Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Round-the-world cyclist fined for riding his bike through Bedford town centre

“We have this restriction in place to help keep pedestrians safe” says council

Round-the-world cyclist Josh Quigley has been handed a £75 fine for riding his bike in Bedford town centre. The Livingstone cyclist, who is just a week into his trip, tore up the ticket and says he won’t pay. He argues that local councils should be encouraging people to get on their bikes, not punishing them.

Bedford is one of a number of towns to have imposed a cycling ban using a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). Cycling is not permitted in certain parts of the town centre between 9am and 6pm.

PSPOs have drawn criticism from Cycling UK for the way in which they target cycling as a whole rather than only those who cause a danger or nuisance through the manner of their cycling.

Quigley said: “I must have been going about 3mph; like walking pace; literally just on the bike, but not really pedalling; just going through the town centre so I can get to the other side to continue cycling.

“I just stopped at Tesco to get something to eat, and as I was doing that an officer approached me and said, ‘Stop the bike, sir.’

“And I got off – and I was calm and I never argued with him once – and he said, ‘Do you know you can’t cycle here?’ and I was like, ‘Oh no, I didn’t know that. I’m not from this area, just passing through.’”

Quigley was asked to produce ID and then, with no further questions, he was handed the ticket.

The cyclist was somewhat taken aback. “I thought, ‘Seventy-five fucking pounds for riding my bike through a town centre?’”

He added: “If they’re doing this to me, who else are they doing this to? If somebody’s just riding their bike through a street and they punish them with a £75 fine? For cycling a fucking bike?”

 

 

The Bedford Independent reports that Quigley is currently making his second attempt to ride around the world after aborting a 2016 attempt after 10,000 miles.

Quigley attempted to take his own life in 2015 and says cycling has helped him address mental health issues and ‘saved his life.’

On a video uploaded to YouTube, he tore up the ticket, saying: “I don’t think we should be punishing people for riding their bike. I think we – local councils, police, government – should be supporting people in getting onto bikes and getting out walking and doing anything that’s going to be a bit more active.”

A Borough Council spokesperson said: “We encourage cycling in Bedford as a green method of transport and a great way to keep fit, with numerous cycle routes and cycle paths across the Borough.

“However, cycling in Bedford town centre is a major concern for local residents following collisions with cyclists and reports of injuries. The Council was asked by shoppers and businesses to introduce a restriction on cycling in the town centre to keep pedestrians safe.

“The order restricting cycling in our town centre pedestrianised area has been in place for over two and a half years and signage is in place at the entrances to the pedestrianised area of the town centre to make people aware of this restriction.

“We have this restriction in place to help keep pedestrians safe whilst visiting Bedford and this is reducing the number of offenders. Anybody who does not agree that a fine should have been issued can decide to have the case heard in court.

“If anyone is aware of any mitigating factors for why a fine should not have been issued, we would encourage them to contact the Council and this will be looked into on a case-by-case basis.”

Other towns to have imposed PSPOs targeting cyclists include Mansfield and Peterborough, where a great many cyclists have faced fines.

The enforcement firm tasked with patrolling the latter raked in £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in just over a year as part of its contract with the council.

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

50 comments

Avatar
robike | 5 years ago
0 likes

He's behaving a bit arrogant.  He clearly knew full well that it was a pedestrianised area and if he cared to think for a few seconds would have not missed the signs.

I think pedestrians deserve protection from all wheeled vehicles, including cycles.  Watching frail folk wince as they get passed in "shared areas" reinforces it even more.  It's how I feel when I hear a motor scooter coming up behind me – scared that their not that competent.

The local cyclists, who often moan about an 120 metre length of street that is no cycling for 8 hours each day, make me angry.  The "insane obstruction" (in their words) costs about 1 minute delay if you dismout and walk, or longer for the stubborn purists that "have to" detour and don't seem to know how to push a bike.

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to robike | 5 years ago
2 likes

robike wrote:

He's behaving a bit arrogant.  He clearly knew full well that it was a pedestrianised area and if he cared to think for a few seconds would have not missed the signs.

