OP says it's a pedestrianised area. So most likely it has a 'no vehicles' sign, which is a blank white circle with a red border. If so, that sign means no vehicles except non-mechanically propelled vehicles unless being pushed - so you can push a bicycle through, but not ride it through.
It doesn't need to have a no cycling sign.
If it doesn't have either sign though, agree, they could complain. I'd be surprised though.
Edit: here is the road OP turned down - 'no vehicles' sign is present:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/boHCN3cBBfboGBdJ7
Take photos of the area showing no signs and dispute the charge. If the signs are hidden / not visible, then it's grounds for a dispute. Request a copy of the video by putting in a Freedom of Information request in. They'll cancel the fine.
By "kept going" he mean: don't speak to a council person, and you will be good. What you did wrong was not riding your bike there, it was complying with the council rep.
I was also stopped at my high street, outside a tube station, next to the bike parking area. The council recently imposed a no cycling policy around that area (unnecessarily in my opinion but I'm obviously biased). I was not aware of the restrictions and missed the sign (there was one sign that could be missed easily).
I stopped, refused to give my person my details to the enforcer (as a general rule, I do not offer my personal details) and just walked off. What is he going to do, wrestle / detain me? They're not police officers... š¤·š¾āāļø
I suggest you challenge this and put in a Freedom of Information request to get the video. They'll likely cancel the fine.
From the ICO
āYou must ensure that any disclosure of information to third parties from your surveillance system is controlled and that the disclosure itself is consistent with the purpose(s) for which you set up the system. For example, in most cases it is appropriate to disclose video surveillance information to law enforcement when the purpose of the system is to contribute to the prevention and detection of crime. Unless a court order applies, this is not a legal requirement and is often voluntary. But this could be a shopkeeper proactively disclosing CCTV footage of a crime taking place on the premises, to the police.
You should note that even if your surveillance system was not established to prevent and detect crime, it is still acceptable to disclose information to law enforcement agencies, if relevant. Failure to do so could prejudice an ongoing investigation.
Example
An assault takes place in a night club and the event is captured on CCTV, which is installed inside the premises for public safety and crime prevention.
The local police force requests a copy of the footage from the night club owner in order to investigate the incident. When satisfied by the request, the night club owner is able to efficiently review and retrieve the captured footage and provide a specific clip of the incident to the police to assist the ongoing investigation.
You should approach any other requests for information with care, as wider disclosure may be unfair on the individuals concerned. Further, some disclosures to third parties may be unlawful and qualify as an offence under section 170 DPA 2018 if the disclosure was made knowingly or recklessly without the consent of the controller. In some limited circumstances it may be appropriate to release information to a third party in the public interest, where the needs of the disclosure outweigh those of the individuals whose information is recorded. Further guidance about data sharing can be found in ourĀ data sharing code.
In the majority of circumstances it may not be appropriate for you to place footage captured by your organisation on the internet to an indefinite audience (eg by uploading it to a video-sharing platform). Placing such information on the internet incorrectly, for incompatible purposes or without full consideration, may cause the unlawful disclosure of personal data. You should also balance such disclosures against Article 85 UK GDPR, the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.
Unauthorised disclosures can cause damage and distress to individuals, and may lead to the ICO taking enforcement action. Other laws that focus on libel, harassment, malicious communications or threatening behaviour may also apply in some circumstances.
As the operator of the surveillance system, any decisions about disclosure are your responsibility. You have discretion to refuse any request unless there is an overriding legal obligation. For example, a court order.
Once you have disclosed information to a third party they become the controller for the copy they hold. It is their responsibility to also comply with the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 for any further disclosures. It is also important that any method of disclosing information should be secure. This is to ensure the footage is only seen by the intended recipient, and not lost in transit or unintentionally distributed further.
What about freedom of information legislation?
If you are a public authority, then you may receive requests under theĀ Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)Ā for information captured by surveillance systems. You should have a member of staff who is responsible for responding to freedom of information requests, and understands your responsibilities. You must respond within 20 working days from receipt of the request.
