A Middlesbrough man who was unable to ride his bike in a straight line as he swigged on some cider has been given a conditional discharge after he was charged with riding a bicycle while drunk under a law dating from Victorian times.
Police officers saw Michael Arundel wobbling on his bike in the town’s Grove Hill district on the afternoon of Sunday 7 May, reports Gazette Live.
But when they stopped the 37-year-old and told him he was breaking the law, he said: “Here, chief, you’re joking aren’t you?”
Under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872, it is an offence for someone to be “drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine, or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearms.”
The law is occasionally used to prosecute cyclists who are found intoxicated while riding their bikes, and even drivers of mobility scooters or golf buggies, which do not fall under drink-driving legislation.
> "Drunk" cyclist who had been pushing bike was locked up by police under 19th Century law, court told
Amrit Jandoo, prosecuting at Teesside Magistrates’ Court acknowledged that it was an “unusual case, not a case that features often at this court.
“There are no guidelines for sentencing. The legislation goes back to the 1800s.”
He continued: “They observed the defendant on Thorndyke Avenue riding a pedal cycle.
“They saw him pausing to take a drink of Strongbow cider. They pursued Mr Arundel who was unsteady on his feet and not in full control of the bicycle.
“He appeared not to be able to ride in a straight line.
“The officers stopped him and spoke to him - he could barely balance himself.
“He said, ‘what do you want?’
“When he was informed that he was going to be reported he said, ‘Here chief, you’re joking aren’t you?’ and went off on his bike.
“This was in public on a Sunday in plain sight. He was not in control of that bike.”
John Spooner, speaking on behalf of Arundel, who admitted the offence, said that his client was unaware he had broken the law.
“It was a Sunday, he was out and didn’t feel himself that he was doing any harm,” he told the court.
“It’s just one of those offences that has been committed for no apparent reason.”
As well as giving him a conditional discharge, magistrates also ordered Arundel to pay costs and charges totalling £60.
Add new comment
28 comments
We had an ex policeman at work who had many tales. One was arresting someone for being drunk in charge of a bicycle. We he brought the guy in, the desk sergeant old him he had 30 seconds to get rid of the bike! So he chucked over a hedge and the charge was drunk and disorderly. He simply told the arrested chap that he didn't have a bike and he was too pissed to remember.
My neighbour was stopped on suspicion simply because he was riding too straight ! So make sure you wobble a bit if you are a bit merry.
But get a taxi if you know you are well over the limit.
Because supporting Addison Lee/ zero hour contracts/ and the accepted worst diver on the road is the better option.
FFS!
Other taxi companies are available.
That'll be "the accepted worst drivers on the road" that I mentioned to ensure all taxi companies and drivers were caught in this sweeping statement.
Some of my best friends are taxi drivers btw...
Typical taxist comment.
Apologies - strike that from the record...
I prefer their cheap as shit wine or sangria in a box. There are other reasons that I chose the name too.
I don't drive an Audi. Please check your facts?
The opinion of Don Simon on any apple juice related topic cannot be trusted. Besides the fact he drives an Audi, he has vested interests...
20171118_095243.jpg
Does remind me of the time when, as a young man, I left the pub feeling very 'refreshed'. Wheeled bike into the road. Got on. Tried to ride. All over the place. Nope.
Took ages to get home that night as I'd stop every ten minutes thinking "I'm probably fine now". Wobble wobble wobble. Nope.
I still wore my helmet all the way home though. So I'd have been ok if I fell over at least
Don't kid yourself. I found an unconscious cyclist on a bikepath not so long ago. He had a properly fitted helmet on but he was concussed. It was the most innocuous path round there and somehow he'd taken a hell of a tumble and the air ambulance was despatched. Kept in overnight. He'd no idea what had happened. A helmet isn't a cloak of invulnerability.
It's ok to have a beer and ride a bicycle; drink to much so that you are unable to control the bicycle; that is breaking the law. Fines totalling £60. Seems fair to me.
In the picture at the top that lady is about to high-dive off The Golden Apple Of Justice into the Scrumpy Vat Of Truth, armed only with a sword and a testicles-scale.
Cyclist is a nob. He could have caused an accident and injured or killed a bystander. No sympathy for him just because he's a cyclist.
But didn't.
I believe that the vast majority of those found drunk in charge of a vehicle do not cause accidents, they are stopped due to the way they are driving and charged. Doesn't mean that they should be let off
This cyclist, just like those drivers mentioned above did not cause an accident. Is that because they are not likely to or because they were stopped before they were able to though?
The same argument could be used by drivers when we complain that they drive too close and could knock us off our bikes.
Good point, maybe road.cc should change the name of it's regular feature from "near miss of the day" to "could have caused and accident, but didn't"
It could indeed, well spotted.
Call me foolish but I just think that drunk people shouldn't be in charge of vehicles of any type on the roads. Crazy idea eh ?
I had a nasty fall once when I had drunk a beer or two more and failed to turn at an evil tight left wet bend, fortunately without any serious damage to myself or the bicycle. Yes I was plain stupid, yes the officer was damn right. You don't have to stupid like me to drink and ride, as you may not be lucky to get away with it.
My God you're right, he might have damaged a CAR.
But if it had been a minister's car, or a tabloid reporter's car, or a pedestrian, you can guarantee the MSM would be full of drunk killer cyclists stories, with demands that the drink driving law be applied to them.
There have been a few stories about drunk pedestrians causing problems for themselves and other road users, including cyclists, so the advice is right; don't drink and use the road.
It worries me that a lot of people don't seem to be able to grasp this extremely simple bit of common sense.
So if he went under your wheels, you'd just think 'oh well, at least he died happy'? Maybe in his drunkeness, as your cycle passes him, he swerves into you and knocks you under a passing bus?
It's not about car damage. That's what I said as the least of the problems. Some innocent party may end up traumatised ( or dead if you're that fellow cyclists in my previous example) because a drunk couldn't stay off the roads. Doesn't matter if they die hurting only themselves, it's still a needless death.
If he had been drinking battery acid, charging him would have made sense. He had a few glasses of fermented apple juice and was probably more risk to himself than any one else. This is one of those petty crime stories that makes you smile. But in police terms they have got a successful conviction.
Strongbow is way more manufactured than being just fermented apple juice.
https://www.real-cider.co.uk/ciders-not-recognised-as-being-real/
This point of view really pisses me off. If you're drunk....STAY OFF THE ROADs.
Last thing anyone wants is some pisshead on a bike managing to find their way under someone's wheels or at least damaging an innocent party's car.
Can't be doing with the cyclist as innocent party all the time idea.
If he was drunk enough to get a policeman's attention, then he probably would have fallen off later on anyway. I'm surprised they bothered charging him, but then he deserves it for drinking Strongbow - should have been drinking Thatchers.