I think pedestrians deserve protection from all wheeled vehicles, including cycles.  Watching frail folk wince as they get passed in "shared areas" reinforces it even more.  It's how I feel when I hear a motor scooter coming up behind me – scared that their not that competent.

The local cyclists, who often moan about an 120 metre length of street that is no cycling for 8 hours each day, make me angry.  The "insane obstruction" (in their words) costs about 1 minute delay if you dismout and walk, or longer for the stubborn purists that "have to" detour and don't seem to know how to push a bike.

It seems strange to ban all cyclists just due to some allegedly dangerous cyclists (anyone got the KSIs for the pedestianised area?). It would be like banning all cars from a section of road when there's too much speeding or possibly too many crashes although the danger is far more real and extreme with motor vehicles so I think banning cars is a stronger argument.

Avatar
JF69 replied to robike | 4 years ago
1 like

robike wrote:

He's behaving a bit arrogant.  He clearly knew full well that it was a pedestrianised area and if he cared to think for a few seconds would have not missed the signs.

I think pedestrians deserve protection from all wheeled vehicles, including cycles.  Watching frail folk wince as they get passed in "shared areas" reinforces it even more.  It's how I feel when I hear a motor scooter coming up behind me – scared that their not that competent.

The local cyclists, who often moan about an 120 metre length of street that is no cycling for 8 hours each day, make me angry.  The "insane obstruction" (in their words) costs about 1 minute delay if you dismout and walk, or longer for the stubborn purists that "have to" detour and don't seem to know how to push a bike.

 

Yo're the one coming across as arrogant; & you have little to support your way of thinking.

The signs are easily missed, check on Google Street view. But that's not the point.

Shared areas teach respect not only to cyclists, but also to pedestrians towards cyclists; which respect is sorely lacking. It fosters consideration for others in pedestrians, others as in "other people", not just people on a bike.

Cycling is not anti-social (as such PSPOs would have you belive) as much walking or a Mum pushing a buggy with a child is anti-social.....although the latter can be as inconsiderate as the next person too.

The issue, which seems to be flying way above you head, isn't just the delay, it's the insanity, unfairness & hypocrisy of it all.

Avatar
schlepcycling | 5 years ago
0 likes

You are not obliged to give your details to either a police office or a PCSO unless they inform you that they are reporting you for an offence.  A PCSO has no authority to ask you to provide ID to confirm the details you've given them, this is why many FPNs issued by PCSOs go unpaid because people give them false details take the ticket and walk/cycle away.

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to schlepcycling | 5 years ago
0 likes
schlepcycling wrote:

You are not obliged to give your details to either a police office or a PCSO unless they inform you that they are reporting you for an offence.  A PCSO has no authority to ask you to provide ID to confirm the details you've given them, this is why many FPNs issued by PCSOs go unpaid because people give them false details take the ticket and walk/cycle away.

That's true - but they do have the ability to check with the PCN to confirm your details.

You must also not attempt to leave whilst they're actually issuing the FPN without having first checked their designation card - which they must provide you on demand, and may not make the provision of subject to any conditions ie; you can see my DC once I have your details.

If it doesn't expressly state that they have been given power to detain, then they have 30 minutes to get a police officer or otherwise authorised officer; after 30 minutes, just walk away. PRA2002.

Kingdom officers don't even get that 30min hold. If detaining isn't specifically listed on the DC, just leave, they can't do shit.

Avatar
schlepcycling replied to Crippledbiker | 5 years ago
0 likes

Post Deleted

 

Avatar
Crippledbiker | 5 years ago
1 like

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request.

If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil.

They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here.

Turn around, walk away.

Avatar
ConcordeCX replied to Crippledbiker | 5 years ago
0 likes

Crippledbiker wrote:

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request. If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil. They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here. Turn around, walk away.

"citizen's arrest" isn't really a thing.

I looked into it a few years ago when somebody tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public place and it all started to get a bit heated. This person said he was going to citizen's arrest me, but thought better of it when I told him I'd happily defend myself, and squared up to him.

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

Cycling through a prohibited part of a town centre is unlikely to be an arrestable offence.

The way you arrest someone, and how quickly you hand them over to the police, makes all the difference. If you get it wrong then be prepared for the consequences.

