Cyclist and granddaughter, 8, stopped for helmet "safety" advice by police who "sounded their sirens" and pulled pair over "because it's dangerous"

Using a siren to pull a vehicle over is standard practice, not an abuse of power.

Had the eight year old been driving a car, using a siren to pull her over in such circumstances would be understandable. However if you think that using a siren to pull over an eight year old girl cycling perfectly lawfully with her grandfather is acceptable then you may be the type of person who falls into the power kick/uniform category. It takes all sorts I suppose and I wish you well in your journey towards self discovery and fulfilment.

Another troll joins for half term.

You are the troll here..

I'm not surprised you are unable to recognise trolls.

Perhaps you could explain how the comment made related in anyway to all the previous posts ?

Surely "The cars are the problem here"?

Kids can fall over and bang their heads (and do) while doing all sorts of activities.  They're probably at a slightly higher risk of doing so when cycling (and due to having their lower limbs around the bike they may be slightly less able to adjust their position etc.).  So helmets seem reasonable.  However I'm not aware the risk is significantly more than many other activities which don't commonly see this stresss on helmets e.g. ice skating - or likely just running around where there are hard surfaces (even playgrounds have play equipment in them.)

OTOH we all quickly recognise the dangers of motor vehicles - especially around children...

But behing hit by a vehicle is precisely what a helmet will offer marginal or no protection against*.

* May mitigate head injuries in some collisions,  essentially where the cyclist is just falling off (what the legal specification is - I know that some manufacturers say "but we exceed that!").  At most likely relative collision speeds it will offer almost no protection.  And of course it only protects (part of) your head...

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Pretty equivalent to a driver being stopped and given advice on how more reflective paint would be safer.

Except for the fact that a driver poses far more danger to other road users than an 8-year old and her grand-dad does, cycling along

Bungle_52 wrote:

At the risk of being called a troll again I'm going to stick up for the police on this one. I think we can all agree that it is a good idea for young children to wear a helmet on a bike as they are more likely to fall off when learning to cycle and that is exactly the scenario a helmet is desgned for. These policemen are young and possibly inexperienced and I am sure had good intentions, they could not know that this youngster is obviously a very capable cyclist and it is likely they were trying to be helpful.

If this had been me I would not have been confrontational. We need the police on our side. I was young once and didn't get everything right, I needed help to become a better human being, probably more help than most if I'm honest.

The police don't always get things right but confronting people generally leads to entrenched positions as most people find it hard to back down. Engaging them in conversation is a much more productive exercise. Maybe Joe could have thanked them for their concern but have pointed out out that the child was a capable cyclist and that helmets are of little use in a collision with a car. He could also have explained that the lights and siren could be frightening to an 8 year old.

Finally, chapeau to the granddaughter, I hope that she does continue with her cycling and well done to Joe for encouraging her.

This incident demonstrates how focussing on cycling helmets is detrimental, though. The child was enjoying cycling and gaining the health benefits as well as spending quality time with her grand-father and due to the misguided actions of the police, the child is now scared to cycle and presumably she'll now consider cycling to be a dangerous activity.

I don't quite understand why you think that Joe was being confrontational, but not the police. They are the ones who performed a quite aggressive act of using sirens and lights which obviously frightened the girl and it was totally unnecessary. Joe was absolutely right to not put up with their bullshit. The police need to focus on road danger - that's dangerous drivers, not an 8-year old girl on her bike.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't quite understand why you think that Joe was being confrontational, but not the police. They are the ones who performed a quite aggressive act of using sirens and lights which obviously frightened the girl and it was totally unnecessary. Joe was absolutely right to not put up with their bullshit. The police need to focus on road danger - that's dangerous drivers, not an 8-year old girl on her bike.

Absolutely spot on Peter! And a big thumbs-up to Joe for sticking up for himself.

I'm glad this aggressive stunt by the 2 officers was caught on camera. The subsequent refusal by WMP to accept they were wrong is quite concerning.

