Bad and potentially good news…

Regrettably, my concerns over weaknesses in the way the case was put against the use of Traffic Act powers to develop a pay-by-phone bike parking tax scheme were well founded.

The Appeal Court decided that the earlier High Court ruling should stand and that WCC had used Traffic Act powers ‘legitimately’, and therefore, any other UK Council can now use those powers and this business blueprint of a scheme to do the same in their part of the country. However, although I still believe that the original ruling was wrong, its being upheld was not a failing of the Appeal Court – and for reasons I suggested in my previous post.

Whatever. Most critically, this judgement effectively says that for now at least, all UK local transport authorities can use Traffic Act powers to  impose new charges for on-street bike parking in order to ‘terminate’ distinctions between cars and motorbikes or scooters.

And although it is far less significant, it is also unfortunate that the decision I took to report my views on all this as in the blog below, without mentioning the NTBPT Campaign group or it’s Chairman Warren Djanogly, who brought the case to court, it has been misconstrued in some quarters as an indication that I undervalue the extraordinary work and efforts made by all concerned with what has been an exceptional single issue campaign.

As a matter of fact, my decision was based purely on a desire to publish a report that could be read by as wide a group of people as possible with the lowest prospect of being dismissed as biased in favour of the NTBPT. And, for the record, whilst I have disagreed with some of the protest tactics and saddened by some of the things said in the course of the campaign, I continue to have great admiration for the courage and tenacity of Chairman Warren – and the extraordinary range of supporters he has inspired to engage in legitimate protest against what I still see as an abuse of powers that are granted to improve conditions for all road users.

The potential good news is that the true legitimacy of the use of such powers may be subject to further examination and with greater focus on the real core issues of principle than they have so far. The latest news from the NTBPT is that a new QC has offered to take the case on to Europe.

Previous post:

A crucial change in the way motorbikes and scooters are seen and may be treated by local authorities in the UK is imminent…

It will be triggered by three Appeal Court judges who will decide whether to overturn a High Court ruling that Westminster City Council used Traffic Act powers lawfully – to impose a new tax for on-street parking of solo motorbikes in bays that were already established for that purpose. That ruling was in my view deeply flawed, as I have said before, but I regret to say now that flaws in the way the appeal case was put, seem likely to allow the Appeal Court Judges to let the previous ruling stand.

My account of proceedings is offered later, but first I think it useful to explain the context and why this issue is far more significant for the future of powered two wheelers (PTW) use in the UK than it may appear on the surface.

The key issue at stake is whether UK councils can or should treat demand for parking these congestion busting machines in similar ways to other single-track vehicles like bicycles, or like motorised twin-track vehicles including cars, vans and trucks.

The issue was brought to a head by a controversial ‘permanent’ pay-by-phone bike parking scheme pioneered by Westminster City Council (WCC) that came into force in January 2010, which imposes new fees or triggers for PCN fines for on-street solo motorcycle parking in bays that were already there and paid for.

But opponents claim, quite rightly in my view, that WCC have used Traffic Management Act powers to introduce a revenue generating scheme that has no real traffic management benefit, and is therefore not a legitimate use of such powers ­– and is just a means to extract a new ‘motoring tax’ from the thousands of scooter and motorbike riders who need to park in central London.

Pros and Cons

In simple terms, some people think that because PTWs have a motor, they should pay to park as car drivers do. Some influential members of the motorcycling lobby broadly agreed with that view when this scheme was first proposed back in 2008, and thought that as it was ‘only a quid or so’, it wasn’t worth fighting over. Others on the UK biking scene were quite drawn by councilor’s promises that the revenues raised would be used to improve amenities for all PTW riders – and to significantly improve on-street bike parking in the centre of town…

Anyway, more importantly now, at least one of the three judges seemed to believe that riders should pay just as car drivers do, and that belief seemed to me to be firmly held from start to finish of the proceedings.

Conversely, others, including me, think that because PTWs are single track vehicles like bicycles, and both modes help users to alleviate congestion problems, but use of all twin tracked vehicles make jams worse, so PTW riders should not pay extra new fees to use tiny allocations of on-street parking bays – on top of road tax and fuel duty that cyclists do not pay – and especially as the solo M/C bays in question here were already established for that purpose.

But the biggest problem arising from plans to treat PTWs more like cars than bicycles as far as parking charge schemes are concerned is far worse than the prospect of an additional cost to park a motorbike or scooter. The pay-by-phone scheme in this case is designed for use by any UK council that might be interested in a new source of cash from riders. But, and this is a crucial but.

In order for local authorities to ‘justify’ the imposition of extra fees and fines for bike parking, they must increase the extent to which they stress negative views of scooters and motorbikes and/or demonise PTW use in the same way they do with cars, vans and trucks.

Appeal Hearing

Basically, after spending two days at the Appeal Court watching the Judges and looking for clues about their reactions to the case before them, I suspect that they will not feel inclined to overrule the previous ruling. Obviously, I hope to be wrong about the outcome but there were, in my opinion, critical weaknesses in the way the case against the ruling was made by the QC acting for the appellant. And, despite my best efforts to persuade the QC to do so, two crucial points were just not made at all.

In essence, the appellant claimed there was no demonstrable traffic management benefit from introducing new fees to park bikes in on-street bays. Conversely, the council claimed there was an “ever increasing demand for motorcycle parking” and that “measures of restraint”, including new charges, could be justified to ‘manage’ that demand. The court then heard that the council had no evidence of ‘ever increasing demand’, and cabinet papers stated that demand for bike parking had not risen prior to the permanent scheme coming into force in January 2010, or since.

