Didn't know cyclists could be fined for speeding!

[gaz]

I do not know whether Rory Palmer received any legal advice before choosing to enter a guilty plea.

Some reports suggest he was defended: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... YqOy5GG.99

Mutahir Ahmed, defending, told the Magistrates Court: “Cycling is his hobby and he understands how dangerous it was. It was a windy day and he was coming down the hill. He did realise at the time he was going above 20mph but did not have a speedometer.”

Since Mr Palmer appears to have entered a guilty plea, in terms of "defending" I can only think it was a statement in mitigation made on his behalf before sentencing. However as someone was there to defend him it seems reasonable that he had advice to enter a guilty plea.

It would be interesting to know what the exact charge was although had it been "furious riding" I'd expect the press would have enjoyed including that bit of colour in the story.

[iviehoff]

I do not know whether Rory Palmer received any legal advice before choosing to enter a guilty plea.

Some reports suggest he was defended: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... YqOy5GG.99

Mutahir Ahmed, defending, told the Magistrates Court: “Cycling is his hobby and he understands how dangerous it was. It was a windy day and he was coming down the hill. He did realise at the time he was going above 20mph but did not have a speedometer.”

Since Mr Palmer appears to have entered a guilty plea, in terms of "defending" I can only think it was a statement in mitigation made on his behalf before sentencing. However as someone was there to defend him it seems reasonable that he had advice to enter a guilty plea.

It would be interesting to know what the exact charge was although had it been "furious riding" I'd expect the press would have enjoyed including that bit of colour in the story.

IANAL but it is quite clear the charge would have been associated with breach of Royal Parks regulations: whether you are prosecuted directly for the breach, or indirectly in the form of failing to pay the charge/fine/penalty for breach, I cannot say.

This was not a public road so the charge of riding furiously is not applicable. In the only known recent prosecution for riding furiously, in Cambridge, it was not alleged that the cyclist was breaking the vehicular speed limit, indeed even the police witness did not assert it. Some have suggested that the case was mainly about some plod's nose being put out of joint over something.

[pwa]

Anyone travelling at 41mph in an environment where 20mph or less is the norm is a hazard to themselves and others. I don't know the place, but if it really does feel like what I understand by the word "park", 41mph would feel intimidating to pedestrians and horse riders (if horses are permitted).

I leave it to others to tease out the legal stuff.

[[XAP]Bob]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.43474 ... 12h,70.69t
Road looks fairly open, good sight lines

[Bicycler]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.434742,-0.266002,3a,75y,94.12h,70.69t
Road looks fairly open, good sight lines

Quite. If that were a public road it would have a 60mph speed limit for motors and people would think you a dangerous subversive if you suggested that it ought to be lowered out of concerns for pedestrians, cyclists or horse riders.

[pwa]

It's in a park, and if I were in that park with children I would expect everyone and everything around me to be going a bit slower than outside the park. And the bit of road I viewed was quite twisty. If I travelled down it with cars also on the road I could well be seen very late by a pedestrian crossing the road and expecting only 20mph traffic. Out of respect for other people I would stick to the limit, or very close to it. Lack of a speedo would not stop me realising I was going too fast if I were doing 41mph. Anyone who tell the difference between 20 and 41mph. No excuses.

[thirdcrank]

If the authorities spent even a fraction of the effort devoted to enforcing 20mph speed limits in Royal Parks to enforcing 20mph speed limits in places where ordinary people live this country would be a better place to live in.

[pwa]

I wish they would do both.

[nathb]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.434742,-0.266002,3a,75y,94.12h,70.69t
Road looks fairly open, good sight lines

It's Sawyers hill where he was caught if I remember the article correctly: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.44937 ... 787205,17z

This isn't in his defence but for reference:
This is a very straight open section. There's a huge path on the side for pedestrians and they're seperated from the road by a good meter or so of grass and wooden poles. The only unpredictable thing on this stretch of road is the deer, if they're even around this part of the park, but if they were near here you wouldn't be speeding as some are huge.

[toomsie]

I hit a dog in Richmond Park, the owner and a noisy onlooker said that I was speeding. I had enough time to slow down to not full over the handle bars. Actually I stopped elegantly

[thirdcrank]

Furious cycling was mentioned above and I thought we had flogged it to death before. In the search for greater widom, I found this from the CPS, which deals with endorsement and disqualification for the offence. I amended my earlier post to reflect what this says, then I spotted a bloomer in this advice. As a test of how many people bother to read my ramblings, can anybody spot it? (Clue: It's nothing to do with endorsements or disqualification, but is probably the result of too much theorising and not enough practical experience.)

Road Traffic Offences - Guidance on Charging Offences arising from Driving Incidents

Wanton and Furious Driving

The offence of wanton and furious driving under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is committed when bodily harm (i.e. injury) is caused to any person as a result of the manner of driving of a suspect and is not limited to motor vehicles but covers any kind of vehicle or carriage including bicycles.

It is an offence triable only on indictment (except when committed by a youth).

The offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. Penalty points and discretionary disqualification can be imposed by the courts under section 28 of the Road Safety Act 2006.

The offence can only be committed if the driver has a degree of subjective recklessness so far as the foreseeabilty of causing injury is concerned. In other words, he or she must appreciate that harm was possible or probable as a result of the manner of driving: see R v Okosi [1996] CLR 666.

Charging Practice

Prosecutors should only prosecute this offence when it is not possible to prosecute for an offence under the RTA 1988, for example:
when the driving was not on a road or other public place;
when the vehicle used was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (such as a bicycle or horse drawn vehicle);
when a Notice of Intended Prosecution has not been given (unless such a course might be regarded by the courts as amounting to an abuse of process).

When a vehicle has been deliberately used as a weapon and has caused injury prosecutors should normally prosecute for the offence of dangerous driving or a specific assault under other provisions in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, subject to there being sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, for one of those offences.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a28

[gaz]

... then I spotted a bloomer in this advice. As a test of how many people bother to read my ramblings, can anybody spot it?

In the search for greater widom,

Although I'm quite sure that's not what you meant.

I've been reading the CPS link over and over, following the linked legislation, the legislation linked from that legislation and generally going around in circles and I'm fairly sure that I haven't got an inkling.

Furious cycling was mentioned above and I thought we had flogged it to death before.

I have discovered that the Criminal Justice Act 1948 prevented us from sentencing it to penal servitude, I've yet to track down the legislation that should have stopped us from flogging it to death .

[thirdcrank]

gaz

The bit you highlighted was one of my mistakes, not the CPS's. It is something which anybody who had read and absorbed my waffle about prosecuting bad driving should spot by working through the examples given in that link. Another clue: It's something I often emphasise to posters asking about reporting bad driving.

[gaz]

Well I know you've emphasised the need to issue a NIP within 14 days of an alleged driving offence and also added that failure to issue a NIP can be used by the defence as a tactic to get a charge dismissed. So I expect a court would be quite likely to see a charge for wanton and furious driving as an abuse of process, if it were directed at the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

[Mistik-ka]

…when the vehicle used was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (such as a bicycle or horse drawn vehicle);

Well, um, grammatically the quotation indicates that bicycles and horse drawn vehicles are examples of mechanically propelled vehicles.

Ironically (and non-grammatically) I had been scratching my head about this earlier — surely a bicycle (unlike a horse-drawn vehicle) is mechanically driven? The power source is the rider, but propulsion is via the classic machinery of cog-wheels and a chain.

In support of my argument, M'lud, I respectfully submit that my stoker Mrs. M-k agrees, and it is generally accepted among tandemists that The Stoker Is Never Wrong.