I live in Australia and on weekends, see numerous children riding on bike paths with their families, all wearing bike helmets; strangely, they seem to be enjoying themselves regardless of the horrific imposition placed upon them by the government to wear helmets.

grOg wrote:

I live in Australia and on weekends, see numerous children riding on bike paths with their families, all wearing bike helmets; strangely, they seem to be enjoying themselves regardless of the horrific imposition placed upon them by the government to wear helmets.

I suppose you don't see the poorer families that don't bother cycling as they know they'll be targetted by the police for not wearing a helmet. Probably notable that they don't cycle on the roads due to the police enforcing cycle helmets rather than stopping the dangerous drivers too.

I imagine that if the same incident happened in Australia and the kid was aboriginal or from a poor neighbourhood, they'd have been strip-searched and thrown into jail unless they could pay several hundred dollars in a fine. It's laughable that you think that Australia demonstrates that mandatory cycle helmets is a good idea.

https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2019/over-the-top-policing-of-bike-helmet-laws-targets-vulnerable-riders.php

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51496206

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/19/the-wa-cops-rounding-up-indigenous-kids-a-toxic-and-racist-environment

I suppose the weekends are when the well-to-do white families can have a nice pootle along a cycle path and don't have to deal with the toxic road environments that Australians have created and won't have to worry about the police using cycle helmets as a pretext for child abuse.

It was the police that were being confrontational and the whole concept is just back to front. If the police think she is in danger, then they should be removing the danger by pulling over speeding drivers, not wasting time on cyclists doing nothing wrong.

Again why are people obsessed with PPE ?

Hirsute wrote:

Again why are people obsessed with PPE ?

Quite a few years ago, the HSE declared that cycle helmets are not PPE, and I don't think they've revised that opinion since.

eburtthebike wrote:

Quite a few years ago, the HSE declared that cycle helmets are not PPE, and I don't think they've revised that opinion since.

So what are they classified as? Decoration?

Bungle_52 wrote:

The police don't always get things right but confronting people generally leads to entrenched positions as most people find it hard to back down.

In my view it's the officers who are being confrontational here by using blues and twos to pull over a grandparent and grandchild who are completely within the law and going about their lawful occasions. If the police want to promote a pro-helmet message and feel that is a good use of their time, standing outside supermarkets handing out leaflets and giving advice is one thing, actually pulling people over when they haven't committed any offence is confrontational. You're correct in that confrontation here led to entrenched positions with people not wanting to back down, but it's the police who have continued to be confrontational and refused to back down, making unwarranted comments implying that the grandfather doesn't care about his grandchild and so forth. As soon it was clear that the adult was not interested in receiving their advice the police should have left it, they have neither the mandate nor the authority to continue badgering people who are completely within the law once they have been told to leave them alone.

You've missed in Joe's tweet that he says the experience has meant his granddaughter no longer wants to ride her bike.

I can't stick up for the officers.

But a huge chunk of the reasoning isn't that they stopped the riders to give advice.

It is what the photo shows. Last I checked, police were generally instructed that if possible you stop BEHIND any vehicle being pulled over; This is a safety factor - it puts the police vehicle, with flashing lights drawing attention etc between the source of traffic and the stopped vehicle, because it is more likely to be seen (and so not crashed into) and also protects the incident (have to go through the police car to hit anything else. This is particularly relevent for a cyclist who is far more likely to be killed in a collision. So why on earth is there a stopped police car in view of a front camera. Especially given I would argue that with 2 cyclists, one a child, they should be stopping off the road, pretty much exactly where the police car is now parked with open doors (so stopped)... Yes, the layby goes back beyond this, but given the leave covered, rough surface, giving the cyclists as much room as possible to elect to safely stop out of the flow. (n.b. given leaves + potential surface issues they don't have to stop there)

Traffic delays be damned; If the police have enough reason to stop someone then they should have enough reason to block the road while they do...

Of course most videos I see of police stopping cyclists seem to involve hard stops (use police vehicle to force the rider to emergency stop or crash) without ever requesting the cyclist pull over safely...

oh the humanity.. cry me a river.

I occasionally see the odd BTP officer at the station wearing a traditional helmet, which is nice. Still paramilitary for the rest mind...

Is it forms follows function or the other way round...?

UK has nothing on the US, mind ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police