Traffic Management Acts require a ‘traffic management benefit’ in order to justify any new fee scheme, and tangible revenue raising through subcontracted services contravenes the Traffic Management and Local Government Acts. So, Traffic Act Orders cannot be lawfully used to impose what is effectively just a new tax. And, as a matter of fact, although it was not mentioned in court, this was especially critical in this case as Westminster council had already built up a ‘surplus’ of around half a million pounds from an experimental version of the scheme, prior to its’ decision to introduce a new ‘permanent’ bike parking fees scheme.

The argument on the first day led to a claim that the council couldn’t use Traffic Act powers lawfully to charge bikers to park in on-street bays. However, one of the judges did not find this argument “attractive”, and seemed to prefer a simpler view; if car drivers have to pay to park on public highways, motorcycle riders should too. This led her to voice an opinion that even though the council’s actions may not have been ‘entirely within the law’, they ‘ought to have the power to charge for on-street bike parking if they wanted to’. In turn, that led to a suggestion that the preceding High Court ruling may have been right as it said that Westminster were entitled to use Traffic Act Orders to “terminate discrimination between cars and motorcycles”.

On the second day, I suggested to the lawyers that the point should be made that comparing motorcycle parking with car parking should be balanced by a comparison with bicycle parking as well. Discrimination is applied to demands for bicycle parking in contrast to car parking, in that drivers pay and cyclists do not. Crucially, the High Court ruled that WCC were entitled to use Traffic Act powers to impose new fees to “terminate” discrimination between PTWs and Cars. But that ruling completely ignores a crucial reason to maintain such discrimination – namely that bicycles contribute less to congestion problems as they are single track vehicles, whereas cars vans and lorries are twin-tracked vehicles. As a matter of fact, PTWs are also single-track vehicles, so there are extremely good reasons to treat them differently to cars, and in similar ways to bicycles. Unfortunately, bicycles were never mentioned during the two days, so that point did not get any consideration.

Another key reason for the permanent scheme to be deemed unlawful was that the entire ‘consultation’ about it was skewed in a way that was made clear in the witness statement I had submitted in the original High Court hearing. Throughout all consultations, the council said that the main reason for a permanent new fees scheme was to pay for improvements to motorcycle parking in the borough. Equally importantly, they said that ‘demand management’ or ‘restraining’ motorcycle use was not a reason for a permanent version of the scheme – and the consultees they told this to included MAG, the BMF and a representative of the Motor Cycle Industry Association in a meeting that I arranged with the Cabinet member responsible at the time in June 2009, and this fact was also mentioned in the statement I submitted to the court.

Crucially, the High Court ruling in June 2010, said that the council had imposed the permanent fees scheme lawfully because the main reason for it was “to improve on-street parking availability for motorcyclists”. But, in fact, when the official ‘reasons’ for the new ‘permanent’ scheme were published, on Thursday 22nd January 2010, and came into force four days later on Monday 25th, there was no mention of any improvements. Instead, the only reason for “small” charges from then on was due to “ever increasing pressure on Westminster’s kerbside space” and “motorcyclists’ increasing use of and demand for these limited resources”.

Put simply, all consultees had been misled by being told the official reasons for the permanent scheme was to pay for improvements, when in the end, at the eleventh hour, it was confirmed in the Statement of Reasons for the new ‘permanent’ scheme that officially, the new fees were only for ‘demand management’.

However, and potentially critically for the outcome of the appeal, that point was not made to the court. Claims that the consultation was skewed were based on an argument that the council said the fees were to manage ever increasing demand for bike parking, but had no evidence to show that demand had increased.

Three Appeal Court judges are now considering the case against a permanent version of bike parking fees scheme that still looks more like a tax to many riders than a measure to manage traffic better.

However, and notwithstanding the strength of the full case against the legitimacy of using Traffic Act powers in the way that WCC did, given the way that case was put in the Court of Appeal, I have serious doubts about whether the High Court ruling will be overturned, and think on balance that it the Appeal will be dismissed. As you may imagine, in this case, I would be absolutely delighted to be wrong.

I’ve seen and been involved with many fights for riders’ rights in Britain over the years but to be brutally frank, and no offence intended to my fellow rider rebels with a cause, a lot of these bouts look like absurdly miss-matched battles between a few Minnows and massive shoals of hungry Sharks and Piranhas.

Above ground, riders of scooters and motorbikes may seem like Davids up against bullish Goliaths in government offices. And for sure, we face armies of officers in Teflon suits who do their best to dismiss our demands for better conditions, or impose even more restrictions on what and where we can ride and how much it costs.

But there is one hugely powerful leveller in battles between Davids and Goliaths which I’m delighted to see riders on tough campaign trails using, and with ever greater impact.

We’re not talking high-spec catapults. It’s the internet, combined with the passion and commitment to take to the streets. This cool combo empowers ordinary people. It also enables them to punch above their individual weight in challenging what many of us believe are unacceptable abuses of power by agents of governance throughout developed the world. Obviously, we have smaller threats to our liberty here in the UK than in many other nations. But we do have things that continue to blight our lives and one of those results from the relentless zeal of government agents who are focused on raking in cash from road use even though that is not what we give them power to do. One aspect of that is more than an irritant. It poses a bigger threat to our freedoms to ride in the future than many can see or accept as such and even in the biking and scootering world. What  we should being seeing our road managers do is improving mobility for all by managing traffic in ways that keep it flowing safely and especially for bike and scooter riders as far as I’m concerned. What we actually see them doing more often than not is developing ‘motoring tax’ schemes and scams to rip us off – and allow various buggerations to clag up our roads which makes them worse to ride on not better. So, getting our roads managers to do what they should is an ongoing fight.

But the good news is that two key events have shown how some big rounds can be one in style and despite the odds being stacked in favour of those who want to limit our freedoms to ride. Both are David and Goliath events but because most of the blows were traded on the web, fit and tenacious underdogs have one crucial and cool advantage. There are no ropes to limit the space you fight in.

