Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Enforcement firm rakes in £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in Peterborough

Council planning to set up its own company to collect the fines

Over a thousand people have been fined for cycling in Peterborough since the introduction of a city centre Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) last year. The enforcement firm patrolling the area, Kingdom, will keep the £80,540 collected as part of its contract with the city council.

The fines were collected from 1,119 cyclists between June 12, 2017, when the Kingdom contract began, and June 30, 2018. We previously reported that almost 915 were fined within the first three months, but that figure is not directly comparable as not all of those were necessarily collected.

The PSPO sees fixed penalty notices issue for a series of offences. As well as unauthorised cycling in certain areas, they are issued for littering, dog fouling, spitting, failure to disperse, cycle dismount, urination and defecation.

A freedom of information request by Peterborough Today revealed that, 5,715 fines were collected worth £419,505.

£284,485 of that came from littering with £1,420 from ‘cycle dismount’. You’ll no doubt be interested to hear that there was a single fine for defecation too. (There is a theory here at road.cc that the person responsible decided against riding to get to the nearest loo on the grounds that the cost of taking immediate action to resolve their situation was exactly the same.)

Council leader John Holdich, who pushed for the PSPOs to be introduced, said: “It’s working, it’s tidying the city up. Now we want to spread it across Peterborough.”

He added: “Now we know that it works and how it works, we can set up our own company to do it, but the money collected will be ploughed into services.”

PSPOs remain controversial. Duncan Dollimore of Cycling UK has equated them to geographically defined ASBOs and expressed incredulity that they are being used to "restrict the use of public space and criminalise behaviour not normally regarded as illegal... [like] the pernicious pastime which undermines the very fabric of our society: cycling."

Two cyclists travelling through Peterborough on their journey from Southend to Bridlington said they considered the fines unfair after being stopped while riding their bikes down Bridge Street.

Writing to Peterborough Today, Mark Booker described the circumstances: “After several diversions, we find the centre of Peterborough, walk over a pedestrian crossing following a marked cycle path. Get back on our bikes, going at walking pace as we are looking for somewhere to park our bikes and bottoms.

“We are approached by two policemen – that’s what they look like anyway – who take down our details and fine us £80 each for cycling where we shouldn't be cycling. No discount for prompt payment.

“Going back to the street furniture by the pedestrian crossing, there was indeed a no-cycling sign. Right above the sign for the cycle path which we had honed in on.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

40 comments

Avatar
StuInNorway | 4 years ago
0 likes

“Going back to the street furniture by the pedestrian crossing, there was indeed a no-cycling sign. Right above the sign for the cycle path "
That there is straight off grounds to have the fine cancelled, to be enforceable it has to be signed correctly and legally

Avatar
srchar | 5 years ago
2 likes

I'm on a zero hours contract with no benefits and I wouldn't have it any other way. I work when I want to work. Both parties benefit from this arrangement. Could those of you not on zero hours contracts please stop getting irate on my behalf. Thanks.

Avatar
60kg lean keen ... replied to srchar | 5 years ago
0 likes

No offence meant, yes I know some like a no strings attached working arrangement but many don’t. Lots of people require fixed hours to pay there bills for the month, feed them self family pay rent mortgage etc.  This is  my point, if you have say for example been working as cleaner for large university then they outsource this work, you lose they win and that sucks and in my opinion what is wrong with our land. Profit before people, avoid your moral responsibility at all costs.

I'm on a zero hours contract with no benefits and I wouldn't have it any other way. I work when I want to work. Both parties benefit from this arrangement. Could those of you not on zero hours contracts please stop getting irate on my behalf. Thanks.