 

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to ConcordeCX | 5 years ago
0 likes

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request. If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil. They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here. Turn around, walk away.

"citizen's arrest" isn't really a thing.

I looked into it a few years ago when somebody tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public place and it all started to get a bit heated. This person said he was going to citizen's arrest me, but thought better of it when I told him I'd happily defend myself, and squared up to him.

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

Cycling through a prohibited part of a town centre is unlikely to be an arrestable offence.

The way you arrest someone, and how quickly you hand them over to the police, makes all the difference. If you get it wrong then be prepared for the consequences.

 

 

 

I believe that you're also supposed to explain that you are arresting them "because..." and are holding them pending the arrival of the police because you saw them committing an arrestable offence and don't believe that they will await the arrival of the correct law enforcement officials.

Also, going back to the original story, he says he was asked for ID. As I understand it, if the police ask for ID you actually have to present it at a station within seven days, and the Kingdom operative isn't police or even "deputised" so how would that work?

So what right would this council officer have to see your ID, and what do they do if you don't carry ID with you (many people don't)?

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Crippledbiker wrote:

If they ask for your details, ask to see a warrant card or their designation card; they may not refuse this request. If they do not have a warrant card, turn around and just walk away; it's possible the dessy might give them the power to detain but the likelyhood is basically nil. They have no power to stop or detain you, and they may not physically restrain you or attempt to prevent you from leaving; citizens arrest ain't even close to being applicable here. Turn around, walk away.

"citizen's arrest" isn't really a thing.

I looked into it a few years ago when somebody tried to prevent me from taking photographs in a public place and it all started to get a bit heated. This person said he was going to citizen's arrest me, but thought better of it when I told him I'd happily defend myself, and squared up to him.

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

Cycling through a prohibited part of a town centre is unlikely to be an arrestable offence.

The way you arrest someone, and how quickly you hand them over to the police, makes all the difference. If you get it wrong then be prepared for the consequences.

 

 

 

I believe that you're also supposed to explain that you are arresting them "because..." and are holding them pending the arrival of the police because you saw them committing an arrestable offence and don't believe that they will await the arrival of the correct law enforcement officials.

Also, going back to the original story, he says he was asked for ID. As I understand it, if the police ask for ID you actually have to present it at a station within seven days, and the Kingdom operative isn't police or even "deputised" so how would that work?

So what right would this council officer have to see your ID, and what do they do if you don't carry ID with you (many people don't)?

You are not required to identify yourself to police unless certain criteria are met; if they aren't, you are under no obligation but should not give a false name; that would potentially be an offence.
The police can still ask, and it's your decision to either know the criteria and clearly state that as they are not met, you are not required to identify yourself at this time, or to ask them if you are legally required at this time (knowing full well you are not).

It's actually an offense to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer; However, I have never encountered a Kingdom Rep who could provide me with anything to indicate they are an authorised officer, and, where they have attempted to fine me for being on my handcycle in these sorts of areas[1], my response at this point has always been the same; leave.

As to Citizens Arrest; it's only really in play with offenses such as arson, theft, assault etc, as set out by PACE 1984 24A (1984 c.60 part III Section 24A).

[1] Funny thing; check the actual wording on the RTO or other instrument used to put the restriction in place; they almost always say bicycle or pedal cycles. Handcycles are neither (Pedal cycle safety regulation act 2003, 2010 section 2; bicycle means two wheels and pedals - handcycles don't have pedals!), so they simply don't apply and I can and do ignore them utterly.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Crippledbiker | 5 years ago
0 likes

Crippledbiker wrote:

It's actually an offense to not provide your details, when asked, to a PCSO or other Authorised Officer; However, I have never encountered a Kingdom Rep who could provide me with anything to indicate they are an authorised officer, and, where they have attempted to fine me for being on my handcycle in these sorts of areas, my response at this point has always been the same; leave.

It certainly seems a bit of a lapse on their part, if they don't carry something to prove that they are an "authorised officer"   But, if they can't show it then it seems they have no more right to see ID than any other random person who walks up to me on the street...  Thanks for your detailed reply 

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

Later I looked into it, because it's never made much sense to me. It turns out that the police and the public have the same powers of arrest, and that what counts is whether or not you are allegedly committing an arrestable offence - if not then no-one can arrest you.

