Cyclist fined for speeding in Richmond Park

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.

--
Iain

On 21/09/2013 05:11, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 08:48, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 20/09/2013 16:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put
points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the
roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a
diesel locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

What happened, did your Mum need her spare room back?

But my mother doesn't have a spare room and I don't live with her. She
lives in a old folks home with my father. I live on my own in my own
house.

Wrong tactic.

Seriously.

Don't fall into that trap.


What trap? Explain.

On 21/09/2013 05:10, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 08:47, TMS320 wrote:
"brianrob1961" wrote in message
On 20/09/2013 16:07, 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).

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

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

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put
points on
my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

On the other hand, I don't get the all the whingeing about limits and
cameras. To test the system I once deliberately did 39 indicated (true
36/37) in a 30 and never got a letter. It was a Truvelo, not a Gatso so
should have been reliable. Almost disappointing in a way. (It was an
urban
dual carriageway, not a residential road, btw.) I've never found
camera cars
particularly scary either.

That a dual carriageway which is not a residential road has a 30 limit
is a reflection of how sick the UK's official approach to traffic has
become.

Don't you think it depends on how long the stretch of road is? I
personally think this 30/40/30/50 over a fairly short stretch - whatever
the road conditions - is a bit unfair.

On 21/09/2013 04:32, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 05:11, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 08:48, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 20/09/2013 16:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put
points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the
roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a
diesel locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

What happened, did your Mum need her spare room back?

But my mother doesn't have a spare room and I don't live with her. She
lives in a old folks home with my father. I live on my own in my own
house.

Wrong tactic.

Seriously.

Don't fall into that trap.


What trap? Explain.

Don't be led into justifying your life or lifestyle.

On 21/09/2013 16:08, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:32, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 05:11, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 08:48, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 20/09/2013 16:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put
points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the
roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a
diesel locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

What happened, did your Mum need her spare room back?

But my mother doesn't have a spare room and I don't live with her. She
lives in a old folks home with my father. I live on my own in my own
house.

Wrong tactic.

Seriously.

Don't fall into that trap.


What trap? Explain.

Don't be led into justifying your life or lifestyle.


Justify living on my own and having ageing parents????

On 21/09/2013 11:38, Terence Appleby wrote:
On 21/09/2013 16:08, jnugent wrote:
On 21/09/2013 04:32, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 21/09/2013 05:11, jnugent wrote:
On 20/09/2013 08:48, brianrob1961 wrote:
On 20/09/2013 16:36, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put
points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the
roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your
model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a
diesel locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

What happened, did your Mum need her spare room back?

But my mother doesn't have a spare room and I don't live with her. She
lives in a old folks home with my father. I live on my own in my own
house.

Wrong tactic.

Seriously.

Don't fall into that trap.


What trap? Explain.

Don't be led into justifying your life or lifestyle.


Justify living on my own and having ageing parents????

It's none of anyone's business.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 01:49:49 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

brianrob1961 considered Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:32:39
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On 20/09/2013 16:30, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 20/09/2013 16:07, 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).

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

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



Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put
points on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through
the roof.

Not if you were saving up for a new diesel locomotive for your model
railway layout you wouldn't.

But I don't have a model railway. Why would I be saving up for a diesel
locomotive for a layout that I don't possess?

Mentalguy hasn't realised yet that they don't make diesel engines that
small.

Well "they" used to.
I've seen diesel engines in model aeroplanes; the kind you hold at
shoulder height and let go, or which you control with wires tied to a
wing.
More correctly they were diesel principle, relying on glowplugs and
compression for ignition, but using nitro (or whatever model aeroplane
engines use) fuel.

On 22/09/2013 01:55, Phil W Lee wrote:
brianrob1961 considered Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:22:56
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On 20/09/2013 16:07, 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).

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

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



Yes, but I would rather pay a ton for an offence that won't put points
on my licence than pay £60 and see my car insurance go through the roof.

What about (as in this case) being fined for an offence which doesn't
exist?

I'd be VERY ****ed off, and appealing.
Speed limits in the Royal Parks were abolished for cyclists by The
Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010,
S1 (2)

"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

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.

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).

it's a nice smooth road, and easy to build speed, even just freewheeling
you'll keep pace with the cars at 30mph, so if one went for it 37mph
would be quite possible.

it is also a open area that really you'll spot the police a long way
off, they don't hide and have hi vis.

I assume he failed the attitude test

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

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

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com