"Drunk" cyclist who had been pushing bike was locked up by police under 19th Century law, court told

Stumps wrote:

Ha lush, also for those who mentioned it you can be arrested if your drunk and have a child in a pushchair. Oh and yes we can say if someone is drunk or not.

So basically, you're saying trust me, and/or I'll make shit up - figures.

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Stumps wrote:

Ha lush, also for those who mentioned it you can be arrested if your drunk and have a child in a pushchair. Oh and yes we can say if someone is drunk or not.

So basically, you're saying trust me, and/or I'll make shit up - figures.

no. I think you'll find he's saying that if you stink of drink and act like a prick then you'll be locked up.  

In the eyes of the law, police can say whether a person is drunk.  However are you seriously telling me that in the era of the camera phone that cops actually still just make stuff up?

And fell over because of his cycling shoes! Really, you believe that? The guy was pissed, tripped over his bike, fell against a parked car and then acted like a knob when the police  turned up. 

There this new thing called the necessity test that cops have to do.  i.e. Is it necessary to lock someone up.  Agreed it's a petty offence. But there's an audience, the guy refuses to give his name, then argues with the plod. If it was you, would you let him walk away. Thereby making you look like a twat. 

I wouldn't. 

Snake8355 wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Stumps wrote:

Ha lush, also for those who mentioned it you can be arrested if your drunk and have a child in a pushchair. Oh and yes we can say if someone is drunk or not.

So basically, you're saying trust me, and/or I'll make shit up - figures.

no. I think you'll find he's saying that if you stink of drink and act like a prick then you'll be locked up.  

In the eyes of the law, police can say whether a person is drunk.  However are you seriously telling me that in the era of the camera phone that cops actually still just make stuff up?

And fell over because of his cycling shoes! Really, you believe that? The guy was pissed, tripped over his bike, fell against a parked car and then acted like a knob when the police  turned up. 

There this new thing called the necessity test that cops have to do.  i.e. Is it necessary to lock someone up.  Agreed it's a petty offence. But there's an audience, the guy refuses to give his name, then argues with the plod. If it was you, would you let him walk away. Thereby making you look like a twat. 

I wouldn't. 

How could the cop possibly think that it was "necessary" to lock him up? So what if a cop is made to look foolish - their job is to uphold the law, and ridiculing someone isn't illegal.

It definitely sounds like something else was going on, and the fact that he wasn't charged with "drunk and disorderly" indicates that he wasn't considered drunk enough to apply that.

I wish he hadn't pleaded guilty as he could easily have gotten off that charge if he'd challenged it at all.

don simon wrote:

Quote:

‘CARRY THAT BIKE!’
Don’t fall for the piffle that you have to wheel your bicycle in the gutter if walking on a footway with your machine, or that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a “foot-passenger” (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not riding it or driving it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: “In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand.”

sauce: http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

He should appeal and throw the book at the muppet plod.

 Crank v Brooks - perfect!

Kapelmuur wrote:

This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.

I was 12 years old and pushing my bike  'the wrong way' along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I had the same thing once too. Unbelievable.

Only the once though - there's a twat in every barrel. I'd like to think he felt a bit stupid afterwards.

Duncann wrote:

Kapelmuur wrote:

This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.

I was 12 years old and pushing my bike  'the wrong way' along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I had the same thing once too. Unbelievable.

I once got a £30 fine for looking the wrong way down a one way!

Kapelmuur wrote:

This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.

I was 12 years old and pushing my bike  'the wrong way' along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I saw this and started seeing if I could find out whether this was correct - not wanting to be one who would cycle against the flow of a one-way street (unless permitted), but would happily push a bike along the pavement as Kapelmmur and Duncann have done. The alternatives of riding around or carrying the bike don't always appeal either. 

Is one not allowed to push a bike on the pavement contrary to the flow of traffic on a one-way street?

Hug wrote:

Kapelmuur wrote:

This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.

I was 12 years old and pushing my bike  'the wrong way' along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I saw this and started seeing if I could find out whether this was correct - not wanting to be one who would cycle against the flow of a one-way street (unless permitted), but would happily push a bike along the pavement as Kapelmmur and Duncann have done. The alternatives of riding around or carrying the bike don't always appeal either. 

Is one not allowed to push a bike on the pavement contrary to the flow of traffic on a one-way street?

 

Load of boll****.

You are allowed to push your bike on the pavement,  as when pushing your bike you are regarded as being or as travelling on foot.  On some one way streets particularly in London you are allowed to cycle the opposite way to traffic on the road, and in some cases where there are signs on the pavement.

Next time the police do that to you (or warn your kids) get the officer's number and file a complaint. 

Hug wrote:

Kapelmuur wrote:

This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.

I was 12 years old and pushing my bike  'the wrong way' along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I saw this and started seeing if I could find out whether this was correct - not wanting to be one who would cycle against the flow of a one-way street (unless permitted), but would happily push a bike along the pavement as Kapelmmur and Duncann have done. The alternatives of riding around or carrying the bike don't always appeal either. 

Is one not allowed to push a bike on the pavement contrary to the flow of traffic on a one-way street?

 

Of course you are. There is no traffic on the pavement, so you are not contrary to the flow. 

madcarew wrote:

Hug wrote:

Kapelmuur wrote:

This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.

I was 12 years old and pushing my bike  'the wrong way' along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I saw this and started seeing if I could find out whether this was correct - not wanting to be one who would cycle against the flow of a one-way street (unless permitted), but would happily push a bike along the pavement as Kapelmmur and Duncann have done. The alternatives of riding around or carrying the bike don't always appeal either. 

Is one not allowed to push a bike on the pavement contrary to the flow of traffic on a one-way street?

 

Of course you are. There is no traffic on the pavement, so you are not contrary to the flow. 

Again, Crank v Brooks...

CARRY THAT BIKE!’
Don’t fall for the piffle that you have to wheel your bicycle in the gutter if walking on a footway with your machine, or that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a “foot-passenger” (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not riding it or driving it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: “In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand.”

Source: Bike hub, cycling and the law
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

Kapelmuur wrote:

Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come.   When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a 'vehicle' and that I had broken the law.

I'm pretty sure I read, from no less an authority than Martin Porter QC, last week, that a person wheeling a bicycle is a pedestrian.

Username wrote:

I'm pretty sure I read, from no less an authority than Martin Porter QC, last week, that a person wheeling a bicycle is a pedestrian.

You can be a pedestrian and "in charge" of a vehicle. e.g. walking in a car park towards your car with keys in hand.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Username wrote:

I'm pretty sure I read, from no less an authority than Martin Porter QC, last week, that a person wheeling a bicycle is a pedestrian.

You can be a pedestrian and "in charge" of a vehicle. e.g. walking in a car park towards your car with keys in hand.

 

I'm really not sure that's legally correct, otherwise giving your children the keys to go get something from the car would be illegal. 

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Username wrote:

I'm pretty sure I read, from no less an authority than Martin Porter QC, last week, that a person wheeling a bicycle is a pedestrian.

You can be a pedestrian and "in charge" of a vehicle. e.g. walking in a car park towards your car with keys in hand.

I'm really not sure that's legally correct, otherwise giving your children the keys to go get something from the car would be illegal. 

Seems that "in charge" isn't clearly defined. I found this page (http://www.ibblaw.co.uk/service/road-traffic-offences/drunk-charge-motor-vehicle) that indicates that the intention to operate the vehicle is one of criteria (which would absolve young children). Unfortunately, the onus is on the person to prove that they didn't have any intention to drive. It seems that the owner of the vehicle remains "in charge" by default unless they do something like handing the keys to someone else (probably not your children though).