Driving (Moving Traffic) Penalty Charge

[InitialDave]

I think they've got you, but it does seem very petty. I'd consider someone pushing a motorbike to be a pedestrian, albeit an involuntary/unfortunate one.

[Bennet]

InitialDave said:

I think they've got you, but it does seem very petty. I'd consider someone pushing a motorbike to be a pedestrian, albeit an involuntary/unfortunate one.

So would I, but even if the OP could be said to have obeyed the letter of the law, pushing the bike for 10 feet just to cross that line is so clearly against the spirit of the law that he couldn't honestly be said not to deserve the fine. (Sorry OP.)

[faa77]

If you read-up the relevant Act (law) it will probably define what is meant by a motorcycle.

They usually go in to detail and give the exceptions. It might say the engine has to be running.

Edited by faa77 on Tuesday 28th June 15:39

[ec1 eex]

Follow up. I went to a tribunal hearing and got off due to an error on the paperwork from the council.

I thought my strongest point was the PCN was for a driving, (moving traffic) offence. There is a legal precident for what constitutes driving a motorcycle (ignition on, lights on, wearing motorbike leathers and a helmet). I only satisfied 2 of these 4. The chap at the tribunal didn't think this was a strong defence which I found odd. If they'd sent me a parking PCN, my defence would have been that I wasn't parked.

For anyone thinking that you could push your motorbike on the pavement rather than the road, someone had already tried that and lost at the tribunal as the pavement is considered part of the roadway.

[QJumper]

I doubt there was an error on the paperwork. I've been let off a penalty charge before due to an "error on the paperwork", and suspect it's just a way for them to waive a penalty without setting a precedent.

[ec1 eex]

QJumper said:

I doubt there was an error on the paperwork. I've been let off a penalty charge before due to an "error on the paperwork", and suspect it's just a way for them to waive a penalty without setting a precedent.

There was an error on the paperwork, because it was one of my several points of defence. Only one point was needed to be found valid, and this was the one used to find in my favour. The council gave me a set time to pay the fine, but then in the next paragraph of the letter said that I had less time than that or the fine could triple.

[Pica-Pica]

ec1 eex said:

QJumper said:

I doubt there was an error on the paperwork. I've been let off a penalty charge before due to an "error on the paperwork", and suspect it's just a way for them to waive a penalty without setting a precedent.

There was an error on the paperwork, because it was one of my several points of defence. Only one point was needed to be found valid, and this was the one used to find in my favour. The council gave me a set time to pay the fine, but then in the next paragraph of the letter said that I had less time than that or the fine could triple.

It would be interesting where one would stand with a (legal) electric bike that has an electric motor that requires pedalling to activate that motor.

[Far Cough]

Let's face it. The local council have no interest in catching cyclists going through these zones as no numberplate is visible or any other identifying marks. Motor vehicles are an easy catch. Also funny how the local councils have no money but these restrictions and cameras have suddenly shot up everywhere increasing the congestion on the surrounding roads to those with halo status.

You'll struggle to fight it as you were in charge of the steering and brakes at the time and I think that is sufficient in these circumstances and is deemed the same as driving or riding it.

Edited by Far Cough on Friday 14th October 15:03

[DodgyGeezer]

ec1 eex said:

Follow up. I went to a tribunal hearing and got off due to an error on the paperwork from the council.

I thought my strongest point was the PCN was for a driving, (moving traffic) offence. There is a legal precident for what constitutes driving a motorcycle (ignition on, lights on, wearing motorbike leathers and a helmet). I only satisfied 2 of these 4. The chap at the tribunal didn't think this was a strong defence which I found odd. If they'd sent me a parking PCN, my defence would have been that I wasn't parked.

For anyone thinking that you could push your motorbike on the pavement rather than the road, someone had already tried that and lost at the tribunal as the pavement is considered part of the roadway.

so next time push your motorbike through with a covered numberplate and you'll go scott-free

[55palfers]

To be fair, the prohibition sign does show a motorcycle being ridden.....


...and yet, the car has no driver.

[Cat]

Pica-Pica said:

It would be interesting where one would stand with a (legal) electric bike that has an electric motor that requires pedalling to activate that motor.

The sign prohibits motor vehicles. EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

[Pica-Pica]

Cat said:

Pica-Pica said:

It would be interesting where one would stand with a (legal) electric bike that has an electric motor that requires pedalling to activate that motor.

The sign prohibits motor vehicles. EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

Explain, by reference please, why an EAPC when pedalled to initiate the electric motor is not a motor vehicle. I don’t want ‘it isn’t taxed’ ‘doesn’t need insurance’ ‘doesn’t need a number plate’ explanation either.

The situation is, we have a clash between:-
a) what the sign was originally designed to mean
b) what those putting it up intend it to mean
c) what the general public believe it to mean
d) what a court decides it to mean (in specific incidents)

[Cat]

Pica-Pica said:

Explain, by reference please, why an EAPC when pedalled to initiate the electric motor is not a motor vehicle. I don’t want ‘it isn’t taxed’ ‘doesn’t need insurance’ ‘doesn’t need a number plate’ explanation either.