I will describe the Goliath in these rounds with a modicum of restraint as I am very much in the thick of ‘discussions’ with them in my role as transport policy advisor for MAG – and am involved with various aspects of imminent proceedings in the Court of Appeal. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not suggesting that the Goliath in this story is bad, just big.

It is Westminster City Council, which is said to be the richest in Europe. Whatever, WCC is certainly pioneering a slick new pay-by-phone charging scheme that has already made a ‘surplus’ of around half a million pounds by forcing riders to pay new fees or fines to park bikes on public roads. It has also been deploying mobile CCTV cameras in Smart Cars which the council probably thought would rake in millions. But that operation has virtually ground to a halt and now the cars are hardly used and are making a huge loss. And this is due to the diligence and commitment of the No To Mob riders who have been developing a new and very public spirited sport called Smart CCTV Car Hunting or Schunting.

Meanwhile, one of the chief officers in this Goliath’s army threatened legal action against several people in the David camp of NTBPT campaigners against the bike parking tax scheme – as he felt he had been defamed. This had dramatic results, including a shut down of the NTBPT website and, although I wasn’t the target, even mine went down for for a while too. By the cringe! Other biking bloggers including Nutsville have been in the thick of that and reported their views accordingly.

Anyway, the Davids are easy to describe without risk of writs. Viewed at street level, where their views are regularly made clear, they may appear to be just a bunch of riders on a single issue campaign. And for anyone new to it, the issue in question is simple but crucial:

Can UK councils can use Traffic Act powers lawfully, to impose new charges for parking in bike bays that have already been established for that purpose on public highways?

The high Court recently ruled yes, but the Court of Appeal will revue that on March 14-15th on at least six grounds to overturn it – and could rule no. There are similar questions to answer about the spread of mobile CCTV cameras in Smart cars, that are in theory only trying to ‘manage traffic’. My arse. And to limit confusion, the main reason to oppose what many bikers including me see as the development and spread of more motorcycling taxes, is not a reluctance to pay dues – it is a nasty pair of problems.

‘Problem’ 1. UK councils are prohibited by law from imposing new bike parking charges to raise revenues.

Consequent problem 2. New parking fees schemes can only be legally justified by a ‘need’ for extra measures to ‘manage demand’ for road use by bikers.

But the nasty core of such ‘justifications’ for new bike user charges is the same as cars. Using them is BAD, so measures of constraint are GOOD. Oh, and especially if a raising riders’ costs makes a surplus, aka profit. So, any council wanting more cash from riders has a powerful new incentive to emphasise all the bad things they can about motorbikes and scooters. Bad news for biking in Britain? You Bet.

But as said earlier, there is something special about these particular Davids and where they fight that sets them apart from all other rider campaign groups I have ever seen. It is their exceptionally skilled and effective use of the internet, both as the main channel for communication of their news and views via the NTBPT website, and regular calls to big and small demos – via email, Facebook and Twitter. To be clear though, there is vigorous debate in the motorcycling policy lobby about the merits and potential downsides of some of the things they do or say, but that is a matter for another time. The key facts for now are that they have already raised over £60,000 to take WCC to the Courts. A first ruling that WCC did not act unlawfully is set for revue in the Court of Appeal in March on at least six grounds, and could be overturned.

Anyway, in essence, the latest round in this fight involved threats to sue the No-To Chairman, his committee and the company that hosted their website. Understandably, the web hosting company did not fancy being sued so they pulled the plug on the NTBPT website and it fell from view. The Davids were down, but as it turned out, not out. The towel did not get thrown in.

Within about 60 hours the whole site was re-assembled and a host found that is in the world’s Super Heavyweight class. Somehow, they enable the WikiLeaks whistle blowing website to carry on publishing stuff that governments of super-power states would prefer to keep behind closed doors. Somehow, I think the NTBPT site will be kept going too.

So, here’s my summary of this round. As I have said before, I will not condone anyone breaking laws that protect the freedoms that all individuals are entitled to have preserved. But seeing a bunch of bikers continue using the internet to fight their corner, in the face of a Goliath doing all it can to stop them, is quite impressive to say the least. A special event for sure. Some might even say it’s inspiring. But I’ll leave it to you to decide what it makes you feel. As to what happens next, all I can say for now is that the case and the fight continues, and I’ll see you in court if you go!

Facebook and tabloid newspapers may not seem to be usefully critical focal points for fresh debate over abuses of state powers to ‘enforce’ traffic management, but sometimes they are.

Following a link from a Facebook (and real) biking friend – thanks Mark McArthur-Christie, I find that the much disparaged SUN newspaper just published a story about a man who has been convicted of a criminal offence and payed out over £440, because he flashed his headlights to warn road users they were about to enter a police speed trap…

Now I will point out that there are some crucial facts missing from the story in The SUN. e.g. Was the speed trap set on a section of road where many deaths and serious injuries had been caused by drivers or riders exceeding the speed limit? The story was also covered by the Daily Mail, and albeit in a notably different way by the Guardian, and Telegraph who both led with a defence of the CPS. Nevertheless, none of them added any more than The SUN.

But given the fact that it was a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decision to spend taxpayers money to take this case to court, perhaps the most critical question that none of the papers or CPS staff raised is this: Has this type of case has been tried before and if so what happened? And as a quick internet trawl reveals, such a case has been heard, it went to Appeal and a ruling was made by LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER, that when the citizen in question warned fellow road users of a speed trap – he was not guilty of obstructing the police – which is quite rightly a serious criminal offence.

My brief internet trawl also found a site that purports to be a Forum for Police Officers – of whom a number seem critical of the prosecution and it’s inherent expenditure of Police and Court time.

