Paying fixed penalty notices

They are driving offences, the act of stealing isn't.

Don't get uppity or Clive will bring the full force of the law down on you.

His law is meaningless here.

if there is a by law in place such as rich park then yes thats different.

the inference that I can get done for speeding on the clerkenwell road on my brompton is laughable and if a PCSO tried to I would litigate him into oblivion

As opposed to?

I used to be so proud of the 48mph max speed recorded on my cycle computer, until a big rainshower caused it to reset and lose the data.
/csb

I thought Scottish law had the power to add endorsements to driving licenses for cycling offences. Might be wrong tho'.

See, I wasn't making this shit up...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8148763.stm

Almost as awesome as a "furious cycling" fine. Not really sure what you have to do to get one of those, but I imagine it's beyond my ability.

Riding along waving your fist and shouting at everyone in an angry tone should do it unless that is too literal.

Or being pissed, a gentleman was prosecuted for this recently.

I'll see if I can scan the article from the local paper.

pissed and done for furious cycling? Must be one of those 'fighty' drunks who ruins it for everyone.

This is the IoM My Friend.

Just got a FPN (£50) for cycling on the footpath in Kingston town centre. I (ignorantly, admittedly) assumed that Clarence street was a shared path and have been riding that way for nearly a year and no-one has said anything, I have ridden past PCSO's and police on that section before without a problem. I'm obviously a cash cow for operation Safeway, he could have warned me and been done with it but targets are targets.

Would there be any recourse on appeal due to inadequate signage? an A5 sign 3 quarters of the way up a lampost obscured by a tree doesn't quite cut it in my opinion.

It depends if the restriction is under the RTA (and covered by a TRO), in which case signage must conform to legislation, or if it is under local byelaws (which I know far less about).

Huh, two of my post disappeared.

^^^ is a cross-post - you replied in a different thread.

What does the FPN state that the offence is?

Ah make sense, for some reason I thought they're the same topic.

found the signage

Ed's streetview is from a ped Xing, and there's no indication that you can ride a bike on the pavement there.

A little further round there is a dropped kerb (the entrance to Clarence Street) with a pair of full-size no-entry signs on it.

A little further round again there is another dropped kerb (the entrance to Castle Street, where you can ride) with a full-size no-entry sign, with an "Except Cycles" underneath it.

That little sign looks like it's just a reminder. Apart from this, I think it's pretty clear (in this direction at least) that you're not meant to enter Clarence Street from this end on a bike.

At the other end of Clarence Street, I think you have those empty red circular signs that mean (and say) No Vehicles, which includes bikes. (No Motor Vehicles has a car and a motorbike in the circle). So, as long as you know what the signs mean, it's quite clear that you shouldn't be riding there, I think.

I wouldn't challenge your FPN. Sorry.

Ed's streetview is from a ped Xing, and there's no indication that you can ride a bike on the pavement there.

No it's not, it's on Clarence Street further away from the crossing.

No it's not, it's on Clarence Street further away from the crossing.

I meant, the view is that of someone standing on the road, in the crossing. Just to give some positional context to the rest of my post. I realize the sign is behind the crossing, on Clarence Street.

What does the FPN state that the offence is?

cycling on a footpath

I've contacted Kingston and they'll look into the prohibition against cycling there (but note that such changes can take years). No idea if you have grounds for appeal on the basis of the nature of the signage.

cycling on a footpath

1. Is it a footpath (or footway, rather)
   
   • what are the TROs for the road
     
2. Were you cycling
   
   

If you are going to challenge the FPN, you will need to familiarise yourself with the relevant legislation and case law, and be aware that the penalty that a court can impose is steeper than a £50 FPN.

Ed's streetview is from a ped Xing, and there's no indication that you can ride a bike on the pavement there.

A little further round there is a dropped kerb (the entrance to Clarence Street) with a pair of full-size no-entry signs on it.

A little further round again there is another dropped kerb (the entrance to Castle Street, where you can ride) with a full-size no-entry sign, with an "Except Cycles" underneath it.

That little sign looks like it's just a reminder. Apart from this, I think it's pretty clear (in this direction at least) that you're not meant to enter Clarence Street from this end on a bike.

At the other end of Clarence Street, I think you have those empty red circular signs that mean (and say) No Vehicles, which includes bikes. (No Motor Vehicles has a car and a motorbike in the circle). So, as long as you know what the signs mean, it's quite clear that you shouldn't be riding there, I think.

I wouldn't challenge your FPN. Sorry.

Thought as much, though it annoys me if the police/council had real issues with that section being ridden on then they would have done something about it before, including improved signage. Now they are fining cyclists on the pretence of 'safety' just to make a quick £50. I will now be cycling around the ring road outside of Kingston with the HGV's which i'm sure will be alot safer for me and a lot more convenient for the car drivers as they are stuck behind me.

Signage is not ordinarily needed for making cycling on footways an offence - The default is that it is not permitted.

The £50 goes to the courts service, not to the police, by the way.

To be fair, it's not much of a problem riding on Wood Street, the only annoyance is having to be a lots more assertive in primary to discourage speeding motorists whom tend to exceed 40mph on it.

Thought as much, though it annoys me if the police/council had real issues with that section being ridden on then they would have done something about it before, including improved signage. Now they are fining cyclists on the pretence of 'safety' just to make a quick £50. I will now be cycling around the ring road outside of Kingston with the HGV's which i'm sure will be alot safer for me and a lot more convenient for the car drivers as they are stuck behind me.

Yeah, riding East/West through Kingston is a pain. I lived there until about a year ago. There is a cycle path you can follow by the side of Wood Street - starts at the top of the bus station outside Bentalls, and eventually sends you round Fife Road, from where you can go down Castle Street and onto Eden Street that way. I'm not sure which bits are one-way or two-way, and it's a bit of a faff.

Or you can go round the other way - the cycle path from John Lewis past the White Stuff, down Union Street, left onto Eden Street and follow it round.

It would be nice to ride down Clarence Street when it's quiet, but I can't see it being allowed when it's heaving with peds on a Saturday...