[/quote]

Avatar
60kg lean keen ... | 5 years ago
5 likes

Outsourcing, first it began with companys who with a nice mission statement and image to keep out sorced so as pay workers minimum wage, zero hours and no benefits.
 Now our councils and police use private companys to have "clean hands" .
Our own council uses Kingdom and the police use Rapid Secure limited, if you quesion the behavior of both companys you will just get "you will have to deal with them not us!"
 Our land is broken and needs a fresh start, when the revolution comes, and it is coming, we need a law that says that both public and private bodies who out source are legaly, financialy and morally resposble for the condut of those that they outsource to do work for them.  It not happening any time soon as those in power are a bit busy at the moment and outsourceing is there baby so they are not going to put it in dustbin any time soon! 
Non cycling rant over!!!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
2 likes

The classic no, no cycling, which because the idiots trying to stop cycling are so thick they can't even grasp that the sign is a double negative. fucktards!

Avatar
Mungecrundle replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The classic no, no cycling, which because the idiots trying to stop cycling are so thick they can't even grasp that the sign is a double negative. fucktards!

 

I'll admit to having to think about that twice. "No No cycling" or "End of no cycling" would be fair interpretations, but ultimately it is meaningless.

Official symbol below for others who might also need to brush up on the HC signage.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

The classic no, no cycling, which because the idiots trying to stop cycling are so thick they can't even grasp that the sign is a double negative. fucktards!

I always interpret that sign as "end of no-cycling zone".

Avatar
RMurphy195 | 5 years ago
1 like

I've seen "No Cycling" signs on a cycle path elsewhere - Bakewell I think it was.

I remember thinking at the time that if someone was prosecuted, they could appeal on the basis of incorrect or confusing signage (or whatever the legal phrase is).

Additionally, there's a clear recommendation here that if you are asked for ID by someoe who cannot produce ID as a police officer, I would guess you could simply refuse. And if they are impersonating a police officer, that's something else entirely.

Hint?

Avatar
srchar | 5 years ago
5 likes

They have no more power than the bloke who comes round to harrass you about buying a TV licence.  But their business model (yep, it's a business) depends on people believing they have powers that they don't.

Tell them that your name is Bill Carr, of 10 King Road, and carry on with your day.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to srchar | 5 years ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

They have no more power than the bloke who comes round to harrass you about buying a TV licence.  But their business model (yep, it's a business) depends on people believing they have powers that they don't.

Tell them that your name is Bill Carr, of 10 King Road, and carry on with your day.

They do have powers though under http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/4/chapter/2/enacted
68Fixed penalty notices
(1)A constable or an authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone he or she has reason to believe has committed an offence under section 63 or 67 in relation to a public spaces protection order.

What is not clear is what happens if you refuse and they can't identify you or worse if they did subsequently identify you would you end up with a court fine?

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
1 like

Makes you realise how weak-minded most people are. Unless I'd been nicked by a full fat police offer then you're not getting any details out of me.

I bet if you put some random uniform on and started accusing people of stuff you'd probably have good haul of names and addresses by the end of the day.

It's a bit like when they don't turn the motorway warnings off and it says 'slow, fog' and even when it's obviously cleared someone will be there with fog lights on doing 40.

Avatar
Drinfinity replied to Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
1 like
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Makes you realise how weak-minded most people are. Unless I'd been nicked by a full fat police offer then you're not getting any details out of me.

I bet if you put some random uniform on and started accusing people of stuff you'd probably have good haul of names and addresses by the end of the day.

It's a bit like when they don't turn the motorway warnings off and it says 'slow, fog' and even when it's obviously cleared someone will be there with fog lights on doing 40.

 

Aha! Now we know the true identity of YW.

 

https://youtu.be/D-wSRYbWJvU

Avatar
cyclisto | 5 years ago
5 likes

It is a really stupid concept to fine pedestrians and cyclists. Had it been really important, our ...coats and bikes would have licence plates, but we don't, as pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable users and in any occasion apart from lightning strikes equivalent situations as far chances are regarded, they will cause harm only to themselves.

For exactly this reason the best defence is, as other people suggested, to deny giving your personal information and wait for a proper policeman.