So, yet again,critical questions are raised. WTF are we doing in Britain by allowing this sort of case to proceed to court? WTF are we doing using clever bits of kit as speed traps? I’m not saying we shouldn’t, but am not satisfied by most of the official answers. And, ultimately, is this sort of use of police and court time really enhancing the safety of our roads? As ever, I will allow you to decided and comment as you see fit…

First, after issuing a politically correct health warning that a picture at the bottom of my blog may be sexist, I’ll share a two view snapshot of the future for riders and could be riders. On the one hand, as money gets tighter for most people next year in Britain there is an ever greater need for our policy makers to enable those with the skill and courage to ride, to do so as safely and freely as possible. On the other hand, a handful of greedy Burghers in Westminster City Council are hellbent on defending their pay-by-phone bike parking tax on the grounds that it is quite reasonable to use new fees for on-street bike parking to try and put people off riding in the centre of London. And, of course, if they can get away with using Traffic Management Act powers to impose a new source of road user revenue, other councils with far less cash than WCC are sure to be tempted to use their cunning and highly profitable scheme…

But there may be more important things for all riders to consider during Yuletide. One of these is a growing consensus in the world’s scientific community that the so called ‘Santa Sceptics’ or  ‘Reindeer can fly Deniers’ have failed to see or accept an ‘Inconvenient Truth’. ‘The Science’ of such things clearly shows that claims by sceptics and deniers about the Global Warmth that Santa spreads throughout the world at this time of year are wrong. ‘The Science’ now clearly shows how claims that Santa and his Reindeer can’t really fly can not only damage comforting beliefs for innocent children and their parents, but these claims are irresponsibly wrong and create terrible confusion about what can happen to us if we’re naughty not good.

Dr. Larry Silverberg, Professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at North Carolina State University has been leading pioneering research at the North Pole which confirms the inconvenient truth about Santa flight. “Santa is using technologies that we are not yet able to recreate in our own labs,” and he goes on to explain how Santa’s sleigh is “far more advanced” than any modern form of air transportation.

“The truss of the sleigh, including the runners, are made of a honeycombed titanium alloy that is very lightweight and 10 to 20 times stronger than anything we can make today,” Silverberg says. The truss can also morph, thereby altering its shape  to improve its aerodynamics which allows it to “cut through the air more efficiently”. The runners on the sleigh have ‘flexure’ allows them to ‘tuck in’ and be more aerodynamic during flight, and then spread out to provide stability for landing on various surfaces such as steeply pitched roofs.” Says the world leading scientists.

However, in my ceaseless quest for balance in my bloggings I have to point out that this particular Prof and his disciples may be talking and believing bollocks. Oh Dear! And to offer an alternative theory, in the name of balance again, there are some who reckon that Santa is not transported by reindeer at all – but actually gets round the world on a bike.

Some say he rides in a gang of Santas on turbocharged Honda 90s. Some say he works alone on a supercharged scooter. Some even say that he is a she – and she uses a chopper with super-human aplomb.

As ever, I will leave it to you to decide what you choose to believe. I also hope y’all  have a Cool Yule and Great New Year with those who are happy to ride with you…

I gather from various sources that Tom Cruise, who has been a serious biking fan for yonks, has teamed up with his A-List pal David Beckham – and the mega-star buddies have formed a ‘secret’ motorcycle gang with the rather sweet name of the Midnight Boys Bike Club.

To the possible dismay of some old school bikers, the more traditional MC Club member choice of a Harley Davidson or Indian motorcycle has been shunned. Instead, this well wongerred pair have opted for the Confederate F131 Hellcat Combat machines which cost a trouser tingling £55,000 a pop!

Anyway, the bones of the story seem to have first seen the light of day in the Mirror, and been rapidly spread by various news publications around the world. It’s even been mentioned by a fellow motorcycling media hack Steve Farrel in MCN – so it must be true. Yeah!? – As MCN Editor Potsky is prone to say.

Frankly, I have no idea if the story is entirely as it is presented in the mainstream news media but I sincerely hope so for one simple reason. Vocal members of the the anti-bike bantering brigade have far more trouble getting media air-time when a motorcycling related story includes the likes of Cruise and Becks.

But I can now exclusively reveal a vital clue that shows how much truth there is in this news.

If you look carefully at the biking buddies in their civvy suits, you can just see that Tom is giving the secret sign that shows all who know that he is a full back-patch wearing member of the exclusive new bikers MCC. And, his prospect on his left hand side is just about to make the signal too!

So as far as I’m concerned it is quite right for us all to believe the chap who writes for the Mirror called Piper, and that he really does have a reliable source who has revealed the real beans about the mega-stars’ passion for motorcycling, and their secret rides.

As many CrossroadsRider readers will know, fighting for fair treatment of scooter and motorbike riders can be a thankless task, whether you do your bit on the streets or behind the scenes. And, finding reasons to be cheerful is tough right now as UK Councils face big cuts and wonder if they can use Westminster’s super slick pay-by-phone bike parking scheme to turn riders into the same type of target for highly profitable parking taxes as car drivers. But every now and then we are privileged to experience a magic moment that makes it all seem worthwhile. Yesterday I had more than one.

The first was news from Warren of NTBPT that  Lord Justice Jackson has granted leave for an appeal against a High Court ruling that Westminster City Council were entitled to use Traffic Act powers to pioneer a new bike parking tax – in preparation for selling it as a ‘service’ to any UK council in need of a new source of cash. And, although some folk saw it as a victory for WCC and wannabe bike parking taxers, I was convinced it was a hollow one. In fact, from the day of that ruling I’d said it was only a matter of time till the extremely odd conclusions in it were called into question – because in my view they were deeply flawed. It’s been a long three months since then though, so it is now a huge relief to know that the questioning can start in earnest, thanks to the decision by The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Jackson who has raised concern about rising legal costs limiting access to justice by ordinary people, and who was recently quoted by the Law Society Gazette as saying:

“Access to Justice entails that those with meritorious claims are able to bring those claims before the courts for judicial resolution or post-issue settlement, as the case may be.”

