Cycling Fixed Penalty Notices

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just seen our County's new ACSO's (Accredited Community Safety
Officers) on patrol - four of them in bright yellow coats.

...

Quoted message said:

Another function is to issue FPN for various offences which include
cycling on pavements.

Now this is where questions are raised. AIUI FPNs issued by the police
are presently £30 with payment being required within 28 days.
Well, these ASCOs can issue FPNs at £50 which have to be paid to the
Local Authority within just 14 days before you become liable for
prosecution.

My big question is why the difference?
Get caught by the police and its £20 cheaper and two more weeks to pay.
Why can the local authority impose more than that set by an Act of
Parliament?

Presumably because there's a new Act of Parliament prescribing the powers of
ASCOs and the levels of fines that may be imposed? ISTR the same thing
happened when parking enforcement was devolved to local authorities - the
fines went up.

Quoted message said:

Whilst I am completely opposed to all pavement cycling, something's not
quite right here.

Ah well, it won't be the only area of law of which that could be said....

Rich

Richard Goodman said:

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just seen our County's new ACSO's (Accredited Community Safety
Officers) on patrol - four of them in bright yellow coats.

..

Quoted message said:

Another function is to issue FPN for various offences which include
cycling on pavements.

Now this is where questions are raised. AIUI FPNs issued by the police
are presently £30 with payment being required within 28 days.
Well, these ASCOs can issue FPNs at £50 which have to be paid to the
Local Authority within just 14 days before you become liable for
prosecution.

My big question is why the difference?
Get caught by the police and its £20 cheaper and two more weeks to pay.
Why can the local authority impose more than that set by an Act of
Parliament?

Presumably because there's a new Act of Parliament prescribing the powers of
ASCOs and the levels of fines that may be imposed? ISTR the same thing
happened when parking enforcement was devolved to local authorities - the
fines went up.

Quoted message said:

Whilst I am completely opposed to all pavement cycling, something's not
quite right here.

Ah well, it won't be the only area of law of which that could be said....

Rich

Moving traffic offence (Police) £30.00
Stationary traffic offence (Police) £40.00

Never got the logic behind that one either 🙂

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Moving traffic offence (Police) £30.00
Stationary traffic offence (Police) £40.00

Never got the logic behind that one either 🙂

You have to compensate the police for denying them the fun of a high
speed chase.

Tony ;-)

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Moving traffic offence (Police) £30.00
Stationary traffic offence (Police) £40.00

Never got the logic behind that one either 🙂

IIRC you get the same number of penalty points for leaving your rear fog
light on and doing a U-turn on a motorway.

The way things are going in this country you will soon get a heavier
fine for drinking from a can of beer in public or dropping a cigarette
end than quite wilfully risking killing someone by doing 39 Mph in a
30 zone...

Howard said:

The way things are going in this country you will soon get a heavier
fine for drinking from a can of beer in public or dropping a cigarette
end than quite wilfully risking killing someone by doing 39 Mph in a
30 zone...

You already get more for failing to buy a TV licence than for actually
killing someone by doing 39mph in a 30mph zone.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Howard said:

The way things are going in this country you will soon get a heavier
fine for drinking from a can of beer in public or dropping a cigarette
end than quite wilfully risking killing someone by doing 39 Mph in a
30 zone...

You already get more for failing to buy a TV licence than for actually
killing someone by doing 39mph in a 30mph zone.

Despite what you'd think from all the "big brother is watching you"
adverts, I believe that the average fine for owning TV without a
licence is actually nearer £150 than £1000.

Granted that's still more than forty quid, though.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 02:37:10 +0000,

Daniel Barlow said:

Despite what you'd think from all the "big brother is watching you"
adverts, I believe that the average fine for owning TV without a
licence is actually nearer £150 than £1000.

Except that owning a TV isn't an offence. It's installing and using to
receive television transmissions that is the offence. It isn't a TV
licensing offence to watch videos recorded by your neighbour but it might
be a copyright offence.

Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for
not owning a TV licence)

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:22:58 +0000 (UTC),

Ian Smith said:

Tim Woodall said:

Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for
not owning a TV licence)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I get no different consequence when I just bin teh letters as when I
fill them in and send them back, so whether I do or not depends on how
creative I'm feeling. I quite like the 'complete the sentence' ones
they have:

<snip>

I did find one difference when I filled in the letter in my previous
house:

It went from being addressed to "The occupier" on Monday to "Mr
T Woodall" on Friday. FFS I'd just sent it back - and they had obviously
got it because they now had my name.

Tim

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It went from being addressed to "The occupier" on Monday to "Mr
T Woodall" on Friday.

When I get letters addressed to the occupier I send them back marked
"gone away" ;-)

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Tim Woodall [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Except that owning a TV isn't an offence. It's installing and using to
receive television transmissions that is the offence. It isn't a TV
licensing offence to watch videos recorded by your neighbour but it might
be a copyright offence.

/videos/dvds . I don't know of anyone who has a VCR that doesn't include
a tuner and as far as I know, the problem is in having equipment that is
capable of receiving and correctly decoding the broadcasts. You
technically require a licence for a radio scanner IIRC.

Quoted message said:

Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for
not owning a TV licence)

I finally succumbed one morning when they turned up on the door. The
irony was that the "inspector" searched so badly (Glanced in through the
livingroom door, didn't look in any other rooms) that I could have had
one and he'd have not noticed.

My mate managed to get them to stop when after receiving the fourth
stage letter (All in red, threatening court) he politely informed them
that if they didn't cease their accusations that he was lying (He had
filled in the form on the first letter), he would instruct his solicitor
to sue for defamation of character.

That resulted in at least six months of peace and quiet. I'm sure that
if they spent less money sending out letters, the licence fee could be
reduced, or they could spend the money on production and put something
worthwhile on TV. Then I'd consider getting one.

Jon

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:58:55 -0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

My mate managed to get them to stop when after receiving the fourth
stage letter (All in red, threatening court) he politely informed them
that if they didn't cease their accusations that he was lying (He had
filled in the form on the first letter), he would instruct his solicitor
to sue for defamation of character.

I know a solicitor who has been subject to bills from NTL for a
service they never delivered. They have started threatening court,
and he has now written to them stating that if they do not withdraw
all action immediately he will initiate a private prosecution for
harassment. There is apparently case law stating that hassling
someone for a non-existent debt is exactly that - and as such, a
criminal offence.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Tim Woodall said:

Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for
not owning a TV licence)

Same here. Neither have I ever owned a gun, but I get no [censored] from the
gun licence people.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Quoted message said:

/videos/dvds . I don't know of anyone who has a VCR that doesn't
include a tuner and as far as I know, the problem is in having
equipment that is capable of receiving and correctly decoding the
broadcasts. You technically require a licence for a radio scanner
IIRC.

You can have a TV to use as a monitor (for CCTV/playstation/whatever), but
it mustn't be tuned in to any channels so you might should be able to use a
detuned TV to watch pre-recorded videos/dvds on.

Tim Woodall said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for
not owning a TV licence)

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I did find one difference when I filled in the letter in my previous
house:

It went from being addressed to "The occupier" on Monday to "Mr
T Woodall" on Friday. FFS I'd just sent it back - and they had obviously
got it because they now had my name.

Does Not Follow. I have not sent the TV licence mob any correspondence
for over a decade and several address changes, since I discovered that
sending back the form makes no bleeding difference to the harrassment.
But a while ago the "addressee" letters began to alternate with
personally addressed ones. I assume the licence people think it's scary
for you when they not only know where you live, they know your name.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Mark Thompson [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

You can have a TV to use as a monitor (for CCTV/playstation/whatever), but
it mustn't be tuned in to any channels so you might should be able to use a
detuned TV to watch pre-recorded videos/dvds on.