The situation is, we have a clash between:-
a) what the sign was originally designed to mean
b) what those putting it up intend it to mean
c) what the general public believe it to mean
d) what a court decides it to mean (in specific incidents)

They are not a motor vehicles because legislation specifically states they are not.

There is no clash, the sign prohibits motor vehicles, legislation states EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

[ec1 eex]

Cat said:

They are not a motor vehicles because legislation specifically states they are not.

There is no clash, the sign prohibits motor vehicles, legislation states EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

However, non-EAPC e-bikes that don't require pedalling to big to propel them and ones that go over the 16mph ? limit are vehicles which are illegal on our roads. Those rarely get stopped and will happily sail through signs such as these with no enforcement.

[Bennet]

ec1 eex said:

Cat said:

They are not a motor vehicles because legislation specifically states they are not.

There is no clash, the sign prohibits motor vehicles, legislation states EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

However, non-EAPC e-bikes that don't require pedalling to big to propel them and ones that go over the 16mph ? limit are vehicles which are illegal on our roads. Those rarely get stopped and will happily sail through signs such as these with no enforcement.

Because the purpose of making life more restrictive for motorists is to encourage people into greener and less congestive forms of transport. They want you to cycle (electrically assisted or otherwise - they don't care), so anything that discourages it would be counter productive.

[Electro1980]

ec1 eex said:

Cat said:

They are not a motor vehicles because legislation specifically states they are not.

There is no clash, the sign prohibits motor vehicles, legislation states EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

However, non-EAPC e-bikes that don't require pedalling to big to propel them and ones that go over the 16mph ? limit are vehicles which are illegal on our roads. Those rarely get stopped and will happily sail through signs such as these with no enforcement.

They do get stopped and the police love to deal with them. A whole raft of laws broken and easy to prove.

[Pica-Pica]

Cat said:

Pica-Pica said:

Explain, by reference please, why an EAPC when pedalled to initiate the electric motor is not a motor vehicle. I don’t want ‘it isn’t taxed’ ‘doesn’t need insurance’ ‘doesn’t need a number plate’ explanation either.

The situation is, we have a clash between:-
a) what the sign was originally designed to mean
b) what those putting it up intend it to mean
c) what the general public believe it to mean
d) what a court decides it to mean (in specific incidents)

They are not a motor vehicles because legislation specifically states they are not.

There is no clash, the sign prohibits motor vehicles, legislation states EAPCs are not motor vehicles.

Cat

The clash is in (b). In a pedestrianised area, do the council want a ‘pedestrian controlled motor vehicle’ in that area. I am not just talking about legislation, I am talking about a, b, c, and d above. Thence the clash, because it did not proceed because of a ‘fault with the paperwork’, masking a/b/c/d perceptions.

[Cat]

Pica-Pica said:

The clash is in (b). In a pedestrianised area, do the council want a ‘pedestrian controlled motor vehicle’ in that area. I am not just talking about legislation, I am talking about a, b, c, and d above. Thence the clash, because it did not proceed because of a ‘fault with the paperwork’, masking a/b/c/d perceptions.

Those putting the sign up intended it to mean no motor vehicles. If they had been concerned about pedestrian controlled motor vehicles (and we all know what an issue they are in pedestrianised areas) they would use this sign:-



Cat

[TallPaul]

Solocle said:

Another curiosity is at Avonmouth:

Glad you got it sorted OP.
This sign concerns me though, at what point do I stop being a motorcylist? If I’m riding a mototcycle, if I’m pushing it, if its parked up and I’m walking in my leathers holding my crash helmet am I still a motorcyclist? What about if my bike is at home and I’ve caught a bus/driven/flown there and walked through am I still a motorcyclist? Am I a motorcyclist whilst I’m writing this sitting on my sofa at home?
So many questions…
Edit to add:
I definitely displace more than 50cc so I guess that solves the problem.

Edited by TallPaul on Saturday 15th October 16:51

[Ian Geary]

Far Cough said:

. Also funny how the local councils have no money but these restrictions and cameras have suddenly shot up everywhere increasing the congestion on the surrounding roads to those with halo status.

Edited by Far Cough on Friday 14th October 15:03

That's a straight forward one to answer. The department for transport (ie the Tory government) dolled out a whole load of cash to highway authorities to be used for this specific purpose (tfl then distributed to London boroughs)

The government are increasingly giving pots of money for specific purposes. It gives the illusion something is being done (eg £5k pothole find per council), keeps control because dluch don't trust councils, but let's local councillors take the flak.

As for the whys of this enforcement? I think the Mr Bean picture sums it up exactly. Ltns are designed to stop rat runs. Simply getting off and wheeling you bike through defeats the objective, irrespective of how much further it is to go round.

Cynical me doesn't think they're set up purely to raise fine income, but they are set up knowing full well that will be an ancillary benefit (for a while at least). Don't forget, the anti motorist lobby don't need a reason to make things hard for motorists: they just do it because they love it.