Then I spoke to Philip Coppel QC, the Barrister who had submitted the request for an appeal. Due to an odd quirk of circumstances he hadn’t yet heard the news before I rang. So my second magic moment was hearing his very chuffed response when I told him that leave to appeal was granted. But a third MM followed in quick succession as I read out the Order from the Judge that said: “Permission to appeal is granted on grounds 1 to 6,” which triggered quite a loud whooping noise and some colourful exclamations from our learned friend. But the best noise and best moment for me came when I read out the bit that explained that although an appeal on ground 7 was refused at this stage, it went on to say that if the appellant makes a renewed application on that ground, “this should be dealt with by the full court at the hearing of the appeal.”

Put simply, what this means effectively is that every one of the grounds for appeal against the first High Court judgement has been accepted as a good reason for re-examining the entire first ruling, AND thereby opening several doors through which the whole twisted caboodle can be chucked out. And to put this in to context, having leave to appeal on one ground alone is jolly good news as the rules for doing so are simple. The Court of Appeal can only grant permission to review and potentially quash a judgement if it thinks the appeal would have “a real prospect of success”, or there is “some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.”

The last magic moment of my day was on the 18th floor of Westminster City Hall no less. There, for my sins, I was attending the first meeting of the Council’s Road User Forum as the Transport Policy Advisor for MAG. And so it came to pass that I was able to tell its chairman, Cllr Lee Rowley and known associate officer Kieran Fitzall, that despite the council’s best efforts to get an appeal against the High Court decision rejected, permission had been granted for it to go-ahead. Every now and then I have a truly happy moment, sometimes two or three come in a day…

CCTV Smart Car Hunting is a new ‘sport’ that has already Grabbed the attention of the BBC’s watchdog program soon after it was invented by a dedicated band of NTBPT motorbike and scooter riders – who have been spurred into action to oppose Westminster City Council’s (WCC) highly controversial and regressive bike parking tax scheme. And, hot news tonight is that the Evening Standard has picked up on it too. The thrills and spills of Smart Car Hunting are often filmed and the latest action can be seen on U-Tube – with one of the first expeditions becoming the subject of a short documentary by a fellow biking blogger at nutsville.com. Video reports of other missions can be found here, here, and here.

Currently, riders and readers who live outside London, Kent or the North West may not have seen these mobile PCN fine churning machines yet… But as each one has raked in an average of £187.667 per year so far, with the BBC reporting that £7.3m came from London in one year, you probably will soon unless their profitability is significantly damaged by those who would a Smart Car hunting go. But to be fair to WCC, they have not yet officially topped the UK league tables of PCN ticket dishing and revenue raising from Smart Car CCTV as Lambeth are top dogs with an impressive 34,000 fines being issued by just three cars in one year which raked in a cool £1,689,460. However, it is of course my duty in the interest of balance to report that deployment of these mobile fine factories is, according to the councilors who support heir use, not about raking in cash at all. Oh no! As Councillor Nigel Haselden, Lambeth’s deputy cabinet member for sustainability and transport has said.

“CCTV enforcement is vital in making sure we can deal with the relatively small number of motorists who insist on ignoring the rules. Parking enforcement is categorically not about raising money, it is about keeping roads safe and clear.”

I have to admit though that I am a tad sceptical about the truth of that claim and find the phrase, my arse, coming to mind. After all, a recent FOI investigation by Big Brother Watch revealed that there are at least 54 CCTV Smart cars patrolling 31 local council areas in Britain. In the interest of balance I should point out that deployment of these surveillance Of course  councils at least £8,069,714.67 in fines in the period 1st April 2009 – 31st March 2010. This is equal to £322,788.58 for every council operating a CCTV Smart car, or £187,667.78 per car.

Enthusiasm for the new sport is spreading and becoming all the rage in central London. But I am now reliably informed that interest in the sport is growing throughout the UK biking community. In response to growing interest in the sport, a NoToMob Twitter account has been set up. And, I have just been informed that preparations are in hand to provide a ‘starter pack’ of advice on setting up a new hunting team and how to engage in the sport in an appropriately civilised and legal way.

In the meantime, here is a brief description of the new sport and how it is played:

Teams of plucky bikers draw attention to the whereabouts of mobile CCTV units that cruise around or sneakily park while trying to film minor traffic offences or parking infringements and rake in loads of cash by dishing out thousands of PCN fines.

So, step one in the hunt:

Find a smart car. Once spotted by a hunting team, initial contact is made with the pray by a friendly wave to the car.

Then sooner or later, the chase is on!

Step two:

The second phase of the hunt involves the mobile fine machines being provided with an ‘escort’ of riders who alert all road users to the presence of a CCTV unit that may have not been there before. But please note this well! A key rule of Smart Car Hunting that must not be broken ever is that the pursuit is purely and simply of the car and it’s camera system, and NEVER it’s occupants – who are merely employees of a private contractor who are going about their lawful business – albeit one that involves them breaking parking control regulations whenever they feel like it.

Step three:

The hunt is declared successfully over  when the CCTV Smart Car buggers off back to it’s shed.

Alternative interim move before step three:

Occasionally the occupants of the Smart Car may experience a misguided feeling that they are the focus of the chase, and may be being subject to some form of harassment, and to a point where they call for police  intervention and a premature end to the hunt. In these situations the Smart Car Hunting team must dismount from their motorcycles or scooters and engage in a polite conversation with the officers called to the scene. During the course of the conversation the hunters must politely explain that they have no interest whatsoever in the occupants but are only interested in escorting the  Smart Car and seeing where it goes, and that as cars have no feelings they cannot experience any meaningful sense of harassment.

