Warning! This is a tediously long article, and it seems unclear what
comprises the ‘update’. There is no TL;DR version.

road.cc at its best, eh?

<https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps100-riding-cycle-path-307633>

--
Spike

On 10/04/2024 09:46 am, Spike wrote:
>
> Warning! This is a tediously long article, and it seems unclear what
> comprises the ‘update’. There is no TL;DR version.
>
> road.cc at its best, eh?
>
> <https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps100-riding-cycle-path-307633>

QUOTE (by road.cc):
Describing her punishment as “ridiculous”, especially due to the
presence of signs indicating the path’s shared-use status 30 yards from
where she was stopped, Gillmeister quickly and successfully appealed the
FPN, with the council agreeing to waive her fine.
ENDQUOTE

When an appeal is successful, the penalty which has previously been
handed down is *quashed*.

A penalty which has been merely "waived" has not been quashed. It has
been substituted because of the decision-making authority taking the
view that the penalty might, in all the circumstances, have been too
harsh. It does NOT mean that no offence has been committed (which is
what a successful appeal means).

Had "Gillmeister" *won* an appeal, the council issuing the
appealed-against penalty would NOT have had any role to play in
"waiving" the "fine" (FPN). The FPN would have been quashed by decision
of the appellate body and there would have been nothing for the local
authority to "waive".

Road.cc: illiteracy and ignorance for the benefit of the ignorant and
illiterate.

JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 09:46 am, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Warning! This is a tediously long article, and it seems unclear what
>> comprises the ‘update’. There is no TL;DR version.
>>
>> road.cc at its best, eh?
>>
>> <https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-fined-ps100-riding-cycle-path-307633>
>
> QUOTE (by road.cc):
> Describing her punishment as “ridiculous”, especially due to the
> presence of signs indicating the path’s shared-use status 30 yards from
> where she was stopped, Gillmeister quickly and successfully appealed the
> FPN, with the council agreeing to waive her fine.
> ENDQUOTE
>
> When an appeal is successful, the penalty which has previously been
> handed down is *quashed*.
>
> A penalty which has been merely "waived" has not been quashed. It has
> been substituted because of the decision-making authority taking the
> view that the penalty might, in all the circumstances, have been too
> harsh. It does NOT mean that no offence has been committed (which is
> what a successful appeal means).
>
> Had "Gillmeister" *won* an appeal, the council issuing the
> appealed-against penalty would NOT have had any role to play in
> "waiving" the "fine" (FPN). The FPN would have been quashed by decision
> of the appellate body and there would have been nothing for the local
> authority to "waive".

> Road.cc: illiteracy and ignorance for the benefit of the ignorant and illiterate.

A clear and concise description.

Now, why can’t (or, perhaps, won’t) road.cc do the same? [Rhetorical
question]

--
Spike