ridiculous cycling fine

By the way, the answer to the subject line:

Quote:

ridiculous cycling fine

is,

No, it's not.

Just for future reference - If a CEO attempts to stop you, ask them to produce a designation card.

They may well have one; If so, see what their designated powers are.

If they do not explicitly include the power to detain?

Simply walk away. There isn't anything they can do about it.

(IANAL, this is not legal advice)

Lots of Islington people complained when the design was first put out to comment that cyclists had to go the long way round the junction instead of taking the short and now traffic-free way. But to no avail. As it is, this big area of vomit stained paving has become a problem exactly as we foresaw, with drunks spilling out of the two pubs, a clutter of delivery mopeds and poor drainage. It's also the most commented on place in Islington's Commonplace consultation on low traffic neighbourhoods, with dozens (if not hundreds) of complaints about people cycling through... so you've been unlucky to come across the policing in response to that.
https://islingtonpeoplefriendlystreets.commonplace.is/comments

I'm not going to suggest whether you should pay the penalty or not: get some proper legal advice.

In passing, opening post is not illegal unless it is with the intention of acting to a person's detriment without reasonable cause:

"A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him." Postal Services Act 2000, s84(3).
- it is dependent on both intention to act to somebody's detriment and without reasonable cause.  On the face of it, both of these have to be proved by the prosecution. Opening misdirected or misaddressed post in error is common enough to be unintentional. In the unlikely event that you were charged with this, the penalty is severe enough that you would seek legal advice:  I'm just somebody on the internet, however wise and knowledgeable I undoubtedly am.

As for the original penalty, the sequence of questioning is likely to be:

• Did you do this thing?
  you haven't explicitly said that you did not dismount when you ought, but we can infer from this that you did commit the offence.  You have a decision between accepting a specifed, limited penalty on the chin for an offence you committed, and fighting against some technicalities (some of which may be appropriate, others may be administrative).
• Does doing that thing amount to an offence?
  regardless of the signage, it is only an offence if an applicable Traffic Regulation Order, bylaw, PSPO, or other regulation is correctly in place at the time of the alleged offence for the location of the alleged offence. On its own, the signage is not itself an enforceable regulation. Good luck with that, you probably do not have time to investigate this without the discount expiring, although you might negotiate an extension. It appears to be a recent implementation, in which case you might find details of the notice of the TRO via local newspapers, the LHA's solicitor (the Borough Solicitor's office at the town hall), or minutes of relevant local authority meetings. Since it must have been out for consultation, you might also track it down via the local authority's public consultation records. That might be a source of finding fault with the TRO if it has not been properly consulted.  If you find that there is a failure in the TRO/etc, then an offence has not been committed.
• Is that offence enforceable?
  If the TRO/etc is in place, then it can only be enforced of there is reasonable signage in place.  From the Google Maps link, there is a big sign at the Brexit Arms Wetherspoons end, that could be argued to be to one side, away from the dropped kerb, with the inference that cyclists are invited to use one side of the pedestrianised zone by virtue of a lack of signage to the right hand side.  At the other end, the sign on the side of the Piers Morgan Arms Famous Cock is not angled well to apply to the closed off road section.  The trouble is, cyclists are not invited to use the right hand side from the Wetherspoons end (there's no blue cycling sign to that effect, and there is a large No Cycling sign close by in plain sight); and the similar sign at the other end clearly applies to the site before it, and there is no delineation which might reasonably suggest that the sign is limited.  The signage is there, and you would be expecting knot-tying flexibility in interpretation to suggest otherwise.
  However, approaching from Highbury Station Road, it is difficult to see from Street View whether No Cycling signage is present.  It may appear as you enter form there onto the pedestiranised area. There are several Sheffield stands, which implies a desire to encourage cycling, and a lack of signage from there onto the pedestrian section would probably make that route unenforceable.  Did you approach from that direction?
• Have they correctly enforced it?
  Doesn't seem like it, but then some errors may be interpreted as de minimis. You need a solicitor to say whether this letter would be applied to you even with the errors. If you want your legal representative to stand in court and profess your innocence on the basis of more than just the typos, you will need to avoid the question of whether tou actually rode through the section. You will need to start with the question, "this is my name and DoB; this is the letter that has popped on my mat; should I be worried?"

If the answers to the above are: Ye, Yes, Yes and, for the sake of de minimis acceptance, Yes, you will need to pay up.

On the morality of it.  It may be a bit of a nuisance - clearly the desire lines were not well thought-out for cycling - but there is a cycle lane that loops round the Highbury island.  Get some exercise and take the long way round, or get off and avoid the hassle as you take the short cut.