Experiences of teams engaged in the sport so far shows that the police officers called in these situations are well aware that cars can not feel harassed and are therefore fully prepared to except that no harassment has taken place during the course of the event. I have no idea what impact this new sport may have in due course so all I will say for now is Happy Smart Car Hunting for those who care to, and Tally Ho!

I got excited news from a prolific writer about train and bicycle stuff this morning. It came from

But now he has written an “angry” open letter to Norman Baker, Lib Dem MP left, who is our new Transport Minister responsible for Regional and Local Transport…

It turns out that dear old Wolmar has got his knickers well twisted by rumours that a £140m fund to run a body he is director of, at a cost to the taxpayer that began at £5m and increased to £60m per year, is about to get the chop. The body concerned is called Cycling England and Wolmar asks Norman some searching questions. These include:

What is Norman Baker for? What is the point of you being in the Department of Transport? Then, with no more beating about the bush, our new minister is asked this.

“Are you a fig-leaf for the most reactionary policies to come out of the Marsham Street since the days of Nicholas Ridley?”

Cripes! I thought. That’s quite a question to ask a guy who, whatever you may think of him, at least had the guts to voice serious concerns over the exceptionally odd death of Dr David Kelly – who may have known far too much for his own good about the weapons of mass destruction that ‘justified’ the Iraq war – but weren’t actually there. Anyway, Wolmar also tells Norman that Cycling England is facing the axe “for the crime of being a quango – when it could quite easily not be one”.

In response to all this excitement and rumours of funding cuts, the bicycle industry has quite understandably “raised its voice” in support of Cycling England. But whatever the rights and wrongs of all this may be it is set in a tough situation in Britain where spending cuts amounting to £6.2bn need to be made with £683m to be hacked from the Transport Ministers’ budget.

Now I remember passing the good old cycling proficiency test and would love to see it continue to help youngsters learn how to ride a bicycle safely. But I am left with a number of puzzling questions. First, do we really need to spend £60m of public funds per year to do so? Secondly, is an angry letter from the nations’ ‘leading transport commentator’ likely to encourage a Transport Minister to keep a body like Cycling England safe from the budget slasher’s knife?

To be honest, I have no idea what the answer to the first question is but it does seem odd that the costs of running the quango that runs a proficiency test should grow from £5m to £60m in two or three years.

As to the second question, I will leave you to decide for yourself. But I offer a couple of illustrations to show how wide the gap can be between the opinions of prominent figures who comment about cycling. There can be no doubt that Bojo, London’s larger-than-life Conservative Mayor is a great fan of bicycling. But his fellow Tory peer, Lady Sharples is right at the top of the premier league of Baroness bicycle bashers.

Now, whatever comes of this challenge to save Cycling England and all the worthy work it does, there is one for for sure. There is no need to worry about saving  the future of a government funded body that gets £60m a year to do similar worthy work to promote the training and testing of scooter or motorbike riders. And that’s for the simple reason that such a body is a bit like Blair’s WMD in Iraq, it does not exist.

Nevertheless, concerned as I am about such iniquities, I am not a bicycle basher like the Tory baroness – or in anyway anti-cyclist. Actually, in my humble opinion, cyclists and riders of of motorbikes or scooters have to key things in common. First, we ride single track machines on roads and help cut congestion like no twin tracked vehicles can. And secondly, all single-track machine riders are vulnerable to attack by people in or out of big tin boxes with wheels on – and we deserve as much help and protection as we can get. But going back to dear old Wolmar’s angry letter, I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me how much some fans of cycling will demand – even in times when everyone is facing cuts.

Some riders have been dismayed by a High Court

The first ruling in the courts was always going to find in favour of the council in my view as there is far too much at stake for the first judges on the case to cut to the chase and effectively acknowledge a truth that is incredibly inconvenient for our ‘Traffic Management’ policy shapers and shippers.

As most riders can see as plain as day, Westminster’s scheme had nothing to do with Traffic Management, it’s all about something completely different. IT’S JUST ABOUT THE MONEY HONEY!

But the problem they and we have is that UK law does not allow them to say that a key reason for making a new set of Traffic Management Act Orders, is to develop a new and extra source of revenue. Amongst other things there is also a major snag in the Local Government Act, 2000, (3.2) It expressly forbids any local authority from introducing a scheme run by private contractors that creates a revenue stream. But that all came too late to protect drivers from an extensive range motoring taxes because those evolved over decades, alongside a smart range of bureaucratic washing machines which the money goes into and comes out clean. Unfortunately for Westminster, the laundry service failed to work when they decided to try and tax riders in exactly the same way as drivers. It is clear for all to see – and even WCC admit it – that within a few months of starting their ‘experimental’ version of the motorcycle parking tax scheme, they made a cool ‘surplus revenue’ aka profit, of half a million quid by the time they were legally entitled to make it permanent. Currently of course they claim to be making a loss, but if they can get away with keeping this tax they sure as hell won’t make a loss for ever...

Anyway, the reason I’m not dismayed about the ruling is that it has done even more than I’d hoped or expected. In order to find in favour of the council, the ruling would have to include fundamental flaws because nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that the Traffic Orders in question could do anything other than create a new revenue stream – and those flaws are now out there and open to successful attack and review. Better still – if there is any justice to be had – that will lead to the ruling being overturned.

Now, here is my take on where we are and what’s next, including a recap of the basics for anyone who is new to this saga. And I realise that what follows is a bit of a whopper of a read so I won’t be offended by the odd bit of nodding off, snoring or legging it up the pub – or gong for a ride instead. You can also take your time reading anyway as it will be the last thing I post for a bit as I am off at the end of the week to recharge the batteries for a couple of weeks, on a small island in the sun and warmer rain than we have here in Blighty.

