"Bicycles will be removed" - legal?

even better would be a sign attatched to the bike, saying 'this bike is being left here as a experiment into the legality of removing property which does not belong to the remover, feel free to take part, we are watching you!' and see if anyone wants to go ahead. I think they might not bother..

When I was working as a courier I had, for a short time, a double-sided laminated sign zip-tied to my top tube that read something like:

"Anyone attempting to remove this bicyle will be prosecuted for theft and / or criminal damage, without exception"

It didn't last long as the rain got to it and was also unnecessary as I ignored all those signs and never had any trouble (except once)...but then a courier generally only stops for a few minutes.

"Anyone attempting to remove this bicyle will be prosecuted for theft and / or criminal damage, without exception"

except its not up to you whether someone is prosecuted - its for the police or the cps

Perhaps we should lock a beater up on one of these railings and then see what happens legaly after that?

The logical step would be to do this with a beater to a railing that we know the owner removes bikes from.

Then we sue them so that we can take a test case through the courts, pushing for a ruling that all such signs should be removed.

Slight hitch - if we lose, we have to pay all costs :-(

Does anyone know a lawyer that could give advice? I can ask my partner who is a barrister, but she mainly does european and commercial, not criminal stuff. Will run it by her anyway...

except its not up to you whether someone is prosecuted - its for the police or the cps

yeah but the threat should do the job?

The logical step would be to do this with a beater to a railing that we know the owner removes bikes from.

Then we sue them so that we can take a test case through the courts, pushing for a ruling that all such signs should be removed.

Slight hitch - if we lose, we have to pay all costs :-(

Does anyone know a lawyer that could give advice? I can ask my partner who is a barrister, but she mainly does european and commercial, not criminal stuff. Will run it by her anyway...

And if we lost said case it would be an end to cycle parking as we know it

(@ carson's comment at winston's sign) Private civil prosecution? Small claims court?

Does anyone know a lawyer that could give advice?

did you read my post?

yeah but the threat should do the job?

maybe - if people dont know how the criminal justice system works.

(@ carson's comment at winston's sign) Private civil prosecution? Small claims court?

oh - perhaps a misunderstanding here - bringing proceedings in the civil courts is not called prosecuting. you are prosecuted by the state in criminal proceedings - that said you can bring a private (criminal) prosecution subject to some restrictions although these occur relatively rarely as far as i know. if that is what you meant i appologise.

small claims court is civil...its simply the value of the claim (less than £ 5k) that means that the proceedings are subject to different procedural and costs rules.

I think this is probably the practical point here...

all i can reasonably say is that if someone has gone to the trouble of putting up a threatening sign, they might care about it enough to break your lock and take your bike / and it would then be for you to take action to get it back and recover any damages for the lock. given that the law is uncertain, it would unlikly be a straighforward process, and litigation of any sort is inevitably costly, worrysome and inherently risky. for those reasons alone, and perhaps thinking simpy that you would not care for a random to chain their property to yours and bugger off, it might be best to avoid locking your bike to private property.

I would guess that whoever takes a bike in this case would not surrender it easily. You could probably bet that they will make it difficult to contact them or deny responsibility at the outset (unless they are looking to gain a quick buck)...

yeah but the threat should do the job?

lol

Perhaps the way to deal with this is like the "right to roam" legislation. Lobby MPs to make law so that any railings fronting on a public space, with no danger of obstruction, are deemed by law to be bike parking. The MPs get green brownie (greenie?) points at no cost to the govenment - they like that.

as the railings are almost always on pavements i fail to see how there would be no danger of obstruction.

as the railings are almost always on pavements i fail to see how there would be no danger of obstruction.

The likes of Virgin Cable, BT and COLT seem to be able to plant cabinets on the pavement, often painted dull olive green such that partially sighted folks fall over them. There are "code of practice" minimum width for sidewalks. In many places the half-metre reduction in width caused by bikes against railings would still leave way over the safe width. We need to bring town planners on side.

It always amazes me when people I'm with pay attention to these.

@carson: Thanks very much for a considered opinion. It's somewhat unsatisfactory that this exists in a grey area. I'd love to see someone point out that bike parking in such circumstances is clearly wrong or right, either way.