It's an indictable offence - one that can be tried in a crown court.
Although what constitutes this requires a lot of detailed knowledge. I don't think an FPN would mean going to a Crown Court though.

Avatar
Pms | 5 years ago
2 likes

Just got fined £75 today for the same thing. In hindsight, I should have just turned around and cycled back out of the zone but didn’t expect such a hefty fine without any warning. If their motivation really was pedestrian safety, they would be better served by placing their staff at the entrance to the zone bringing the sign to people’s attention. The amount of money they are raising quite obviously brings into question how clearly the signs are - high up and not within eyeline of where you look when cycling. I can’t believe anyone would take the risk if they were aware of the rule. The council response sums up their attitude so I see little point in appealing. To not provide clearer signing and offer a warning for a first time offence is pathetic. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Pms | 5 years ago
1 like

Pms wrote:

... If their motivation really was pedestrian safety, they would be better served by placing their staff at the entrance to the zone bringing the sign to people’s attention. ...

But they are not really interested in safety or anything else "civic".  These companies are taken on by councils, they don't charge for their services (allegedly) but get to keep a proportion of the FPN charged; their 'officers' also get (allegedly) paid bonuses based on how many FPNs they issue.  Allegedly yes 

Avatar
wknight | 5 years ago
0 likes

Well ignore the fine and this will happen. 

The matter will get sent to the magistrates court, if you don't turn up you will end up with a monster fine and costs. Fail to pay that and the balliffs will come around, ignore them and you will end up in court facing the magistrates who give you two options, pay up or go to prison.  At this point everyone pays up.  Oh and I have seen people in court for fines that are 10 years old, so they will always find you in the end. 

BTW  failing to stop for a PCSO will get you charged with failing to stop for an officer. 

Never ignore council imposed fines because they are dealt with in the magistrates court where as all other so called fines, such as those from parking companies go to the civil court and they dont have the power to send you to prison. 

Avatar
Sniffer replied to wknight | 5 years ago
1 like

wknight wrote:

Well ignore the fine and this will happen. 

The matter will get sent to the magistrates court, if you don't turn up you will end up with a monster fine and costs. Fail to pay that and the balliffs will come around, ignore them and you will end up in court facing the magistrates who give you two options, pay up or go to prison.  At this point everyone pays up.  Oh and I have seen people in court for fines that are 10 years old, so they will always find you in the end. 

BTW  failing to stop for a PCSO will get you charged with failing to stop for an officer. 

Never ignore council imposed fines because they are dealt with in the magistrates court where as all other so called fines, such as those from parking companies go to the civil court and they dont have the power to send you to prison. 

If you live in England.  Won't be any bailiffs at his home in Scotland.

Avatar
The Acolyte | 5 years ago
0 likes

So very typical of this current Government, they don't see enough money generated from cycling so we are just a menace, it's any excuse to make our lifes difficult. the state of our roads alone make cycling far more dangerous then ever, some of the pot holes in East Yorkshire are big and deep enough to cause damage to cars, that's leading to fighting for good tarmac and the cars are always going to win that one. I can only see things getting better with a big big change of attitude in this country, you don't have to look that far to see people standing up for their rights....

Avatar
gusstrang | 5 years ago
0 likes

Well, despite all the protests, a quick look at Google Streetview shows three signs at the entrance and exit to the town centre. These all seem clear that cycling is prohibited and what the potential fine is. What I am bemused by is that they are so high up on the signposts - why aren't they where a cyclist might see them? This suggests to me that they aren't "clear". Just a thought...

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1356956,-0.4681467,3a,65.2y,318.55h,90.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB4e84M2yZPkfGQJzyurppg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Avatar
thelighterthief | 5 years ago
0 likes

I live there and have also been fined after riding my bike into the area. I parked at the cycle rack - inside the no cycling zone - and  I was told incorrectly that i was being charged under the environmental protection act and had commited a criminal offence. The area is no cycling between 9-6 and this makes sense as it is a busy pedestrian area. I didnt like it but it is a tiny bit of the town that i cant ride through during the day. Swings and roundabouts. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to thelighterthief | 5 years ago
0 likes

thelighterthief wrote:

I live there and have also been fined after riding my bike into the area. I parked at the cycle rack - inside the no cycling zone - and  I was told incorrectly that i was being charged under the environmental protection act and had commited a criminal offence. The area is no cycling between 9-6 and this makes sense as it is a busy pedestrian area. I didnt like it but it is a tiny bit of the town that i cant ride through during the day. Swings and roundabouts. 