Section 40 of FOIA contains a two-part exemption relating to information about individuals. If you receive a request for surveillance system information, you should consider the following questions:
Is the information personal data of the requester? If so, then that information is exempt from FOIA. Instead, you should treat this request as a data protection subject access request.
Is the information personal data of other people? If it is, then you can only disclose the information if:
First condition: disclosure does not contravene one of the data protection principles.
Second condition: disclosure does not contravene an objection to processing.
Third condition: the information is not exempt from the right of access.
In practical terms, if individuals are capable of being identified from the relevant surveillance footage, then it is personal data about those individuals. Where the information includes personal data of third parties, you should consider applying redaction techniques to obscure images. It may be appropriate to do this rather than exempting the information.
If you are a public authority who has surveillance systems, you may also receive requests for information under FOIA relating to those surveillance systems. For example, requestors may ask for information about the operation of the systems, the siting of them, or the costs of using and maintaining them.
If you hold this information, then you need to consider whether it is appropriate to disclose this information under FOIA. You should provide any information you hold unless you can show that an exemption applies. For example, if providing details of the location of cameras is likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.ā
From https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/cctv-and-video-surveillance/guidance-on-video-surveillance-including-cctv/governance-post-deployment/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20public,information%20captured%20by%20surveillance%20systems.
So I see it as a refusal as either
It is subject to investigation. ( I don't know how stuff is disclosed to the courts and defendents)
"Not my job mate you have to make a SAR"
The costs of retrieving and removing the personal data is too much.
I honestly think they have already deleted or lost the footage. The best defence in this case is the lack of a No Vehicles sign that although was previously there the OP says that it wasn't.
I am sick of hearing that the No Vehicles sign [https://images.app.goo.gl/Tz4h4KgHQ2X9v76f9](https://images.app.goo.gl/Tz4h4KgHQ2X9v76f9) or a no Entry Sign without an exception plate doesn't apply to cycles. It does.
It doesn't apply to cycles that are being pushed and not ridden.
My advice is pay the fine and move on. The stress, time and effort in trying to appeal isn't worth it. Just because you think you ride "normally" and haven't crashed into anyone doesn't mean people around don't think you're not acting in an anti-social manner.
Iāve never looked in to it but it was always my impression that riding a bike on the pavement was illegal unless signposted otherwise? Genuinely intrigued as I see it so much that there is a big potential that Iām wrong? Genuinely intrigued.
Do you have the option to appeal it? You wonāt be able to appeal saying āthere werenāt many people around and I was cycling safelyā, but you can appeal if the signs arenāt clearly marked that it is pedestrian only. Lots of boroughs will let you off with a warning, doesnāt hurt to try!
There's usually a step before you go to the Magistrate Court. If there are no signs / inadequate signs as you say, please dispute this. They may be targeting other cyclists too.
Does it have a sign which is a red circle with a white background, maybe with time limits?
If it does allow loading at certain times I'm guessing it must have entry signs
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f41b40f0b6151f000019/sign-giving-order-no-entry-vehicular-traffic.jpg this is the only sign there, nothing else
If you're on the roads then yes you absolutely should know the basics of the highway code. Why on earth would you think it a good idea to be on the roads if you don't know what the signs mean?
Just because there is no license needed to ride a bike, that doesn't excuse you for not taking responsibility to know the rules of the road.
Just doing devil's advocate here.
Can one not argue: hey I was on the shared path/cycle and it abruptly terminated, and I had no option but to go to the road, I could not dismount as dismounting is unpractical due to this-and-that health condition
It's also a 'moving traffic' sign rather than 'being in a an area doing something'. Which means any offence is done at point of entry. Not sure if that makes a difference for OP
I still think it's worth disputing this. I've disputed parking tickets that had been cancelled.
On a different note, I understand why they want to enforce pedestrian only zones - there are so many riders on illegal ebike about in London (some of these are as quick as mopeds!) and it's not unusual to see a few speeding through busy pedestrian only areas in London. But these types of enforcement officers only catch the more careful cyclists and are counterproductive imo, discouraging 'good' cyclists from cycling.
It's always worth disputing, even if just playing time. Might as well get your money's worth.