Avatar
hairyderriere replied to cyclisto | 5 years ago
2 likes
cyclisto wrote:

It is a really stupid concept to fine pedestrians and cyclists. Had it been really important, our ...coats and bikes would have licence plates, but we don't, as pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable users and in any occasion apart from lightning strikes equivalent situations as far chances are regarded, they will cause harm only to themselves. For exactly this reason the best defence is, as other people suggested, to deny giving your personal information and wait for a proper policeman.

 

Agreed. Punitive, cynical and contradictory.

And this seems a particularly 'hostile environment' for cyclists there. Detestable, all of it. Why so hateful?

 

Avatar
Tommytrucker | 5 years ago
1 like

Is this the same Kingdom that are contracted to patrol Wirral targeting people littering? They've got quite a bad rep here for going for the easy targets who they think will roll over and comply, hiding behind walls, in bushes, using bullying, intimidation to force people to give them their details. Totally agree that littering should be fined, but the way they go about it is all wrong.

Never littered btw. Or ridden in a no cycling zone ;0)

Avatar
brooksby replied to Tommytrucker | 5 years ago
0 likes
Tommytrucker wrote:

Is this the same Kingdom that are contracted to patrol Wirral targeting people littering? They've got quite a bad rep here for going for the easy targets who they think will roll over and comply, hiding behind walls, in bushes, using bullying, intimidation to force people to give them their details. Totally agree that littering should be fined, but the way they go about it is all wrong.

Never littered btw. Or ridden in a no cycling zone ;0)

Kingdom have the contract for central Bristol, too.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 5 years ago
8 likes

Something fundamentally wrong in handing the authority to stop and punish people to a private company. Especially when that company is financially rewarded by keeping the fines.

Personally I would treat any individual stopping me in the street and demanding money or personal details as a potential scam.

Avatar
john1967 | 5 years ago
7 likes

hhmmmm  If id been cycling at walking pace then i would wait for a police officer(chances are one wouldnt turn up in 30mins anyway)

Minister for Cycling Robert Goodwill has reiterated that the official line from the Department for Transport (DfT) is that cyclists may ride on the footway – more commonly referred to as pavements – provided they do so considerately, and that police officers need to exercise discretion.

+

Don’t issue an FPN in the following cases:

it’s not in the public interest to do so
the offender is vulnerable
THE OFFENCE IS TRIVIAL

Avatar
atgni | 5 years ago
2 likes

What's the 'cyclist dismount' sign that's enforceable?
The standard blue one is an information sign.

Avatar
ktache replied to atgni | 5 years ago
0 likes
atgni wrote:

What's the 'cyclist dismount' sign that's enforceable? The standard blue one is an information sign.

I have seen red ones at road works that I believe are a full offence if not complied with.

Avatar
atgni replied to ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes
ktache wrote:
atgni wrote:

What's the 'cyclist dismount' sign that's enforceable? The standard blue one is an information sign.

I have seen red ones at road works that I believe are a full offence if not complied with.

I don't think many temporary signs are enforceable. Speed ones need a red circle.
'No cycling' is a red circle sign, but I'd ignore a cyclist dismount and don't really want an £80 local authority asbo tax charge for it.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
3 likes

So I clicked on the Piranha Brothers link and YouTube gave me an advert for a new to me Danny MacAskill vid,

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr-wLhP_HpM&list=PLwku0ZH6sKBlTIGmQ4kjW6...

Finally this technology thing might be working.

 

Chrome won't let me watch the original Monty Python though, technology fails me.  Grrr.

Avatar
darrenleroy | 5 years ago
2 likes

It's 'homed in on', not 'honed in on'. These cyclists deserve to have the book thrown at them. 

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to darrenleroy | 5 years ago
11 likes
darrenleroy wrote:

It's 'homed in on', not 'honed in on'. These cyclists deserve to have the book thrown at them. 

The dictionary?