Given the guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude of TV licensing, this
would be an interesting one to fight.

Jon

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've just seen our County's new ACSO's (Accredited Community Safety
Officers) on patrol - four of them in bright yellow coats. We are
apparently in the first County to have them and also in one of only four
Boroughs where they are being presently used.
The plan is to have them throughout the County next year.
Their main remit is anti-social behaviour which is a massively growing
problem - (my ribs still give pain from the assault in September). in
this I am very supportive of their role.

Another function is to issue FPN for various offences which include
cycling on pavements.

Now this is where questions are raised. AIUI FPNs issued by the police
are presently £30 with payment being required within 28 days.
Well, these ASCOs can issue FPNs at £50 which have to be paid to the
Local Authority within just 14 days before you become liable for

prosecution.

Quoted message said:

My big question is why the difference?
Get caught by the police and its £20 cheaper and two more weeks to pay.
Why can the local authority impose more than that set by an Act of

Parliament?

Quoted message said:

Whilst I am completely opposed to all pavement cycling, something's not
quite right here.

OK so I am cycling merrilly along the pavement and some [censored] says

"Oih!! Sstop I wish to issue a FPN!!"

The chances of me stopping are zero (approx).

Even if I was cornered a wave of my heafty U-bolt lock might have
the desired effect.

Whilst I agree that reckless cycling on the pavement is wrong I see
nothing whatsoever with careful pavement cycling.

The only people who wouuld get caught are the sensible riders, the
reckless ones would be long gone.

This measure might actually encourage me to ride recklessly on the
pavement to 'avoid capture'.

Its a bloody idiotic idea.

Even if I was caught I could give a false identy.

Joe Bloggs no fixed abode should do it.

Anyhow the alternative to riding on the pavement is to push your bike
which actually gives you less control over it than riding.

If I was caught and fined I would proceed to push my bike along
the pavement (holding the saddle not handlebars), no doubt resulting
in a nasty collision with the nearest pedestrian.

Or.....run along the pavement holding my bike and crashing (accidently)
into the ticket issuer!!!!

"Oopps sorry matie!!! My hand slipped off the the handle bars!!"

And if you are going to ban cyclists you would have to ban joggers (and
running)
too as they are just as dangerous.

A collision with a jogger would probably be far more dangerous as a head
collision is far more likely.

There is no way you can reasonable ban cycling on the pavement
but not ban running, both present an equal danger to concerned
groups (blind, deaf, elderlly etc...).

Beats me why I am not running [ cycling :O) ] the country!!!!

Another gem,
by half_pint :O|

half_pint [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Whilst I agree that reckless cycling on the pavement is wrong I see
nothing whatsoever with careful pavement cycling.

The problem lies in the difference between what you consider to be
reckless and what the person you are riding towards considers reckless.

Quoted message said:

Anyhow the alternative to riding on the pavement is to push your bike
which actually gives you less control over it than riding.

You figure? It's travelling slower. Easier to stop. Easier to take full
control to move it suddenly sideways to avoid someone / something.

Quoted message said:

A collision with a jogger would probably be far more dangerous as a head
collision is far more likely.

But a collision with a jogger is less likely as they are travelling more
slowly and tend to make their intentions clearer than pavement cyclists
by taking a line to avoid people early.

Quoted message said:

There is no way you can reasonable ban cycling on the pavement
but not ban running, both present an equal danger to concerned
groups (blind, deaf, elderlly etc...).

If you only travel as fast as a jogger when cycling, then I suggest you
start training. You're a little bit slow!

If you want to amble along at a slow pace (Walking pace for example)
then you might be OK on the pavement, but you might as well walk. If you
want to make progress, you'd go faster on the road.

Jon

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:58:55 -0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I finally succumbed one morning when they turned up on the door.

Why? Were you feeling in a good mood?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.