And so, it came to pass…

The High Court ruling, of 16th July 2010, on a hugely significant claim that Westminster Council had used Traffic Act powers unlawfully, is fundamentally flawed in my humble but expert opinion by failures to grasp key facts and see black holes in the defence case. The claim was made on behalf of the NTBPT and all objectors to this regressive tax, of whom I am proud to be one, and it asserted that the council had effectively used Traffic Management Act legislation to cover the creation of a new tax on motorcycle parking in on-street bays that had already been established and paid for.

But the ruling is demonstrably wrong as far as I and a number of other observers are concerned, as it fails to address three fundamental flaws in Westminster’s defence of making the Traffic Orders in January 2010, that were made to convert an ‘experimental’ version of pay-by-phone charges for parking in on-street bays to a ‘permanent’ scheme.

The judgement identifies “two clear objectives the Authority sought to achieve the introduction of the parking orders”. And it says that these two objectives are legitimate goals for the Authority to try to achieve by using Traffic management Orders, to introduce new charges for on-street parking of motorcycles in bays that were already designated and paid for to accommodate use for that purpose.

The first legitimating ‘objective’ is, “to improve on-street parking availability for motor-cyclists” but this is demonstrably totally wrong, as it is not an objective that is identified at all in the official ‘reasons’ for a permanent version of the charging scheme. The second objective according to the judges was, “the termination of discriminatory treatment between motorcycles and cars.” But again, one of the big problems with that is that it was never identified by Westminster as such. Here, under ‘publications’ is where Westminster hid their reasons for the permanent scheme on their website – and they can be found in the Statement of Reasons document in PDF form. But see if you can spot either of the reasons that the judges say Westminster gave for the new charges, and that the judges said made the council’s use of Traffic Management Act powers to create a new tax lawful…

So, fundamental flaw No. 1. The judges have ruled that Westminster’s use of Traffic Orders to create a new revenue stream – and force riders to pay a new tax to park in bays that were already paid for – is ‘lawful’ because the ‘objectives’ for the new charges was to do two things that the council has never claimed as reasons for the new scheme… Er, how does that make sense in or out of a court of law?

But there is more that is wrong with this ruling. Fundamental flaw No. 2. The key question to be considered and ruled on in this case has been completely missed and left out of the judgement.

The critical question is not whether WCC could lawfully use Traffic Act legislation to introduce a new charge for motorcycle parking on public highways. The question to be ruled on is this: Can WCC lawfully use Traffic Act legislation to increase the powers it already had to manage demand for kerbside space – but without making a case that it’s existing powers had failed to manage such demand – AND in a way that would be rectified by the introduction of a new category of charges and trigger for penalty fines aimed at riders of scooters or motorbikes? And let’s get things clear here, as I explained to the judges in a section of my witness statement, WCC had all the powers it needed to control motorcycle parking and ‘manage demand for kerbside space’ by all motorised modes. There is not one inch of public highway controlled by Westminster where they have any demonstrable need to increase their power to decide who can park what, where and for how long – with or without out paying a fee or incurring a fine.

The last main flaw in the judgement of the case certainly has a critical impact on the rights and wrongs of the ruling for riders. But in my view it has an even greater impact on establishing the extent to which ‘consultation’ procedures about local authority use of Traffic Management powers can be skewed – in order to use them to do nothing more than create new revenue streams.

Throughout the entire consultation process on the ‘experimental’ version of the scheme, and once a decision had been taken in principle to make it permanent, consultees were consistently told that the main reasons for the new charges for on-street parking in designated bays was to fund further improvements to motorcycle parking amenities. But fortunately for all concerned now, I and other sceptics became increasingly bothered about the likelihood that Westminster were pushing the idea of funding further improvements as the ‘main reason’ for new bike parking charges, not because it was, but because it would limit the amount of opposition from key stakeholder consultees. So, in an attempt to push the council to reveal more about the main reasons they would give to ‘justify’ a decision to convert the experimental scheme into a permanent measure, I arranged and attended a meeting between Danny Chalkley who was Westminster’s Cllr in charge of the scheme at the time and Craig Carey-Clinch as the Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCIA) representative. In that meeting, dear old Danny smiled reassuringly and steadfastly denied that the main official reason for the charges was ‘demand management’ – and he repeatedly gave Craig and thereby the MCIA firm verbal assurances that the real reason for introducing new bike parking charges was to fund loads more improvements to on-street motorcycle parking. With my encouragement some weeks later, Craig invited Danny to confirm his assurances about the main reason in writing, but as I expected, that written confirmation never came.  But never mind all that well spun flannel flopping around in that meeting, as a matter of hard fact, Westminster made a fundamental change in the thrust of the official main reasons for the new charges. And, unfortunately for Westminster, I reported all that in the witness statement that the judges were obliged to read and consider. And the fact that the court’s first ruling seems to neatly avoid any consideration of those events doesn’t mean they can be ignored in a second round.

Anyway, a key fact of the case and in my view the lawfulness of Westminster’s use of Traffic Management Act powers to create a tax, is this: The first ‘main reason’ one was of course encouragingly positive for those who accepted it at face value, namely to improve the accommodation of rider’s needs to park – but the second one was extremely negative, namely to ‘restrain’ demand for bike on-street parking as the primary reason and to deter people from choosing to use a motorcycle at all in Westminster for unspecified ‘environmental’ and ‘safety reasons.

But the most critical thing about this change that the judges ignored in their ruling was the timing of when that change was actually officially confirmed. The first time anybody concerned could know what the main reasons for the permanent version of the scheme really were, was when the Traffic Orders were published on January 22nd, 2010, just three days before the permanent version of the scheme came into force on January the 25th! Sounds a bit smelly? Not quite the way that truly legitimate consultation procedures are run? You bet.

