Bike commuter fined £80 for breaching PSPO says ‘no cycling’ signs need to be clearer

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Question is it possible to use these orders to ban anti-social behaviours rather than cycling?

Yes. It is possible to word a PSPO in terms that state that the relevant enforcement agents (which may be broadly defined) may form an opinion on whether activities in a particular area are being carried out in an anti-social manner. That could include cycling, but allows common sense that cycling across an empty square on your way to work at 7.30 is viewed differently from pulling wheelies next to little old grannies on a crowded Saturday afternoon.

The problem with such PSPOs comes in interpreting where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable lies. If there's any doubt, a warning could be given, and the PSPO could make similar provisions to those in s59 Police Reform Act 2002 (or indeed, s59 could be used by a constable in uniform). 

Cool, then it strikes me that AlsoSom... below might want to get together with their local Cycling UK branch and object to the renewal of that order when it comes up on the grounds that its unnecessarily wide and at odds with the Councils sustainability and Climate emergency statements.
 

Especially if there are no safe alternative routes for cyclists and other sustainable transport near that patch. 

The Tring and Berkhamsted Cycling Campaign is affiliated to CyclingUK.

Good luck, though(!) The council has to be "satisfied on reasonable grounds that two conditions are met", namely that:

"activities ... have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality" (or that they will be); and
the activity is [likely to be] persistent or continuing nature, making the activity unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

It is very easy for a council to be reasonably satisfied; it simply says it is. The order can be challenged, both under the consultation period and in court within 6 weeks (or if a penalty is issued by the individual), but there are specific requirements:

it may be challenged by interested people (those who live, conduct business or visit regularly in the area of the notice).  there are two grounds under which the order may be challenged:

that the local authority did not have the authority to make the order (forget that; it does); or 
that it didn't follow the requirements laid out in Part 4 Chapter 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

On the 2nd ground, I note that s64(1) says,

Quote:

A local authority may not make a public spaces protection order that restricts the public right of way over a highway without considering—
(a)the likely effect of making the order on the occupiers of premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway;
(b)the likely effect of making the order on other persons in the locality;
(c)in a case where the highway constitutes a through route, the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route.

Dacorum has considered alternative routes, however a convoluted case could be made that it has not shown evidence of the likely effect of making the order on regular cycling, per (b).

Nor does it show any evidence of considering the reasonable separation of 'normal' cycling with due care, etc, and that of anti-social activity that happens to involve a cycle - the sort that is subsequently reported on the council web site in relation to supplying drugs, or involves misuse of cycles on the highway, cycling too fast or close for the prevailing pedestrian conditions, etc.

Section 59(5) requires that the prohibition should be reasonable... is it reasonable to conclude that 'cycling' leads to a detrimental effect? Or should more effort be made to avoid criminalising a particular activity that is not inherently detrimental?  I would say the latter, and that is where the campaigning activity should focus.

The renewal for this particular order is 28th July 2022.

https://www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/leisure-culture/shopping-and-town-centre...

https://www.dacorum.gov.uk/home/community-living/community-safety-dacoru...

Hemel is somewhere I've passed through more than stopped. I think it was the location of our nearest Green Shield Stamp shop when I was small.

It would be interesting to know what was asked in the consultations - presumably something like 'shall we stop nuisance cycling' rather than 'shall we provide a safe cycle route past/through the town centre' but both could apply to this area.   And as ever it’s unlikely to stop anti-social behaviour anyway. 
That PSPO, though is interesting, and disturbing. 
The activities that are prohibited are 'not to spit . . . ' and 'not to cycle . . .' in the designated areas. Which I suspect is not what they actually think they have said.  Would that be scope for appeal, perhaps?  In addition to the lack of signs. You would think someone would have read the order to make sure it makes sense?

But the disturbing part is clause 12 which says that you only have 6 weeks to challenge it, and can only do so if 'directly affected'.  By their definition, if you wouldn't visit those areas (eg because as a cyclist you are banned) you aren’t 'directly affected'. Is this a tactic to stop national organisations from challenging such orders unless they find a local to put their name to it?

Lastly, that order says the fine is £75.  But he was fined £80?  I can’t see a clause for increases.

It does appear to be a tactic to stop national organisations objecting, but I think you are over-reading the restrictive clause.   Being impacted by having to avoid the area is sufficient to demonstrate an interest.  It also doesn't stop local chapters of organisations such as Cycling UK and other local bike clubs getting involved. 
 

Bear in mind that the councils definition of local interest is probably challengable in law too.

Be careful doing this; It can be an offence, depending on circumstances.

As below; Ascertain whether the person who has stopped you has a designation card, and whether or not it actually gives them the ability to detain.
If they do not have a dessy card, or it doesn't explicitly state so - You can leave. Nothing they can do about it.

The card will (should) also state whether they have the power to mandatorily stop you - if it doesn't, well, you don't actually have to stop for them ever again.