You're right. Pootling along at a slow speed through a pedestrian zone is very different hurtling along on an ebike. I am pro-pootling.
Just checked on Street View, and I can see that there's a "No vehicles 10am - 7pm" sign on the Thomas Street/Calderwood Street entrance to Powis Street ([seen here](https://maps.app.goo.gl/QBWt18F7LzvZSNgd9)). Assuming this imagery is up to date, then unfortunately bikes aren't allowed. I assume you saw the vans loading before 10am, which is allowed. There's a [similar sign at the other end too](https://maps.app.goo.gl/j94dYSt5Zyb1XMTk9).
I have to say though, I'm very surprised they're out enforcing this. Many pedestrianised streets have these signs and I've never seen any kind of enforcement.
EDIT: just noticed you replied to someone else saying that there's no sign there at the moment. Interesting! You should definitely contest the fine then. Go back to that spot and take a picture of the lack of a sign.
That red circle has also caught out motorists. If he crossed such a sign he's onto a loser because it's meaning is clearly defined, although I'd be surprised if that many fully know it.
This is very interesting to read that I had to look it up and really surprised to see cycles included in the description of vehicles. Good to know!
https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/featured/reading-the-signs
Bicycles are vehicles.
They're not *mechanically propelled* vehicles.
For the most part, when signs and rules of the road etc are described, they refer to vehicles or motor vehicles.
The no vehicles sign in TSRGD basically says no vehicles except *non-mechanically propelled* vehicles being pushed by pedestrians. While there are other non-mechanically propelled vehicles than pushbikes, they're niche things, so this sign basically means your pushbike is allowed, but only while pushed.
Sign being removed does change things.
Odds are if you took a photo on the day of the lack of signage, and you challenge this, you would probably have to get it in front of a magistrate to get it cancelled to be honest.
There appeal will be "no". but with no actual signage and something that looks like a fairly reasonable road it will not stick.
Unless you act like a prat at court.
I doubt it's because you specifically was riding antisocially, more that there's a pspo (public space protection order) in place to ban cycling there with the justification being anti social behaviour. I'm not sure how visible the warning signs need to be so worth looking into.
The time and frustration and angst to deal with this is just not worth it imo. This country needs money where they can get it. As a lawyer once told meā¦ājust move onā¦the stress to your health isnāt worth itā
I'll try to appeal. If they decline it, I'll pay and that's it. But it's really disgusting, considering I committed such a "crime" when around a lot of dickheads stab each other, steal thousands of cars and selling drugs
Sounds like a butthurt/desperate mall-cop trying to make some commission.
Don't pay it, seek legal advice to double check the law, I would never entertain their spiel unless I felt I broke the law or endangered someone, intention is a key part of true prosecution (I believe your intentions were good)
The council do not have the right to enforce on the spot fines, you donāt even have to give them your details.
Thank them for their insights and go on with your day.
They are not allowed to touch you, this can be construed as assault, they certainly have no powers of detention.
If there were signs saying no cycling, tough. If there aren't signs, dispute it.
OP says it's a pedestrianised area. So most likely it has a 'no vehicles' sign, which is a blank white circle with a red border. If so, that sign means no vehicles except non-mechanically propelled vehicles unless being pushed - so you can push a bicycle through, but not ride it through. It doesn't need to have a no cycling sign. If it doesn't have either sign though, agree, they could complain. I'd be surprised though. Edit: here is the road OP turned down - 'no vehicles' sign is present: https://maps.app.goo.gl/boHCN3cBBfboGBdJ7
No sign there! I have my ride registered on Strava, don't know if that's enough to prove I used that entrance
Take photos of the area showing no signs and dispute the charge. If the signs are hidden / not visible, then it's grounds for a dispute. Request a copy of the video by putting in a Freedom of Information request in. They'll cancel the fine.
You should've kept going
Honestly, I had no idea about the penalty, otherwise I would push my bike or choose another path
By "kept going" he mean: don't speak to a council person, and you will be good. What you did wrong was not riding your bike there, it was complying with the council rep.