Unfortunately the law and fairness are different things. Encouraged by internet lawyers you could easily convince yourself of your watertight case, only to be completely out of your depth in a Magistrates Court. If you enjoy a good argument, can afford to possibly have costs as well as a fine awarded against you, have plenty of spare time to waste and don't suffer any sort of anxiety about being in conflict with authority then go for it. Otherwise, chalk it up to experience and cut out non essential High Street purchases to the balance of the fine.

Maybe write to the local paper so that local businesses are aware of the negative effect of overzealous enforcement Officers and the local Gammons can rage about almost being killed by a crazed cyclist on the pavement and they once heard about one going through a red light without insurance or a helmet.

I'd put a post on pepipoo.com

They have very knowledgeable people who give excellent advice.

The main difference between councils and private parking ticketers is that councils are under an obligation to act reasonably, so people who know how councils work may well have clever ideas as to how to argue this which may not be obvious to us mere mortals.

If you're going to contest it, it may depend on where you were arriving from. If its this link.

https://goo.gl/maps/KZJQNQpBNRNuzZn4A

if you've come straight at it and can see the sign - dubious.

If you;ve come from the other side from the segregated cycle lane - is that crossing a toucan or a ped crossing?  theres a secondary head next to the ped symbol but I can't tell whats on it.  If you came from the cycle lane onto the crossing and if that is a toucan, you'd be expected to cross the road on your bike and then onwards there doesn't seem to be anyhting to indicate the cycle lane has ended (warning paving) and the no cycling sign is not immediately apparent from the direction you;re encountering it.  if thats not a toucan there should be something between the grey and red tactiles to indicate cycle facilities end.

If you adopt the same principle as a no entry sign, where both sides are signed. that area is too wide to have a single sign plonked on a convenient pole at a random location to act as full signage.

With a wrong name and a wrong DOB it looks like they have randomly dropped a demand through your letter box.

I'd either ignore it, or write back to them and say that person does not live at your address.

I'd pay it. You've opened the letter, so that kind of negates it not being addressed to you (it's illegal to open mail addressed to someone else!).

You could have a case to argue poor signage. There is a blue cycle sign to the right which is intended for the cycle lane, but could be mistaken to mean the right side of the paved area.

https://goo.gl/maps/KZJQNQpBNRNuzZn4A

But can you be bothered with the hassle for 75 quid?

I once got a parking fine in a bay that they claimed was for loading, but not marked as such. I complained, but to no avail, so paid it. A year later I got a refund, as someone had contested it in court and won. All previous fines were deemed illegal by the judge and the council had to pay them back!

If it was the police, you might get away with it. I know from a close pass incident, when they didn't get a response to the NIP, they were going to close the case. The officer I spoke to said it would be an inappropriate use of resources to investigate further. I really had to argue for them to chase it up! I suspect a council enforcement officer would not let it go so easily, as they don't have much else to do.

This might help...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58158820

Hmmm, the street view you linked to seems be way off however I scrolled down on the description and can see the area. Now first of all, I thought the area was quite wide and why not make it a shared path.
Then I realised the road recent;y changed layout and it actually has some really nice separated infra* which is better then the murder strips approaching and leaving  the area. I'm also guessing the ped area is because the stations could mean lots of peds in one gaggle. 

but back to your actual question, should you pay it. Well you need to be ultra sure that you could ignore it under these circumstances as the fines go up the longer you don't pay. To be ultra sure, you need proper legal advice so would need to pay a solicitor to confirm. Even then, the council could still take you to court over it so more costs if you need to defend it 9don't defend yourself). There might be an argument over lack of adequate signage, but then they do have them either end and again, you would need to be sure of this with legal help.
You normally always have an option to contend these with the council which means stopping the clock, however they would probably just re-issue the fine under the new name and hope you don't think the original was worthless. (For example many years ago I parked badly at a station and got ticketed. However there was no ticket on my car and the first I knew about it was when the letter stating the fine was doubled hit the mat. I didn't realise I could refuse to pay as no initial ticket and only needed to pay with visual evidence that ticket has been issued then so only argued for the reduction as no ticket was on my car. They strangely jumped at the chance. )

So to me your choices are:-

Pay it now at £75 and take it as a learning that you now know ped zones could be enforced st any moment so avoid them if possible.

Don't pay it now, but be prepared to pay a solicitor for representation or a higher fine in future.

BTW the argument that everyone does it and other seem to get away with it seems like one that could be used with 80% of cars speed, but you are the one that has been stopped by the passing Police. Just luck of the draw so to speak. If there was 10 people ticketing instead of one, they would have been stopped more then likely. TBH the better argument is how did those scooters for the McD's takeaway people (I assume) get to the positions shown on street view and if driven on the pavement, they should be done.

* at least one way, the other does mean stopping at several lights if priority signalling isn't give to cyclists and I doubt it would be. So cyclists going from station to McD's might be more tempted to shortcut. 

Since the law requires accuracy, certainly on identity, the notice is invalid.