taking down but they are too dificult to catch and quota must be filled.
Though entirely unfair from the account given, I would suggest that Josh dissociates any idea of fairness from the operation of the legal system. Unless he has a technical argument with the ticket or signage then he will only build up further fines, court costs and eventually bailiff charges.
If he has the time and inclination, he would be far better to target, obstruct and cause financial loss to the private company involved in the scam by any (legal) means possible. I think Bedford contract with Kingdom Environmental Protection. They have a lot of form in this area. Thoroughly unpleasant people.
Mungecrundle wrote:
There is a lot about that particular company and its ‘officers’ – they have a very bad reputation for being a bit overzealous (being generous, there
), and I believe that many councils have cancelled their contracts with them.
Council’s are making extra
Council’s are making extra bucks by introducing these measures, even though I doubt they cover the cost of the enforcement.
Perhaps a crowd funding page needs setting up to pay his fine,car pointless having a ccj for this.
maviczap wrote:
Admins, can we have a means of deleting our own duplicate posts?
maviczap wrote:
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.
“following collisions with
“following collisions with cyclists and reports of injuries“
Sure.
Overzealous enforcement. But
Overzealous enforcement. But there are some who would say getting through Bedford town centre with only that damage is a win.
Re: “The enforcement firm
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.
HowardR wrote:
*ding*
“However, cycling in Bedford
“However, cycling in Bedford town centre is a major concern for local residents following collisions with cyclists and reports of injuries.”
BULLSHIT.
How about a simple sign that says “cyclists, please slow down and give way to pedestrians where appropriate”.
I bet if you asked a single complainent for more details on these collisions and injuries, they wouldn’t be able to give you any.
We’ll see if he is arrested
We’ll see if he is arrested as a terrorist at the border when he tries to get back in.
That brings to mind an
That brings to mind an incident from a few years ago, which many of you will remember. Royal Parks had banned cycling in part of Bushy Park. Turns out that two people had complained.
My regular commute takes (‘took’?) me through Greenwich Park. Those of you who know this park will know that ‘the Avenue’ is a pretty steep hill which takes you past the Royal Observatory. Next to the road is a path on both sides, the uphill section of which has big bicycle logos painted all over the shop. Take the road and you’ll get punishment passes from drivers. Take the path and you’ll get tuts and glares from the pedestrians. The former is far more frightening than the latter, of course. And it’s a daily occurrence.
Anyway, I fired off an e-mail to Royal Parks, asking if they were planning to ban motor vehicles from Greenwich Park, in light of the antisocial and dangerous behaviour of their drivers.
‘But, we’ve not had any complaints about Greenwich Park!’ bleated their PR drone, a certain Mr Dear.
‘You have now,’ I replied.
‘But … yours is the only one!’ was their response.
‘You only had two for Bushy Park, and you banned cycling. If you get one more, you going to ban cars?’
*tumbleweed*
Funny that, isn’t it?
It doesn’t really matter what
It doesn’t really matter what they can legally do and what they cannot. He’s a cyclist. They can basically haul him off the bike, kick the living shit out of him, and he will be arrested, charged and convicted of assault.
I live there and have also
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.
thelighterthief wrote:
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…?)
Well, despite all the
Well, despite all the protests, a quick look at Google Streetview shows three signs at the entrance and exit to the town centre. These all seem clear that cycling is prohibited and what the potential fine is. What I am bemused by is that they are so high up on the signposts – why aren’t they where a cyclist might see them? This suggests to me that they aren’t “clear”. Just a thought…
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1356956,-0.4681467,3a,65.2y,318.55h,90.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB4e84M2yZPkfGQJzyurppg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So very typical of this
So very typical of this current Government, they don’t see enough money generated from cycling so we are just a menace, it’s any excuse to make our lifes difficult. the state of our roads alone make cycling far more dangerous then ever, some of the pot holes in East Yorkshire are big and deep enough to cause damage to cars, that’s leading to fighting for good tarmac and the cars are always going to win that one. I can only see things getting better with a big big change of attitude in this country, you don’t have to look that far to see people standing up for their rights….
Well ignore the fine and this
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.
wknight wrote:
If you live in England. Won’t be any bailiffs at his home in Scotland.
Just got fined £75 today for
Just got fined £75 today for the same thing. In hindsight, I should have just turned around and cycled back out of the zone but didn’t expect such a hefty fine without any warning. 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. The amount of money they are raising quite obviously brings into question how clearly the signs are – high up and not within eyeline of where you look when cycling. I can’t believe anyone would take the risk if they were aware of the rule. The council response sums up their attitude so I see little point in appealing. To not provide clearer signing and offer a warning for a first time offence is pathetic.
Pms wrote:
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
If they ask for your details,
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.
Crippledbiker wrote:
“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:
“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.
— Crippledbiker
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:
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 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:
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.
You are not obliged to give
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.
schlepcycling wrote:
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, [I] just walk away[/I]. 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.
Crippledbiker wrote:
Post Deleted
He’s behaving a bit arrogant.
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.
robike wrote:
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:
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.