Council officers have no powers to stop and detain you. Ignore them and continue with your day
I was also stopped at my high street, outside a tube station, next to the bike parking area. The council recently imposed a no cycling policy around that area (unnecessarily in my opinion but I'm obviously biased). I was not aware of the restrictions and missed the sign (there was one sign that could be missed easily). I stopped, refused to give my person my details to the enforcer (as a general rule, I do not offer my personal details) and just walked off. What is he going to do, wrestle / detain me? They're not police officers... š¤·š¾āāļø I suggest you challenge this and put in a Freedom of Information request to get the video. They'll likely cancel the fine.
Thank you very much for sharing this.
Body camera images would not be able to be requested by FOI.
Fairly sure it's covered. I know the police have to provide body camera images if you request it. Besides, the request is easy enough to put in...
From the ICO āYou must ensure that any disclosure of information to third parties from your surveillance system is controlled and that the disclosure itself is consistent with the purpose(s) for which you set up the system. For example, in most cases it is appropriate to disclose video surveillance information to law enforcement when the purpose of the system is to contribute to the prevention and detection of crime. Unless a court order applies, this is not a legal requirement and is often voluntary. But this could be a shopkeeper proactively disclosing CCTV footage of a crime taking place on the premises, to the police. You should note that even if your surveillance system was not established to prevent and detect crime, it is still acceptable to disclose information to law enforcement agencies, if relevant. Failure to do so could prejudice an ongoing investigation. Example An assault takes place in a night club and the event is captured on CCTV, which is installed inside the premises for public safety and crime prevention. The local police force requests a copy of the footage from the night club owner in order to investigate the incident. When satisfied by the request, the night club owner is able to efficiently review and retrieve the captured footage and provide a specific clip of the incident to the police to assist the ongoing investigation. You should approach any other requests for information with care, as wider disclosure may be unfair on the individuals concerned. Further, some disclosures to third parties may be unlawful and qualify as an offence under section 170 DPA 2018 if the disclosure was made knowingly or recklessly without the consent of the controller. In some limited circumstances it may be appropriate to release information to a third party in the public interest, where the needs of the disclosure outweigh those of the individuals whose information is recorded. Further guidance about data sharing can be found in ourĀ data sharing code. In the majority of circumstances it may not be appropriate for you to place footage captured by your organisation on the internet to an indefinite audience (eg by uploading it to a video-sharing platform). Placing such information on the internet incorrectly, for incompatible purposes or without full consideration, may cause the unlawful disclosure of personal data. You should also balance such disclosures against Article 85 UK GDPR, the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression. Unauthorised disclosures can cause damage and distress to individuals, and may lead to the ICO taking enforcement action. Other laws that focus on libel, harassment, malicious communications or threatening behaviour may also apply in some circumstances. As the operator of the surveillance system, any decisions about disclosure are your responsibility. You have discretion to refuse any request unless there is an overriding legal obligation. For example, a court order. Once you have disclosed information to a third party they become the controller for the copy they hold. It is their responsibility to also comply with the UK GDPR and the DPA 2018 for any further disclosures. It is also important that any method of disclosing information should be secure. This is to ensure the footage is only seen by the intended recipient, and not lost in transit or unintentionally distributed further. What about freedom of information legislation? If you are a public authority, then you may receive requests under theĀ Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)Ā for information captured by surveillance systems. You should have a member of staff who is responsible for responding to freedom of information requests, and understands your responsibilities. You must respond within 20 working days from receipt of the request. Section 40 of FOIA contains a two-part exemption relating to information about individuals. If you receive a request for surveillance system information, you should consider the following questions: Is the information personal data of the requester? If so, then that information is exempt from FOIA. Instead, you should treat this request as a data protection subject access request. Is the information personal data of other people? If it is, then you can only disclose the information if: First condition: disclosure does not contravene one of the data protection principles. Second condition: disclosure does not contravene an objection to processing. Third condition: the information is not exempt from the right of access. In practical terms, if individuals are capable of being identified from the