Jump to content

Jeremy Vine knicked in public park.


Featured Posts

What a great use of valuable police resources.

 

Surely this is something a PCSO could do?

 

Since Hyde Park is a Royal Park, its policing is paid for out of the Met budget. The real scandal here is that the Battenburgs Mountbattens Windsors should be paying for it out of their own pockets.

 

However, a pedestrian has a 'right of way' whereas a cyclist is 'permitted to use' a highway, so a 5mph speed limit seems entirely sensible to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the max penalty for exceeding the 5mph speed limit on a bike in the park?

 

Mtb

 

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Penalty-notices/1400016310443/1400016310443 but unclear if fixed penalty ( £60) applies to cyclists speeding but could apply to dangerous use depending on the various interpretations of "vehicle".

 

This is also quite interesting, if you have the time to wade through it http://road.cc/content/news/95155-are-police-fining-speeding-cyclists-richmond-park-exceeding-their-authority

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told, at a speed awareness course after being nicked for doing 38 in a 30 zone, that the lowest speed limit which was legally enforceable was 20 mph.

 

Is this why he got a ticking off but not a ticket?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no reason to doubt this article.

 

Speed limits generally only apply to motor propelled vehicles.

 

On 'normal' public highways, the general speed limits (whatever they are) do not apply to bicycles.

 

Note that the Highway Code rule 124 states speed limits are in the table, but the table has no row that applies to bicycles. There is a bit of a fault in that a footnote to the table does indeed state that "The 30 mph limit usually applies to all traffic" (my emphasis), but that appears to be a wrong statement (there are a few such careless statements in the Highway Code).

 

The Highway code references RTRA, which is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, sections 81, 86, 89 & schedule 6. In fact, these sections all fall within Part VI of the act, which is entirely about speed limits.

 

The first thing to note is that the Highway Code blanket statement is wrong - section 81 is quite explicit that "It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour" (my emphasis).

 

Further reading reveals that throughout this act, the speed limits discussed apply to motor vehicles and their drivers, not to cyclists. Note, for example section 89: "A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence."

 

 

Even though it was in a Royal Park, where different rules may apply, I think he is in the clear.

 

It used to be the case that speed limits in royal parks applied to bicycles, because the relevant SIs, The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 amended by the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) Regulations 2004 stated that speed limits in the parks applied to vehicles (not motor vehicles).

 

However, The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 include a definition of vehicle that applies only to motor vehicles, here, suggesting that everything which applied to all vehicles in the royal parks SIs now only applies to motor vehicles. Thus, speed limits would not apply to bicycles in royal parks, just as they do not in general elsewhere.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn - I read the title as kicked!

 

He deserves kicking for that godawful show he does on R2 at lunchtime

 

Agreed. When I read the title of the thread I was hoping he had done something that would take him off the radio

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Met have a dedicated parks Police unit. Pcso's powers are limited and they would not be able to issue FPN's.

But as people seem to be saying you can't get nicked for it but rather just get a 'ticking off' it takes me back to my original point. Why waste an expensive police resource such as a PC?

 

A PCSO could do that as effectively. To me it smacks of a bit of a publicity stunt to pacify some body in 'high places' who has made a complaint about cycling in the parks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as people seem to be saying you can't get nicked for it but rather just get a 'ticking off' it takes me back to my original point. Why waste an expensive police resource such as a PC?

 

A PCSO could do that as effectively. To me it smacks of a bit of a publicity stunt to pacify some body in 'high places' who has made a complaint about cycling in the parks.

Because they are a dedicated section of the Met dealing with Issues in the Royal Parks and until just a couple of years ago they were their own Police Force.

 

The PCSO's dont have the powers available.

Thats not the fault of the Police but the fault of the Governing Body that grants powers to PCSO's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn - I read the title as kicked!

 

He deserves kicking for that godawful show he does on R2 at lunchtime

He has that slot so that Steve Wright, whose show succeeds his, sounds positively wonderful in comparison.

 

Mind you, Wright is an extremely able broadcaster, which Jeremy is not (yet). Does he not appear on TV programmes as well? Perhaps he is better on those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they are a dedicated section of the Met dealing with Issues in the Royal Parks and until just a couple of years ago they were their own Police Force.

 

The PCSO's dont have the powers available.

Thats not the fault of the Police but the fault of the Governing Body that grants powers to PCSO's

I agree they may not have the powers now but I think what I am suggesting is perhaps give it them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they may not have the powers now but I think what I am suggesting is perhaps give it them.

I think on the whole PCSO's would like the extra responsibility, My guess is the reluctance to give those powers would require changes in legislation for a section of Law Enforcement that could well be disbanded in the not too distant future.

 

Its interesting that the Law for motorists says they must obey the directions of a Constable or Traffic Warden in uniform and commit an offence if they dont, yet Traffic Wardens no longer exist, or at least in the Capitol they dont.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since Hyde Park is a Royal Park, its policing is paid for out of the Met budget. The real scandal here is that the Battenburgs Mountbattens Windsors should be paying for it out of their own pockets.

 

However, a pedestrian has a 'right of way' whereas a cyclist is 'permitted to use' a highway, so a 5mph speed limit seems entirely sensible to me.

 

Why? The Royal Family own a lot of property which is made freely available for the public to use for their leisure. Wheb i lived in London we regularly used the Royal Parks as do thousands of people every day. I wouild have thought that paying for a few Police Officers to ensure that people use it sensibly without danger to others is a pretty good deal.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you couldn't be done for speeding on a bike as it doesn't have a speedometer .... all you can be doen for is reckless cycling

That is certainly true with regards to road speed limits, cyclists can go as fast as they like..

Casp'

 

Why? The Royal Family own a lot of property

By "own" you mean stole from the rest of us...

Casp'

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

By "own" you mean stole from the rest of us...

Casp'

 

I think you need to distinguish between the "Crown" i.e. the state, and the personal possessions of the royal family.

 

What specifically did the royal family steal from you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you need to distinguish between the "Crown" i.e. the state, and the personal possessions of the royal family.

 

What specifically did the royal family steal from you?

 

Can you distinguish between them? What about 'private' property, on the income from which no taxes are paid?

 

Perhaps Casp', like me, was airing the republican sentiments shared by a minority - albeit a significant minority - of the British people, who would rather not be regarded as 'subjects'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.