Here in Bristol, the main pedestrianised area (Broadmead) is shared use and cyclists can use it. However the authorities removed lots of the cycle parking from there (well, they removed it all when they put up the Christmas markets and never put them back). So the best cycle parking is in an adjacent pedestrianised area called Quakers Friars. Except that QF is semi privatised land with wandering security guards and although it looks the same and there's no actual dividing line, you are not allowed to ride a bike there (confusing or what...?)

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... | 5 years ago
2 likes

It doesn't really matter what they can legally do and what they cannot.  He's a cyclist.  They can basically haul him off the bike, kick the living shit out of him, and he will be arrested, charged and convicted of assault.  

Avatar
cycle.london | 5 years ago
8 likes

That brings to mind an incident from a few years ago, which many of you will remember.  Royal Parks had banned cycling in part of Bushy Park.  Turns out that two people had complained.

My regular commute takes ('took'?) me through Greenwich Park.  Those of you who know this park will know that 'the Avenue' is a pretty steep hill which takes you past the Royal Observatory.   Next to the road is a path on both sides, the uphill section of which has big bicycle logos painted all over the shop.  Take the road and you'll get punishment passes from drivers.  Take the path and you'll get tuts and glares from the pedestrians.   The former is far more frightening than the latter, of course.  And it's a daily occurrence. 

Anyway, I fired off an e-mail to Royal Parks, asking if they were planning to ban motor vehicles from Greenwich Park, in light of the antisocial and dangerous behaviour of their drivers.

'But, we've not had any complaints about Greenwich Park!' bleated their PR drone, a certain Mr Dear.

'You have now,' I replied.

'But ... yours is the only one!' was their response. 

'You only had two for Bushy Park, and you banned cycling.  If you get one more, you going to ban cars?'

*tumbleweed*

Funny that, isn't it?

Avatar
Organon | 5 years ago
0 likes

We'll see if he is arrested as a terrorist at the border when he tries to get back in.

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 5 years ago
8 likes

"However, cycling in Bedford town centre is a major concern for local residents following collisions with cyclists and reports of injuries."

BULLSHIT.

How about a simple sign that says "cyclists, please slow down and give way to pedestrians where appropriate".

I bet if you asked a single complainent for more details on these collisions and injuries, they wouldn't be able to give you any.

Avatar
HowardR | 5 years ago
4 likes

Re: "The enforcement firm tasked with patrolling the latter raked in £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in just over a year as part of its contract with the council"

Somethings fucking wrong with this England.

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to HowardR | 5 years ago
4 likes

HowardR wrote:

Re: "The enforcement firm tasked with patrolling the latter raked in £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in just over a year as part of its contract with the council"

Somethings fucking wrong with this England.

*ding*

Avatar
HoarseMann | 5 years ago
0 likes

Overzealous enforcement. But there are some who would say getting through Bedford town centre with only that damage is a win.

Avatar
DrJDog | 5 years ago
7 likes

"following collisions with cyclists and reports of injuries"

 

Sure.

Avatar
maviczap | 5 years ago
3 likes

 Council's are making extra bucks by introducing these measures, even though I doubt they cover the cost of the enforcement.

Perhaps a crowd funding page needs setting up to pay his fine,car pointless having a ccj for this.

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... replied to maviczap | 5 years ago
6 likes

maviczap wrote:

 Council's are making extra bucks by introducing these measures

This isn't about money.  This is about punishing cyclists for refusing to conform to the car-driving norm.  It's about making the act of cycling as unattractive and as inconvenient as possible, so that as many people as possible, are discouraged from doing so. 

Every person forced off a bike, is a person (potentially) forced into a car, and that suits the people who run Britain - the neoconservatives with interests in oil companies and car manufacturers.

Pages

Latest Comments