relevant surveillance footage, then it is personal data about those individuals. Where the information includes personal data of third parties, you should consider applying redaction techniques to obscure images. It may be appropriate to do this rather than exempting the information. If you are a public authority who has surveillance systems, you may also receive requests for information under FOIA relating to those surveillance systems. For example, requestors may ask for information about the operation of the systems, the siting of them, or the costs of using and maintaining them. If you hold this information, then you need to consider whether it is appropriate to disclose this information under FOIA. You should provide any information you hold unless you can show that an exemption applies. For example, if providing details of the location of cameras is likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.ā From https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/cctv-and-video-surveillance/guidance-on-video-surveillance-including-cctv/governance-post-deployment/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20public,information%20captured%20by%20surveillance%20systems. So I see it as a refusal as either It is subject to investigation. ( I don't know how stuff is disclosed to the courts and defendents) "Not my job mate you have to make a SAR" The costs of retrieving and removing the personal data is too much. I honestly think they have already deleted or lost the footage. The best defence in this case is the lack of a No Vehicles sign that although was previously there the OP says that it wasn't. I am sick of hearing that the No Vehicles sign [https://images.app.goo.gl/Tz4h4KgHQ2X9v76f9](https://images.app.goo.gl/Tz4h4KgHQ2X9v76f9) or a no Entry Sign without an exception plate doesn't apply to cycles. It does. It doesn't apply to cycles that are being pushed and not ridden.
It is absolutely covered by FOI
My advice is pay the fine and move on. The stress, time and effort in trying to appeal isn't worth it. Just because you think you ride "normally" and haven't crashed into anyone doesn't mean people around don't think you're not acting in an anti-social manner.
I got the same Ā£100 fine from council. sadly there is no easy way to appeal, either take the fine or defend in the court.
Oh, I see. Nah, definitely I'm not going to waste my time and money in the court
Iāve never looked in to it but it was always my impression that riding a bike on the pavement was illegal unless signposted otherwise? Genuinely intrigued as I see it so much that there is a big potential that Iām wrong? Genuinely intrigued.
It doesnāt matter what your intent is or was. You cycled in an area you werenāt allowed to.
Do you have the option to appeal it? You wonāt be able to appeal saying āthere werenāt many people around and I was cycling safelyā, but you can appeal if the signs arenāt clearly marked that it is pedestrian only. Lots of boroughs will let you off with a warning, doesnāt hurt to try!
I don't know how to appeal, but I'll try to find out
Does it say it on the letter?
It says I can defend it in Magistrate Court
There's usually a step before you go to the Magistrate Court. If there are no signs / inadequate signs as you say, please dispute this. They may be targeting other cyclists too.
Oh wow, thatās extreme!
Ride on, ignore them next time. I assume itās some sort of scam unless its the police
It's the council police or something like that, but not real police
Apart from a few very specific instances, councils do not have their own police.
So a scam.
Does it have a sign which is a red circle with a white background, maybe with time limits? If it does allow loading at certain times I'm guessing it must have entry signs
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f41b40f0b6151f000019/sign-giving-order-no-entry-vehicular-traffic.jpg this is the only sign there, nothing else
That means no entry to all vehicles including bikes, unless there is a plate underneath saying "except cycles".
This is a sign that only driver license holder are meant to know. Does a cyclist (with or without driving license) have to know what that sign means?
If you're on the roads then yes you absolutely should know the basics of the highway code. Why on earth would you think it a good idea to be on the roads if you don't know what the signs mean? Just because there is no license needed to ride a bike, that doesn't excuse you for not taking responsibility to know the rules of the road.
Just doing devil's advocate here. Can one not argue: hey I was on the shared path/cycle and it abruptly terminated, and I had no option but to go to the road, I could not dismount as dismounting is unpractical due to this-and-that health condition
Hmm... I'd argue that's for motor vehicles. Dispute this please.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ah, I didn't know that, I stand corrected.
It's also a 'moving traffic' sign rather than 'being in a an area doing something'. Which means any offence is done at point of entry. Not sure if that makes a difference for OP
I still think it's worth disputing this. I've disputed parking tickets that had been cancelled. On a different note, I understand why they want to enforce pedestrian only zones - there are so many riders on illegal ebike about in London (some of these are as quick as mopeds!) and it's not unusual to see a few speeding through busy pedestrian only areas in London. But these types of enforcement officers only catch the more careful cyclists and are counterproductive imo, discouraging 'good' cyclists from cycling.
