Paying fixed penalty notices

Dont pay 'em. I got one once, was £30. I blanked it to see what would happen. eventually i got a letter on xmas eve. I owed them £125 now. left it and few months later got another letter threatening me with arrest and they 're watching the border n all this shite. blanked it. finally they passed it onto bailiffs and it rose to £455.
So when the bailiff came a-knocking, I asked them to prove that that was me on the letter then told them you get off my property. havent seen them since..
I dont condone this action as it was my personal experiment, now i just write to the courts using common law.
personally if there isnt a victim there isnt a crime.Like any corporation(police) they need to make an income.

I'd start talking to a legal professional rather than reading bullshit off 'freeman on the land' websites before you find yourself with a criminal conviction and no chance of ever getting credit.

I'd start talking to a legal professional rather than reading bullshit off 'freeman on the land' websites before you find yourself with a criminal conviction and no chance of ever getting credit.

^this. Minor fines might be temporarily avoided simply because, by coming across as an obfuscating, conspiracy-theorist loony, you are seen to be more trouble than your fine is worth. But as far as I'm aware the common law approach has never worked in a serious legal situation i.e., court, and those who have tried have all ended up in contempt of court.

All resolved now, and just in-case it helps anyone in a similar situation, here's how it went;

Weighed up the options and decided that it would be quicker and cheaper to get in touch and sort it out once and for all, albeit 45 or so days late, which would usually incur a 50% fine increase [after 28 days].

To my pleasant surprise, the daft automated broad on the other end of the phone told me it was still only the outstanding £60 fine — so, firstly great but secondly, theres nothing like inconsistency to bolster the image of the Force as a dependable and just institution.

Now here's what was wrong with the ticket;

• Issued the ticket to one "Micheal Batt" whereas that's not my firstname, it's my middle name and it's spelt incorrectly.

• It was issued for a 501 (Contravening traffic signs) whereas I'm pretty sure it should have been a 509 (Contravening automatic traffic signals).

Whether or not there is some sort of interrelation I'm not sure, but even the online payment system was confused and the ticket reference wasn't cross-referenced with either of those offence codes.

So, I'm left £60 poorer and a little put-out because obviously I'm not worth the PCO's due time or attention. Faith in the Met's bureaucracy at an all time low — seriously — Fuck the system.

The workings of the system appear a little murky.

Anyone had any experience of these in Peterborough? Me and a mate got done £80 each today for riding walking pace down Bridge Street earlier today. Really reticent to pay the thing as we were on a training ride for a charity cycle next month. Any luck getting out of it?

Unless there's no signage indicating you cannot ride on the pedestrian area, no.

edit; just saw a sign showing cycling prohibited between 9am to 6pm looking north toward Bridge Street from the A15.

And another one on the northern end of Bridge Street.

1 Attachment

You'd think you would be able to cycle on the National Cycle Network

The cycle route runs literally down that street, and the restriction runs for 100m max. Biggest irony is that the restricted cycling sign is directly above the national cycleroute signage. Seems like they have caught thousands with it

I'm afraid you don't have a leg to stand on. The signage, as Ed posted, is very clear and there's no excuse. There's no doubt that inconsiderate cycling on that stretch would have been a local issue once upon a time, quite possibly when through motor traffic was banned there, and it was turned into a pedestrian zone. It may be that the partial ban on cycling was introduced after there was no ban, or that a blanket, 24-hour ban was partially lifted, but if you cycled there within the hours indicated, you have to pay the fine (although I don't know if the level is appropriate, that might be worth checking; £80 seems wildly excessive).

Ruserius:

You'd think you would be able to cycle on the National Cycle Network

Unfortunately, the much-overhyped 'National Cycle Network' is extremely poor in many places, and here is probably one of those places where Sustrans have previously negotiated with the local highway authority but have not yet achieved a complete lifting of the ban. I have to say that I think the ban is justified by the way the street is currently configured, with many obstacles and fairly narrow gaps, but of course that could be changed. However, it will clearly always have a very high level of pedestrian activity during daylight hours, and with important streets like this (undoubtedly dating back hundreds, if not thousands of years as a key link), you get a lot of demand on it in different ways--e.g., as a shopping destination, and, despite the ban on through motor traffic, by through cycle traffic, that are hard to reconcile unless the street layout becomes simpler and more flexible.

Where people design 'cycle routes', you often end up with barriers like this. The agency responsible, whether they are a highway authority themselves or a charity like Sustrans, will then 'park' the issue and have it earmarked for improvement, which can take years, decades, or may never happen. They may well have information about this short dismount stretch on their web-site, but obviously people are likely to miss that completely. It's one reason why designating 'cycle routes' is rarely a good idea. The best thing is just to work on improvements wherever possible, so that you don't get the kind of cognitive dissonance expressed through the signage around that short stretch of Bridge Street.

Out of interest, I take it you're not from Peterborough? I assume you would have known about it if you were?

reticent

'reluctant'

I can understand the ban on cycling in terms of scroats racing bmxs past prams and the elderly, however in this scenario there was no warning, just an £80 fine immediately for cycling at walking pace. No let off at all, mostly due to the people who give out the fines making £45 off each one.

Considering my mate and I are only from Cambridge and haven’t ever been to Peterborough before I’m sure af not going back any time soon. Don’t know how they can justify a days’ wage in a fine for something so petty.

in this scenario there was no warning

Well, there is signage that you should have seen and observed. It really is very clear in this case. I mean, I agree that the fine is well excessive, but as I said, you don't have a leg to stand on, unfortunately. You could, of course, write to the highway authority and/or Sustrans with your very legitimate concern that this either shouldn't be designated a cycle route or that they should review the street layout and the timed ban on this short stretch. I don't think that would prompt any quick change, though.

Either way, an £80 fine on your birthday is not the one

Do you and your mate have the same birthday? Should you have been let off and them pay a fine?

Should charridee supporters not pay fines? Or is it just that @user100632 shouldn’t have to pay fines?

As an untrained/unskilled/unlicensed roaduser many won't know how to read that signage, is it a cycling allowed sign or a cycling not allowed sign and is the time an exception or when it's not allowed or when it is allowed.

as a north american in the UK the red circle (without a line going through it) did confuse me at first ....

1 Attachment

Have a lovely day pal

I will. It’s my birthday so does that mean I can incur fines but not have to pay them?