If they DO have a designated power to detain, think very carefully before proceeding.

Do not provide false details to PCSOs or Police. Also PCSOs can't detain you very long, but it is an offence to refuse to give them details.

...Strangely, it's not an offence to refuse to give details to the police (unless you're being charged with something). Hey, guess what I've seen paired up PSCOs and Police do, when people refuse to provide to police?!

Crippledbiker wrote:

Do not provide false details to PCSOs or Police. Al

Why not?  Is it an offence to give them false details?

Erm, yes.

Yes. It's a specific offence to give false details to the police. Criminal Law Act 1967 S.5, I think?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/58/section/5.

It's a bit more complex with PCSOs; With PSCOs, you are only required to give your name etc if that power has been specifically designated - however, this will generally be within specific parameters IE road traffic offences, drug offences etc.
If they have been given a designated power to detain, it is for 30 minutes only and until a police officer arrives; You may leave after 30 minutes and they cannot stop you. They can ask you to go with them to a police station - You do not have to comply.

CEOs WILL NOT have a power to detain. The checking is merely a CYA formality.

You can avoid giving your name if directly asked with careful phrasing; Don't say "my name is X", but rather say, "you can call me X"; You haven't affirmatively provided false details, and it gets past the "oh but we need to call you something or how can we have a conversation" trick. Again, be cautious, and assess whether you need to clarify that it's not your actual name - if so, do so immediately.

Crippledbiker wrote:

You can avoid giving your name if directly asked with careful phrasing; Don't say "my name is X", but rather say, "you can call me X"; You haven't affirmatively provided false details, and it gets past the "oh but we need to call you something or how can we have a conversation" trick.

Unless it's something like, "you can call me 'Sir' ", then anything offered at that point will be taken as giving a false name. Trying to dance round it by saying 'you can call me Dave' when your name is John will be regarded as giving false details. Be careful of unworkable Freeman of the Land techniques. 

-snip-

This was supposed to be a reply in a thread.

It can be, yes - In the context I've done this, they've gone fishing and tried suggesting names when I've refused to give mine. In that case, responding with a "You can call me that if you like" isn't providing false details - it's just agreeing to respond to one they've suggested.

But you're quite right, more generally - hence my pointing out the need to assess carefully, and whether you need to clarify that it's not your name.

Absolutely do not do any of this if you're driving. You must immediately provide your details if asked in that situation.

...I mean, more generally, don't play silly buggers with the police - it will not end well. Stick to short factual statements, yes or no's, or clear refusals with justification - "I am not required to provide you with that information at this time".

[Comment moved to correct thread]

There We Are Then.

Troll alert!
Ignore!

I guess you missed the underlying message.

I'm pretty sure (IANAL) that without adequate signage the fine is unenforceable. Cycling is a normal, legal activity so there a sensible expectation that unusual, no-cycling areas should be sign-posted. In a similar fashion, speeding fines can't be upheld if there's inadequate signage.

This is correct.

If the signage is unclear, then it should be challenged instead of paid. If they threaten prosecution, call that bluff.
The "It's on the website, you should have checked" argument holds no water. No signage, no enforceable prohibition.

Fun thing I've come across a couple of times now; Cycling bans, backed up by fines, that don't actually have any TRO behind them - which means they have no enforceability. If they try the "it's an invoice not a fine" line (more common with private land), ask them to evidence the loss.

Or, y'know, don't give your details to CEOs, and once you've confirmed they have no designated power to detain - Leave.

edited to change RTO to TRO

Crippledbiker wrote:

 Fun thing I've come across a couple of times now; Cycling bans, backed up by fines, that don't actually have any RTO behind them - which means they have no enforceability.

a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) is a particular type of regulation. It does need to be signed, and the signage needs to comply with authorised signage (TSRGD or authorised experimental signs). However there are also other routes to regulation: bylaws, PSPOs, emergency powers. They also need to be signed.
 

But PSPOs, in my view a particularly pernicious tool, need reasonable signs and don't necessarily use recognised Highways signage. they are not setting out to control traffic, they are protecting public space.  However, the lack of approved signs might (IANAL either) be an argument to challenge whether the signage is reasonable in specific circumstances.

Again, you're quite right - The RTO is a piece of Irish road legislation, a TRO controls restrictions!

There are other paths to regulation, but a TRO is generally the most common for pedestrianised streets, and is certainly one of the easiest to "set and forget".

The town I'm living in has no cycling permitted in the centre, with TSRGD compliant signs - but nobody has ever been fined, because there isn't anything backing it up. Just signs.

I am aware of people fined elsewhere who've had fines removed on the basis of insufficient or incorrect signage.

I must confess that I don't pay much attention to it - I ignore all such restrictions and cycle through regardless. Absolutely nothing they can legally do to stop me from doing so.

Sounds like a case for Mr Loophole!