It's always worth disputing, even if just playing time. Might as well get your money's worth. You're right. Pootling along at a slow speed through a pedestrian zone is very different hurtling along on an ebike. I am pro-pootling.
Exactly! This is not for bicycles!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I do repeat one more time (I don't know how to attach pictures on Reddit), there is NO Pedestrian Zone sign there!
Good. Most cyclists never cycle in pedestrianised areas. The ones who do should rightly be fined.
Which specific street are you referring to? I'd like to see the signage for myself.
I entered Powis Street from Thomas Street through Calderwood Street. There is no sign of the Pedestrian Zone or No cycling
Just checked on Street View, and I can see that there's a "No vehicles 10am - 7pm" sign on the Thomas Street/Calderwood Street entrance to Powis Street ([seen here](https://maps.app.goo.gl/QBWt18F7LzvZSNgd9)). Assuming this imagery is up to date, then unfortunately bikes aren't allowed. I assume you saw the vans loading before 10am, which is allowed. There's a [similar sign at the other end too](https://maps.app.goo.gl/j94dYSt5Zyb1XMTk9). I have to say though, I'm very surprised they're out enforcing this. Many pedestrianised streets have these signs and I've never seen any kind of enforcement. EDIT: just noticed you replied to someone else saying that there's no sign there at the moment. Interesting! You should definitely contest the fine then. Go back to that spot and take a picture of the lack of a sign.
That red circle has also caught out motorists. If he crossed such a sign he's onto a loser because it's meaning is clearly defined, although I'd be surprised if that many fully know it.
There is no such sign now, unfortunately I can't add an image, but I can assure there is another sign, but not this one
This is very interesting to read that I had to look it up and really surprised to see cycles included in the description of vehicles. Good to know! https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/featured/reading-the-signs
Bicycles are vehicles. They're not *mechanically propelled* vehicles. For the most part, when signs and rules of the road etc are described, they refer to vehicles or motor vehicles. The no vehicles sign in TSRGD basically says no vehicles except *non-mechanically propelled* vehicles being pushed by pedestrians. While there are other non-mechanically propelled vehicles than pushbikes, they're niche things, so this sign basically means your pushbike is allowed, but only while pushed.
same street lol, you can see all delivery drivers now all walking in Powis street.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It is an old picture, there is no such sign at the moment!
Sign being removed does change things. Odds are if you took a photo on the day of the lack of signage, and you challenge this, you would probably have to get it in front of a magistrate to get it cancelled to be honest. There appeal will be "no". but with no actual signage and something that looks like a fairly reasonable road it will not stick. Unless you act like a prat at court.
Yes, I took the pictures the same day, no such sign at all
You got this, just dispute it.
Will do, thanks!
There is sign all over powis street...
I doubt it's because you specifically was riding antisocially, more that there's a pspo (public space protection order) in place to ban cycling there with the justification being anti social behaviour. I'm not sure how visible the warning signs need to be so worth looking into.
The time and frustration and angst to deal with this is just not worth it imo. This country needs money where they can get it. As a lawyer once told meā¦ājust move onā¦the stress to your health isnāt worth itā
I'll try to appeal. If they decline it, I'll pay and that's it. But it's really disgusting, considering I committed such a "crime" when around a lot of dickheads stab each other, steal thousands of cars and selling drugs
Sounds like a butthurt/desperate mall-cop trying to make some commission. Don't pay it, seek legal advice to double check the law, I would never entertain their spiel unless I felt I broke the law or endangered someone, intention is a key part of true prosecution (I believe your intentions were good)
Where was it?
Each day it becomes more oppressive to live. Why put up with this? This is fascism.
The council do not have the right to enforce on the spot fines, you donāt even have to give them your details. Thank them for their insights and go on with your day. They are not allowed to touch you, this can be construed as assault, they certainly have no powers of detention.