- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Beer taps (copyrighht Simon MacMichael)Magistrates question value of prosecuting "drunk" cyclist
Magistrates in a Norfolk town have questioned whether it is worthwhile to prosecute a cyclist alleged to have been riding his bicycle while drunk and have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to reconsider the case before it goes to trial.
Nerijuis Burkiskis of Garwood denied being drunk in charge of a bicycle when he appeared before King’s Lynn Magistrates Court yesterday.
He was found riding his bicycle the wrong way along the one-way Norfolk Street at 3.20am on the morning of 8 December by two police officers and a special constable who were patrolling the area, reports Lynn News.
Stacie Cosset, prosecuting, said: “They formed the opinion he was drunk and he was arrested.”
Chairman of the bench Bill Hush asked her: “Are you really going to prosecute this man for cycling the wrong way up a street? With all the public money this is going to take to bring this to trial?”
Ms Cossey responded: Police are of the opinion he was drunk. He has a previous conviction for excess alcohol. They say he was drunk in charge of a vehicle.”
Mr Hush, who expressed surprise at the presence of three police officers in that location at that time of night, replied: I know Norfolk Street – it’s not the biggest street in the world.”
He asked Ms Cosset to consult the CPS and the police before deciding whether to continue with the case, which has been adjourned until 3 Aprril.
Solicitor Tiffany Meredith, acting for Mr Burkiskis, told the court: “One might think [that three police officers] have got better things to do in Norfolk Street at that time.
"He [Mr Burkiskis} accepts that he had been drinking, but not that he was drunk.”
There are two pieces of legislation in England and Wales that apply to people riding a bicycle while drunk, as set out in Bike Hub’s Cycling and the Law article, which points out that unlike motorists, cyclists are not required to undergo a breath or blood test (with the consequence that whether the rider is intoxicated or not becomes a subjective rather than objective issue).
The first, rarely used, is the Licensing Act 1872, with section 12 applying to persons found “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.”
Bicycles – and other conveyances such as mobility scooters or golf buggies, for that matter – have been deemed to be “carriages” for the purposes of that legislation, and in 2017 we reported on a case in which a cyclist spent 18 hours in police custody in Pendle, Lancashire waiting to be charged under section 12 of the Act.
The cyclist, who denied he was drunk, was given a conditional discharge at Burnley Magistrates’ Court, the minimum sentence the court was able to impose.
Under more recent legislation, section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: “A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.”
The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine, although prosecutors could potentially bring a charge of dangerous cycling, which carries a maximum penalty of a £22,500 fine.
Unlike in many other jurisdictions, in England and Wales, conviction for the offence of cycling while drunk does not result in penalty points being added to a person’s driving licence, should they hold one.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- ktache 7 min 22 sec ago
Obviously can't be trusted, antisocial, ban motor vehicles...
- ktache 12 min 8 sec ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 20 min 44 sec ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 1 hour 6 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 1 hour 32 min ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 2 hours 23 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 4 hours 21 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 5 hours 51 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
- The Larger Cyclist 6 hours 15 min ago
loads of parking
Add new comment
23 comments
Jeez - fine him for being drunk and disorderly
Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.
Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.
Rather than have a cheap pop at the CPS you should consider that offences of this nature don't need CPS approval so the Magistrate is suggesting that the officers get a prosecutor's advice before taking the matter to trial.
Here's the quote from the original article that inspired the snark - "The case was adjourned until April 3, but not before chairman of the bench Bill Hush urged prosecutor Stacie Cossey to check in the meantime that the CPS and police wanted to continue with it."
Stacie Cossey is a solicitor employed by the CPS - it took me thirty seconds with Google to check that. So you've tried to defend the CPS from my snarking and in the process revealed that you either hadn't read the original article or checked the facts. I believe the youth of today refer to this as self-owning - nice work on your part, but possibly not something you'll be proud of.
Here's the quote from the original article that inspired the snark - "The case was adjourned until April 3, but not before chairman of the bench Bill Hush urged prosecutor Stacie Cossey to check in the meantime that the CPS and police wanted to continue with it."
Stacie Cossey is a solicitor employed by the CPS - it took me thirty seconds with Google to check that. So you've tried to defend the CPS from my snarking and in the process revealed that you either hadn't read the original article or checked the facts. I believe the youth of today refer to this as self-owning - nice work on your part, but possibly not something you'll be proud of
The Prosecutor would probably have only seen the case for the first time once at court and with another 20 plus cases to do in the same list would have had no time to discuss it with the officers hence the need for an adjournment but you may not have appreciated that.