Lobbying MPs, councils etc to get the rules clarified sounds like a great idea now they're more interested in supporting cyclists.

Hi,

Just a trivia question. I've tried searching here and on other sites and encountered ambiguity.

Do people who post signs that threaten removal of locked bikes from railings actually have a right to confiscate property?

I know councils have powers to remove bikes which are obstructions and the police can do pretty much anything under prevention of terrorism. There are lots of signs around that look like they've been stuck there by a building owner just looking to keep their property looking sharp, but what legal basis do they have to make off with someone's bike?

It seems to me that the majority of these signs are in Westminster, who are cunts as regards bike removal, I've had arguments with the street wardens (thugs) about what their legal rights are to remove private property and they are separate from road safety who do a good job as far as I can see, Westminster also seem to have the smallest number of bike racks of any borough and seldom by the shops or facilities you might want to use.
There is an explanation that I am aware of for some of these signs, Westminster has the largest number of remaining original sand cast iron railings of any borough, as people will know these were mostly removed during WW2 for metal for the war effort except where they protected a drop as they often do in Westminster (a very real danger in the blackout), now being cast iron these are hard yet brittle, if you lock to them a thief can easily break the railings to get your bike, leaving the railings owner with an extremely expensive listed railing repair job.
So that's my understanding of some of the issues at least in Westminster...

They can and will take your bike! The railings on the mansion flats outside Imperial (K&C) have signs forbidding bikes to be locked to them, and they do get removed by the caretakers. I would say it's OK if you're leaving it for a few minutes, but any longer and it isn't worth the risk.

You could question the legality of the signs, you need planning permission to erect signs even on your own property.

A policeman once showed me how to remove an illegal clamp off my car without damaging it. Had the signage been legal then so would the clamping.

I think London may be in need of some of these...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIHrmN_ptJc

You could question the legality of the signs, you need planning permission to erect signs even on your own property.

andy.w is right, application to display notices and advertising would need to be submitted for approval by the local authority / highways / police departments in that borough and interestingly westminster are pretty hot on approved signage displayed on properties.. maybe a spoke card questioning whether the notice has approval could do it.. I deal with westminster alot with regard to licensing / highways / planning and will ask them about this.. it would be good to get their take on this issue..

alternative spoke card might read:-

IF THIS BIKE IS REMOVED FROM THIS RAILING I WILL PERSONALLY COME DOWN HERE AND KILL YOU IN THE EYES, MR FATSO SECURITY TWERP.

love it.. great thread btw..

A policeman once showed me how to remove an illegal clamp off my car without damaging it.

pray tell...

Let down the tyre, clamp can then be peeled of, put spare on. If you damage the clamp then you can be done for criminal damage.

^Good to know! Oh, another tip : Apparently, a parking warden cannot issue a fixed penalty parking fine on your car if there is no street sign! So if you unscrew the sign, you can't get fined.

^Good to know! Oh, another tip : Apparently, a parking warden cannot issue a fixed penalty parking fine on your car if there is no street sign! So if you unscrew the sign, you can't get fined.

I've never removed a sign myself but from time to time I've found a parking bay without any signs and parked for free but I always leave a big note in the window along the lines of 'no parking restrictions, DO NOT TICKET'. This also worked for me on a section of yellow line with a wvm sized gap following a repair to the road surface. Most wardens now photograph the vehicle, the ticket and the parking restrictions sign.

^^^^

dug out and read arthur v anker after my post - hadnt occured to me that volens could be pleaded as a defense - you're right, appeal was dismissed on consent issue. seems the idea of self help remedies is not popularly endorsed nowadays by the court of appeal! it was not ruled out as a defense though where damage is suffered (though when this is deemed to occur remained it seemed subject to dispute) - so can imagine that a bike and lock that scratches paint, or damages railings in some way could be distrained in the absense of signs on the basis that it is 'damage feasant' pending compensatory tender from occupant.
interesting how all the judges wanted their say on distraint - for common law judges mediaval agricultural laws no doubt offer something of an interesting intellectual excercise!