To put it mildly, this neat trick had a crucial skewing impact on the reliability and validity of the consultation processes that has not been addressed at all in the ruling. To put it bluntly it was hugely misleading for all consultees at best, and at worst a key element in a very long con.

So, what’s next? Well, as far as I can see, so long as the NTBPT Barrister makes these flaws clear to the courts, the only way that justice can be done and seen to be done is for an appeal to be heard and a fresh ruling made. I’ve spent some of today making a few suggestions for the Barrister to consider as part of his request for an appeal and sent them off. So, all I can say for now is fingers crossed then…

As most of you will know, I have been watching events at close quarters as Westminster Council try to roll out a new parking tax for scooter and motorcycle riders. I’ve also been doing what I can to guide all concerned towards a truly sustainable solution to the massive problems this regressive scheme has caused.

Recently this involved me being at the High Court for two days while the NTBPT case against the scheme was being considered. The case included a large amount of written evidence from both sides and an extensive witness statement from me as an independent Motorcycling Policy expert. I give my account of the proceedings below but first of all I set out what I think should happen next.

In my opinion, there is only one solution to the current mess that Westminster have got themselves into that is truly sustainable on all relevant levels, and it is simple. They should take steps to withdraw this totally unnecessary and unjustified tax and bin all plans to roll out such schemes to create a new nationwide revenue stream for local authorities.

The bottom line for me is that the council have not made any plausible case to justify the scheme as a traffic management measure. What their ‘reasons’ for the scheme amount to is a misuse of Traffic Management Act legislation and spurious references to a need for new charges to ‘manage demand’ for parking scooters and motorcycles on parts of the public highway that have already been established for that purpose.  Fortunately in my view there is a golden opportunity to make real progress towards a really sustainable solution.

As I have already suggested to Cllr Lee Rowley, the new guy in charge of the scheme in Westminster, he needs to take a golden opportunity presented by his current review of the whole saga and tell his colleagues that there are a great deal more disbenifits arising from trying to keep it in place in credit crunched Britain than benefits. He expressed enthusiasm for having a second meeting with me last time we spoke which I hope will happen soon.

In the meantime here is my summary of the NTBPT claim against Westminster City Council’s bike parking tax scheme. In essence the claim is that the Traffic Orders for the permanent scheme issued in Jan 2010, were not made according to all relevant regulations and that therefore the scheme is illegal and must be scraped.

And this is my take on how the hearing went…

There is no doubt that the authorities are taking this case extremely seriously as it was heard not by one judge, but two, including one of high seniority, Lord Justice, Sir John Pitchford.

During the first day he actually told the claimant’s barrister with a smile that he might be “pushing at an open door”. During the morning of day two, the NTBPT barrister made a series of well made points that caused the Westminster team to quite literally hold their heads in gloom. However, during the afternoon, the WCC defence barrister made a series of loose points and claims that the judges said were “unsubstantiated”. At one stage the proceedings took on an almost farcical tone as the Judges tried to get a clear idea of what the Western extension of the Congestion Charging zone was – and if it had anything to do with the case. Then, worryingly for all concerned with the claim, it seemed that the input from the defence was mostly accepted by the judges as a legitimate contribution to considering the pros and cons of the case. It seemed to me that the defence were being allowed to waffle about more or less anything without being held to account by the Judges on whether Westminster Council had really done what was legally required to justify making the scheme permanent. The simple two part question that was never asked of the council was this: What exactly is the problem you are saying you ‘need’ a new charging scheme to solve – and where is your evidence that you can’t address that problem fully with the immense amount of powers you already have to control parking of all vehicles on every inch of highway space under your management?

Obviously that did not bode well for a ruling against the new orders for the scheme…

In summarising where we ended up, I would suggest that it is impossible to say what the ruling will be, as there was so much written evidence that was only referred to briefly in the court. But although I still have some hope for a ruling in favour of the claim, there is a tremendous amount at stake here which the Judges revealed they were aware of. So, I have to strongly advise caution about assuming that just because the council did not really justify their new tax to the court, that the court will tell them to scrap it.

As far as I’m concerned some good points were scored for the claimants, but the NTBPT barrister may have put too much emphasis on a string of legal points drawn from previous cases than clearly spelling out the fundamental key points of the case against Westminster – even though the judges asked him to do just that on two or three occasions throughout the hearing.

So, here is my view of what the case is really about: The WCC Traffic Orders in question for the permanent scheme, made in Jan 2010, say that the main ‘reason’ to impose a new bike parking charge for on-street bays is a “need to manage demand for kerbside space” the key arguments against the scheme in my opinion are these:

1. WCC already had all the powers it needed to ‘manage’ and control parking of all vehicles, including motorcycles but without the new charging scheme.

2. The council has not made any case at all to justify an extension of their existing parking control powers, or produced a shred of evidence to support their waffled claim that charging bikes to park in existing on-street bays will make anything better.

3. The key reason that WCC gave for charging during the ‘trial’ scheme was to pay for better bike parking facilities, but that was dropped when it came to making the Traffic Orders to make the scheme permanent because as a matter of fact, all on-street motorcycle parking facilities in the form of bays and security devices that are subject to charging under the NEW orders made in January 2010, were all in place and paid for BEFORE the new orders were made.

4. No case has been made to show or evidence produced to prove that the imposition of a new charge for parking in on-street M/C parking bays has any impact whatsoever on WCC’s ability to manage demand for it.

5. The only truly plausible motive and reason for the new charges that Westminster have admitted to is a desire to use surplus revenue from the new scheme to address a fall in revenue from car parking.

The judges have said it may take them up to two weeks to reach a decision and issue a ruling so roll on July 9th…