Call me a cynic but it looks like the most likely charge that this should be filed under is contempt of constable. You can see the picture now - PC advises cyclist to get off his bike, it's a one way street etc. Cyclist tells police their time would be better spent elsewhere, in robust Anglo Saxon, and before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to and didn't want to be embarassed in front of the hobby bobby.
Thank heavens for the common sense of the magistrate - in the good old days this would have been dealt with by way of a binding over order but clearly now the CPS lawyer and the PC don't want to lose face, even if a phenomenal waste of public funds is invovled.
"before he knows it gets locked up on a charge he didn't know existed because the PC didn't like the way he was spoken to"
Maybe he didn't know about that charge existed, but he certainly should have been aware of Highway Code Rule 68 which states that You MUST NOT ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.
and I cannot find anything in the Highway Code permitting cyclists to move in the opposite direction of the traffic flow in a one-way street
The Highway Code doesn't allow it at all.
There are schemes that do allow it, though:
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/getting-around/cycling-and-walking/two-way-cycling-one-way-streets
So he admitted drinking but says he wasn't drunk. Bet the police haven't heard that one before. By legal driving standards I bet he was impaired.
It's bad enough navigating past drunk pedestrians never mind cyclists.
A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.
A: Where does it say this?
B: Even when I'm not riding it?
A bicycle. Has to follow the same rules of the road as a car. So riding the wrong way and being drunk should be a offence. The person is a danger to him and others on the road just as if it was a car.
There's some very important differences between a car and a bike.
Obvious troll is obvious.
No I'm not a troll. But. In my country of Canada. And province of Ontario. A cyclists has to follow the same rules as a car driver. Stop at stop sings red light etc. He has to stay near the shoulder. Just as a slow moving vehicle. He does not need to ride in the bike lane but you can't ride a bike drunk. Just as you can walk down the street drunk in Ontario Canada. It in the drivers hand book
So sorry not a troll
Should rules for motoring be equally applied to those that pose thousands of times less harm? How many people have cyclists killed whilst being drunk in the last 5 years for instance? Motorists it's over a thousand, let's go back further, how many dead due to a drunk cyclist over the last 20 years, because in that time over the limit motorists have killed over 5000 people, never mind the derious injuries which run into the multiple tens of thousands.
How many people have been killed/SI by those on bikes by cycling the 'wrong' way down x street?
We have this ridiculous situation were the least dangerous 'common' mode of travel on the roads is actually being held to the same/similar level of rules as that which cause the vast majority of the deaths and SI by far - cyclist are attributed to 0.03% of all road fatalities over the last 7 years ... 50% LESS than pedestrians when in collision with people on bikes, it's even worse re peds when you include them causing deaths of others and theselves through their actions! How about walking the wrong way on a road, should that be a 'crime' too given the supposed dangers?
A bicycle. Doesn't have to follow same rules of road as car. Fixed that for you. We could play the equality game if you like, but then you'll have to accept that car drivers 'should' wear helmets on the basis that car accidents are the largest single cause of head injuries.
What about the psychological damage to whoever runs him over?
If you're drunk, stay off the roads regardless of vehicle.
Who said he was drunk. The 3 police officers were of the opinion he was drunk but that was not proven.
At last a Magistrate who thinks that public money could be better spent.
But where's the evidence that the chap being 'drunk' (if he actually was) would make him more run-over-able?
I don't see why he wasn't just charged with whatever was the relevant offence for cycling the wrong way down the one-way road. If anything could be said to be making him being run over more likely, it was that. Not sure why they had to bring the side-issue of intoxication into it.
True. I once had to stop the car for a load of black bin bags blocking the road (it was dark and bin day). I got out to move them, then realised it was a bloke in a long black coat, who had passed out in the road. Managed to rouse him, bottle of vodka fell out his pocket as he got up, then helped him get home safely.
He was a a smoker too. Car stank for days afterwards.
I reckon the Highway Code should be amended to allow cyclists to go the wrong way up one-way roads (with the usual caveats). It's clear this bloke wasn't causing any danger except maybe to his liver.
That 1872 legislation also makes it illegal to be drunk in a public place, such as... a pub.
As I understand it at the moment, if drunk in public, adding the bicycle element only increases the fine slightly if found guilty.
This may change with the review of cycle offences that is underway, as one of the proposals is harsher penalties for cycling under the influence. Maybe I should get round to doing the real ale wobble this year...