Avatar
handlebarcam | 5 years ago
5 likes
Quote:

The enforcement firm patrolling the area, Kingdom, will keep the £80,540 collected as part of its contract with the city council.

For no reason whatsoever, this jumped into my mind:

Quote:

They began to operate what they called 'The Operation'. They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them they would beat him up. This, for the Piranha brothers, was the turning point.

Avatar
john1967 | 5 years ago
11 likes

Im confused..What details do i have to give to anyone who isnt a police officer ???

Avatar
lllnorrislll replied to john1967 | 5 years ago
3 likes
john1967 wrote:

Im confused..What details do i have to give to anyone who isnt a police officer ???

A quick search comes up with this -
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-penalty-n...
Which would indicate that they can detain for 30 mins till the police arrive.
Also can fine children 10+ !!!

Avatar
Hirsute replied to lllnorrislll | 5 years ago
1 like
lllnorrislll wrote:
john1967 wrote:

Im confused..What details do i have to give to anyone who isnt a police officer ???

A quick search comes up with this - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-penalty-n... Which would indicate that they can detain for 30 mins till the police arrive. Also can fine children 10+ !!!

That says the 30 mins applies to a pcso not any authorised person.

 

I did not realise how open to abuse the imposition of FPNs is, nor that it is part privatisation of policing.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to lllnorrislll | 5 years ago
1 like
lllnorrislll wrote:
john1967 wrote:

Im confused..What details do i have to give to anyone who isnt a police officer ???

A quick search comes up with this - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-penalty-n... Which would indicate that they can detain for 30 mins till the police arrive. Also can fine children 10+ !!!

"Accidental littering

Don’t issue FPNs for accidental littering, for example if something falls from someone’s pocket.

Only issue FPNs where there is evidence of intent to drop litter.

Give offenders the chance to pick up litter before you issue an FPN. Warn them that you will issue an FPN if they don’t."

So you don't get fined if the littering is accidental, but you will be fined for accidentally missing a no cycling sign on a council defined cycle route?

"A police community support officer (PCSO) can detain the offender for up to 30 minutes before a police constable arrives."

Are these contractors PCSOs?  If not, apparently they can't detain you.  If they did try to detain you, would they be breaking the law?

Avatar
brooksby replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like
burtthebike wrote:
lllnorrislll wrote:
john1967 wrote:

Im confused..What details do i have to give to anyone who isnt a police officer ???

A quick search comes up with this - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/enforcement-officers-issuing-fixed-penalty-n... Which would indicate that they can detain for 30 mins till the police arrive. Also can fine children 10+ !!!

"Accidental littering

Don’t issue FPNs for accidental littering, for example if something falls from someone’s pocket.

Only issue FPNs where there is evidence of intent to drop litter.

Give offenders the chance to pick up litter before you issue an FPN. Warn them that you will issue an FPN if they don’t."

So you don't get fined if the littering is accidental, but you will be fined for accidentally missing a no cycling sign on a council defined cycle route?

"A police community support officer (PCSO) can detain the offender for up to 30 minutes before a police constable arrives."

Are these contractors PCSOs?  If not, apparently they can't detain you.  If they did try to detain you, would they be breaking the law?

They're NOT PCSOs.  If they were, they'd be PCSOs.  At best, they're roughly equivalent to a traffic warden or a street cleaner or any other council employee.  Pretty certain no powers of arrest, and if they attempted to then it'd be unlawful (and you could call the police on them, which would be hilarious).

Bristol brought them in around last Christmas.  Lots of fuss in the local papers about them because they carry body cameras to justify their actions, but then won't/can't review the footage there and then (someone complained, said they'd been wrongly fined - I think they'd been accused of dropped cigarette butts excet they didn't smoke and claimed it couldn't be them - they asked to check their footage, and Kingdom told them they couldn't and that they'd have to go to head office...).

(My personal gripe is also how they look like bl**dy paramilitaries, with heavy black boots, black fatigues, etc).

Pages

Latest Comments