Cyclist fined for speeding in Richmond Park

On Friday, 20 September 2013 16:07:28 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote



37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.



I don't know Richmond Park but a measurement on Google Earth suggests a 30m

descent over 800m. The alleged 37mph needs to be taken with a big stretch of

credibility. It's also necessary to wonder why his lack of identification

failed to work (for him).


because he obviously volunteered it to the park officialdumb.




However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.



Makes the £60 fine for a driver quite a bargain.

by giving his name he has entered into joinder. Guess where he went wrong.

On Saturday, 21 September 2013 07:48:05 UTC+1, Iain wrote:
jnugent wrote:

On 20/09/2013 05:08, Iain wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

...

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...chmo nd_Park/



£15 victim surcharge? Interesting for a royal park.



"Victim surcharge" is a weaselly euphemism for something pretty close

in meaning to "VAT on top of the fine".



Is there a reason why it shouldn't apply to that offender when it does

to others?



Having looked it up, I reaslise that it goes into a central fund (Victim and

Witness General Fund) rather than to the 'victim' of the particular offence.

That's why I queried a royal park being a victim.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.g...-surcharge.htm



According to that page, being an offender under 18 at the time of the

offence, and having been given a conditional discharge, he should have been

fined only £10 ... unless the costs of £85 are actually a fine, which is

what the title suggests. Or maybe the paper has just got it wrong.



I think it's bull****, I reckon the parks authority have pursued an unsettled invoice and it's all falsely reported as the crackdown_on_cyclists. It probably occured 18 months or more ago.

On Sunday, 22 September 2013 09:54:04 UTC+1, Broan R0bertson wrote:


Then the law is wrong.

mostly true

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 09:15:42 +0100
Mrcheerful wrote:

On 22/09/2013 01:55, Phil W Lee wrote:

"vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted
for use on a road.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/1/made

So certainly not a pedal cycle.


Ellis v Nott Bower (1895) a cycle is a vehicle

But not a motor vehicle.

"jnugent" wrote
On 20/09/2013 12:48, TMS320 wrote:

But, I suppose some people are so unobservant that they run into
large, easily visible stationary objects.

...like the nearsides of left-turning lorries?

Perhaps, though to be precise, the cyclist would have been occupying a clear
piece of tarmac that the nearside of the lorry then takes over. Somewhat
different in principle to trying to use a piece of tarmac that is already
occupied. (Anyway, on roundabouts and multilane roads there
are always instances to be seen of car drivers putting themselves in a
position of a potential broadside by a lorry. I bet many end in tears.)

On Friday, 20 September 2013 17:39:58 UTC+1, brianrob1961 wrote:

Amazing how much capital you are trying (and failing) to make out of the
fact that I am into industrial history.

Not surprising at all, his only interest is sneering at others.

Phil W Lee wrote:

Absolutely wrong, since he was not charged with anything that is
actually illegal.
There has been no speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks since
the regulations were last amended in 2010, when the speed limit
regulations were brought into line with those on all other public
highways, where speed limits apply only to motor vehicles.

Nowhere in those regulations does it mention a 'motor' vehicle. All
references are to a vehicle (alone).

Indeed, it even seems to clarify it he
"Speeds at which a vehicle may be driven or ridden on a Park road"
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...ulation/2/made

IANAL
--
Iain

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 22 September 2013 09:54:04 UTC+1, Broan R0bertson wrote:


Then the law is wrong.

mostly true

All laws are wrong. We should all be able to do as we like.

On 23/09/2013 20:37, Phil W Lee wrote:
Broan R0bertson considered Sun, 22 Sep 2013
09:54:04 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On 22/09/2013 01:47, Phil W Lee wrote:
brianrob1961 considered Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:48:04
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On 20/09/2013 12:32, Mrcheerful wrote:
37 in a 20 limit sounds like dangerous cycling.
However he got a conditional discharge and a total of 100 quid to pay.

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/n...chmo nd_Park/


Absolutely right that he should be fined. Outrageously dangerous
behaviour, both for himself and others.

Absolutely wrong, since he was not charged with anything that is
actually illegal.
There has been no speed limit for cyclists in the Royal Parks since
the regulations were last amended in 2010, when the speed limit
regulations were brought into line with those on all other public
highways, where speed limits apply only to motor vehicles.


Then the law is wrong.

In your mind, maybe - but it is what the courts are supposed to
enforce.
Nobody should be fined based on the police, CPS, and magistrates
making it up as they go along.
In fact, for all three to collude in his conviction (as they must have
done) probably constitutes a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice.


Was it a pedal only bicycle? or an ebike?

The article doesn't actually state the offence with which he was charged.