Fixed Penalty Notice for Cycling

Lord_Baltimore

pogofish wrote: »

I thought these tickets were an offer to discharge liability, not a fine..?

I do beg your pardon. The following lends less to brevity but will hopefully satisfy your confusion:

Pay the offer to discharge liability. Don't turn a drama into a crisis - the script is poor and you'll get panned by the critics :undecided

martinbuckley

reach229 wrote: »

it was exactly the same 'officers' in Peterborough. Glad I'm not alone, but I guess I'm paying it anyway

There are huge signs at either end of the pedestrianised area stating no cycling between 0900 and 1800. There are also numerous signs stating that a marked area has fines for littering, spitting, cycling and begging. The beggars are still out in force, but it appears the enforcement officers are more interested in cyclists and littering. I'm going to start drawing their attention to the beggars sat along this area, and would suggest any other Peterborough residents do likewise.

Nick_C

If it goes to court, there are two pieces of evidence.

There is the recording of you admitting the offence. There will also be a statement from the Enforcement Officer who will say he saw you committing the offence.

Pay the FPN. It's not worth risking a criminal record to try to save £80.

Nasqueron

I don't really get this case and after re-reading and updates, still don't. If you weren't cycling in the area why did you say you were? I'd have simply said I wasn't cycling and moved off and got back on the bike when legal to do so and left?

Tigger_looks_bigger

I don't think you did admit the offence "you were cycling just up there" is too vague to say you answering yes is admitting guilt. The enforcement officer would have needed to say "you were cycling just up there, in the restricted zone" for you answering yes to be an admission. As you have easily and reasonable explained you did answer affirmatively but your interpretation of the question was different from what you now, on furhter thought, suspect the officer meant.



The enforcement officer is the professional. When there is ambiguity, either written or verbal, the law tends to side with the layman not the professional.


If you did cycle in the restricted zone and they have it on footage none of the above will matter anyway.

Nick_C

reach229 wrote: »

Is he just bluffing? Could they have more evidence and just not show me?

If they prosecute you, they will need to disclose all their evidence. However, it may be that further evidence could be available if they were to go looking for it - from CCTV cameras further up the street for example.

lammy82

It's hard to judge how this will go without knowing how the conversation unfolded after the snippet you've provided.

Consider the difference between:

"do you know why i stopped you?"
"I think i have an idea..."
"you were cycling just up there"
"...yea..."
"This is a restricted cycling area."
"Yes, I was cycling up there on Church Street but I dismounted before coming into the restricted area".
"You're still going to get a fine."
"I will contest it because I dismounted before I came into this area".

Versus

"do you know why i stopped you?"
"I think i have an idea..."
"you were cycling just up there"
"...yea..."
"This is a restricted cycling area."
"...ohh..."
"You're going to get a fine."
"....riighhttt...."

kinger101

I don't believe you. Doubt a magistrate will.

esuhl

kinger101 wrote: »

I don't believe you. Doubt a magistrate will.

But a magistrate might actually have some information on which to base their decision.

Norman_Castle

martinbuckley wrote: »

I'm going to start drawing their attention to the beggars sat along this area, and would suggest any other Peterborough residents do likewise.

Persecute the unfortunate and encourage others to join in because you got a fine for cycling where you shouldn't?
Grow up, pay your fine. No need to drag others down with you.