|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling Fixed Penalty Notices
I've just seen our County's new ACSO's (Accredited Community Safety
Officers) on patrol - four of them in bright yellow coats. We are apparently in the first County to have them and also in one of only four Boroughs where they are being presently used. The plan is to have them throughout the County next year. Their main remit is anti-social behaviour which is a massively growing problem - (my ribs still give pain from the assault in September). in this I am very supportive of their role. Another function is to issue FPN for various offences which include cycling on pavements. Now this is where questions are raised. AIUI FPNs issued by the police are presently £30 with payment being required within 28 days. Well, these ASCOs can issue FPNs at £50 which have to be paid to the Local Authority within just 14 days before you become liable for prosecution. My big question is why the difference? Get caught by the police and its £20 cheaper and two more weeks to pay. Why can the local authority impose more than that set by an Act of Parliament? Whilst I am completely opposed to all pavement cycling, something's not quite right here. John B |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"JohnB" wrote in message
... I've just seen our County's new ACSO's (Accredited Community Safety Officers) on patrol - four of them in bright yellow coats. ... Another function is to issue FPN for various offences which include cycling on pavements. Now this is where questions are raised. AIUI FPNs issued by the police are presently £30 with payment being required within 28 days. Well, these ASCOs can issue FPNs at £50 which have to be paid to the Local Authority within just 14 days before you become liable for prosecution. My big question is why the difference? Get caught by the police and its £20 cheaper and two more weeks to pay. Why can the local authority impose more than that set by an Act of Parliament? Presumably because there's a new Act of Parliament prescribing the powers of ASCOs and the levels of fines that may be imposed? ISTR the same thing happened when parking enforcement was devolved to local authorities - the fines went up. Whilst I am completely opposed to all pavement cycling, something's not quite right here. Ah well, it won't be the only area of law of which that could be said.... Rich |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Goodman wrote:
"JohnB" wrote in message ... I've just seen our County's new ACSO's (Accredited Community Safety Officers) on patrol - four of them in bright yellow coats. .. Another function is to issue FPN for various offences which include cycling on pavements. Now this is where questions are raised. AIUI FPNs issued by the police are presently £30 with payment being required within 28 days. Well, these ASCOs can issue FPNs at £50 which have to be paid to the Local Authority within just 14 days before you become liable for prosecution. My big question is why the difference? Get caught by the police and its £20 cheaper and two more weeks to pay. Why can the local authority impose more than that set by an Act of Parliament? Presumably because there's a new Act of Parliament prescribing the powers of ASCOs and the levels of fines that may be imposed? ISTR the same thing happened when parking enforcement was devolved to local authorities - the fines went up. Whilst I am completely opposed to all pavement cycling, something's not quite right here. Ah well, it won't be the only area of law of which that could be said.... Rich Moving traffic offence (Police) £30.00 Stationary traffic offence (Police) £40.00 Never got the logic behind that one either Sniper8052 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
Moving traffic offence (Police) £30.00 Stationary traffic offence (Police) £40.00 Never got the logic behind that one either You have to compensate the police for denying them the fun of a high speed chase. Tony ;-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
Moving traffic offence (Police) £30.00 Stationary traffic offence (Police) £40.00 Never got the logic behind that one either IIRC you get the same number of penalty points for leaving your rear fog light on and doing a U-turn on a motorway. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The way things are going in this country you will soon get a heavier
fine for drinking from a can of beer in public or dropping a cigarette end than quite wilfully risking killing someone by doing 39 Mph in a 30 zone... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On 4 Dec 2004 11:55:08 -0800, Howard wrote:
The way things are going in this country you will soon get a heavier fine for drinking from a can of beer in public or dropping a cigarette end than quite wilfully risking killing someone by doing 39 Mph in a 30 zone... You already get more for failing to buy a TV licence than for actually killing someone by doing 39mph in a 30mph zone. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ian Smith writes:
On 4 Dec 2004 11:55:08 -0800, Howard wrote: The way things are going in this country you will soon get a heavier fine for drinking from a can of beer in public or dropping a cigarette end than quite wilfully risking killing someone by doing 39 Mph in a 30 zone... You already get more for failing to buy a TV licence than for actually killing someone by doing 39mph in a 30mph zone. Despite what you'd think from all the "big brother is watching you" adverts, I believe that the average fine for owning TV without a licence is actually nearer £150 than £1000. Granted that's still more than forty quid, though. -dan -- "please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 02:37:10 +0000,
Daniel Barlow wrote: Despite what you'd think from all the "big brother is watching you" adverts, I believe that the average fine for owning TV without a licence is actually nearer £150 than £1000. Except that owning a TV isn't an offence. It's installing and using to receive television transmissions that is the offence. It isn't a TV licensing offence to watch videos recorded by your neighbour but it might be a copyright offence. Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for not owning a TV licence) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Tim Woodall wrote:
Tim. (who has never owned a TV and hence has been regularly hassled for not owning a TV licence) I favour phoning them up and swearing at them. Of course, that was less effective when teh imbeciles couldn't even manage to get their own phone number at the top of the letter right. I get no different consequence when I just bin teh letters as when I fill them in and send them back, so whether I do or not depends on how creative I'm feeling. I quite like the 'complete the sentence' ones they have: I don't have a TV licence because... I don't need one. I did a cost-benefit analysis and decided not to buy one. for teh same reason I don't have a lion-tamer licence. (I like this, but you have to cross out teh 'because' for it to actually be coherent). regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"I am a cycling nerd - and proud of it" | davek | UK | 13 | August 10th 04 09:18 PM |
US Cycling is forever indebted to USPS. | ronde chumpion | Racing | 1 | April 23rd 04 03:29 PM |
Write to your MP about the BHIT bill. | David Martin | UK | 3 | January 16th 04 07:44 PM |
Compulsory helmets again! | Richard Burton | UK | 526 | December 29th 03 08:19 PM |
FAQ? | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 18 | October 1st 03 01:02 PM |