Don't ride on the pavement - even with stabilisers!

HertsG

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-li ... e-31805312

Sophie Lindley, aged 4, gets a pull from Lincolnshire bill.

peat

These flippin cyclists, they're a law unto themselves. They should make them take a test. And pay tax. Scum.

Anonymous

Lots of weird outdated laws re bikes lol.
She would have been 'legal' on a scooter or roller blades/skates though I guess, even though probably more of a problem!

Is it actually illegal anyway?

I often cycle through a short pedestrian area as it seems silly and unsafe to go around the one way system with the cars.
I slow right down to a fast walk pace but guess I could be pulled up for it. Which is odd as I could probably get off, run as fast as I could with the bike, and be perfectly legal even though I would have far less control and be more of a danger/hazard.

crannman

so nice to see the law clamping down on the real criminals

Anonymous

I hope they can find a pink or purple electronic tag for the poor child!

byke68

If she wasn't allowed to ride on the pavement, where was she supposed to ride it? Why, the road of course, like the rest of us! Plod being a bit over the top.
Still, catch them young, might stop them red-light jumping in adulthood!

monkimark

"He said 'If I catch you put her on her bike further up the road I will turn around and confiscate the bike'.

If the copper wants a pink flowery bike with stabilisers he should save his pennies and buy his own rather than stealing it from a 4 year old girl.

debeli

I've raised three children, all now keen cyclists - and all were on the pavement with stabilisers or with dropped saddles and the pedals removed at the age of four or five.

My experience in those years with the police and other 'authority figures' were nothing but positive.

All my kids were on the road at about six or seven - solo or tag-along - but under a lot of supervision.

Should I have grandchildren (not just yet please) I imagine they'll be allowed (even encouraged) to ride on the pavement by the local constabulary.

This news story is one that appears representative of a 'jobsworth' or 'Little Hitler' mindset which may not exist beyond a few individuals. I never saw anything like it in any of the several constabularies in whose patch my children rode on the pavement.

monkimark

and the good news is that the copper in question has probably been assigned to collecting traffic cones for the next month by an embarrassed superior who had to explain it all to the BBC.

apreading

monkimark wrote:

and the good news is that the copper in question has probably been assigned to collecting traffic cones for the next month by an embarrassed superior who had to explain it all to the BBC.

and probably resents cyclists even more as it is all our fault for being such difficult busybodies...! :evil:

capt_slog

Carbonator wrote:

Lots of weird outdated laws re bikes lol.

I slow right down to a fast walk pace but guess I could be pulled up for it. Which is odd as I could probably get off, run as fast as I could with the bike, and be perfectly legal even though I would have far less control and be more of a danger/hazard.

Maybe not. As you said, the laws are strange. For instance, I think I recall that a person walking a bike across a zebra crossing is not a pedestrian.


The kid on the bike though? Ridiculous and the plod should be ashamed of himself.

veronese68

Capt Slog wrote:

Ridiculous and the plod should be ashamed of himself.

Exactly. I suspect he still can't see what he did wrong. If he's that deficient in the common sense department he'll probably have difficulty seeing what the problem is even when it's explained to him.
I think had that been my kid I'd have insisted on the kid carrying on and forced him to arrest me or go forth and copulate.

markhewitt1978

Capt Slog wrote:

Maybe not. As you said, the laws are strange. For instance, I think I recall that a person walking a bike across a zebra crossing is not a pedestrian.

You have that backwards. The ruling was that someone pushing a bike across a crossing was indeed a pedestrian. The trial was about a motorist who claimed that he didn't have to give way as someone pushing a bike was not a pedestrian, the judge ruled they were.

That said, it doesn't guarantee that pushing a bike along a footway is permissible as bicycles are not a 'usual accompaniment'

pblakeney

I like to think that the policeman's colleagues have been extracting the urine today.

Petty sod. And stupid.

Mike Healey

Taken from the CTC site - In 1888, s85(1) of the Local Government Act declared that “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are ‘carriages’ within the meaning of the Highway Acts".

The question is: Is a 4-wheeled cycle (2 + stabilisers) a carriage under the meaning of the Act? "I would argue, M'lud, that since such vehicles had not been invented, and such "carriages" referred to in the meaning of the Act being clearly those carrying adults, the officer has exceeded his statutory powers in ordering the child to stop riding on the pavement and that his threat to confiscate the vehicle is meaningless, since no such power exists in law"

Wild cheering in court, the judge being required to try to restore order for several minutes.

t4tomo

We need to bear in mind that the plod in question was from Lincolnshire and therefore commonsense might not prevail.

pblakeney

Mike Healey wrote:

Taken from the CTC site - In 1888, s85(1) of the Local Government Act declared that “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes, and other similar machines are ‘carriages’ within the meaning of the Highway Acts".

The question is: Is a 4-wheeled cycle (2 + stabilisers) a carriage under the meaning of the Act? "I would argue, M'lud, that since such vehicles had not been invented, and such "carriages" referred to in the meaning of the Act being clearly those carrying adults, the officer has exceeded his statutory powers in ordering the child to stop riding on the pavement and that his threat to confiscate the vehicle is meaningless, since no such power exists in law"

Wild cheering in court, the judge being required to try to restore order for several minutes.

Spot the flaw in that argument?
Although I would suggest that any intelligent person would not apply the law to anyone under 10 years of age.
Further, exactly what punishment could be meted out to an adult?
Especially one without a drivers license?