Police stop 4yo pavement cyclist

[Si]

title of thread changed to be clearer as we have had several threads on this subject, now merged into one.

[karlt]

I was under the impression that its not the childs age rather that 'cycles' under 20" wheel (exceptions being adult folding bikes, shoppers etc) are classified as toys, with a different standard which makes them unsuitable for road use. In fact they are actually sold as 'pavement cycles'.

Next they'll be wanting prams and pushchairs off the pavement, scooters, disability chairs........

I've heard this quoted before, but there's not to my knowledge any such law, despite these being occasionally sold as "pavement cycles".

[Cyril Haearn]

In Germany this is covered by law: children up to 8 years old must cycle on the pavement, from 9 - 10 they may cycle on the pavement.

The policeman threatened to confiscate the bike. This reminds me of a punishment applied by the Australian Police to those cycling without a helmt: the cops let their tyres down!

Not sure if I want to laugh or cry.

[Postboxer]

Maybe the 'pavement cycle' thing is more a way around the standards for cycles, reflectors and so on, rather than it being legal to ride them on the pavement.

[Cyril Haearn]

In Germany this is covered by law: children up to 8 years old must cycle on the pavement, from 9 - 10 they may cycle on the pavement.

The policeman threatened to confiscate the bike. This reminds me of a punishment applied by the Australian Police to those cycling without a helmt: the cops let their tyres down!

Not sure if I want to laugh or cry.

[The fat commuter]

As far as I'm aware, even the CTC got it wrong. The four year old was still breaking the law - it's just that they cannot be held responsible.

If it were me with a four year old, I would have let the police officer confiscate the bike and then simply go to my MP and complain. I'd have got the media involved (as they did) with a picture of sad child with cycle helmet stood next to a busy main road - doesn't matter if that wasn't the one that she was meant to ride on.

The law with regards to cycling on a pavement is stupid. In certain circumstances, people should be allowed to ride on the pavement. I think that it is allowed in some European countries - there they have a law against causing a danger on a pavement through use of a bike. When I started commuting to and from work, there were a few stretches of road where I used the pavement - this was along a 50 mph zone going uphill where cars oftem whizz past at probably nearer 80. It's outside the built up part of Sheffield, no one ever uses the pavement (maybe a jogger here and there) - I felt that I was safer on the pavement than on the road. Even tonight riding home, at one point there was a vehicle heading towards me on the wrong side of the road.

[thirdcrank]

Whether the police(whatever) officerwas adequately trained or not, this is clearly the actions of someone whose judgement is so poor they're in the wrong job, or, if voluntary, in the wrong volunteering area.
However, I'm not sure what sort of job/volunteer sector this sort of poor judgement and unnecessarily stroppy conduct would fit anyone for.............

First, as somebody else has suggested, there may be more to this than we know.

Dealing with children/ young people is one of the minefields of everyday policing. Some people want action taking against every child but their own and for various reasons, police are called to deal with children much more than was once the case. The contrasting demands are typified in the frequently reported remarks from people longing for a return of the days when the local bobby dealt with miscreants by administering a clip around the lughole.

A couple of memory lane examples about specials and children.

Now almost 50 years ago, when my hair was still brown, I was delegated to take out a special on patrol. He was recently recruited - ie with less policing experience than I'd gained that week - but had just left the Regular Army after a long career, retiring as a warrant officer. He'd a row of medal ribbons, knew how to be smart in uniform, looked the part and obviously had much more experience of life than I had. We attended a call where the parents of a juvenile had found that he had information relevant to a police appeal. I cannot now remember the details but they were understandably pulled between a civic duty to report the information and a fear of their child becoming involved. I did my best to reassure them and as I was getting the details, my trainee intervened to instruct me to get details of the child's school in case we needed to interview him there. Totally taboo, but it took me some time to get the parents down from the ceiling and it's not easy to convince people that you know much more than somebody old enough to be your dad.

Much more recently, as in about twenty years ago, somebody had the brilliant idea that it would be OK for a couple of specials to patrol together in a car, putting in an appearance at selected minor incidents. As they had radios, they could also turn up at incidents to which they had not been sent. Inevitably, they were eventually first to arrive, indeed the only people to arrive at something a bit outside their depth, in this case a couple of juvenile offenders in their own street. With no real knowledge of what to do next, they decided to bring the suspects back to the reassuring safety of the police station, leaving their parents protesting on the pavement. Luckily, they reported their proposed course of action and were quickly told to take the children home. I was down there PDQ, hair by now largely grey, only one medal ribbon etc., but I was able to sort everything out. Public spirited but untrained people, doing their best.

[honesty]

There's 3 points here that are probably important
1. Children under the age of 10 cannot be held criminally responsible
2. The punishment for pavement cycling is a fixed penalty fine, so I don't think they would have the authority to confiscate anything
3. Fixed penalty fines cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16

Either way this goes against the guidance from the transport bod, that cycling on pavements should only be punished at the discretion of the officer and they should be lenient if there was no risk.

[stork]

Well, she shouldn't have been riding on the path anyway. Footpaths are for parking on.



(Saw this on the news at lunchtime. At least the police have been round to the house to apologise.)

"Safety is our priority and driving on the pavement to park there is illegal.

"However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of adult motorists who might otherwise have to walk a few yards to their front door, officers should use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances."

[Psamathe]

And whilst the officers were busy threatening and reprimanding the poor child, I wonder how many drivers passed speeding and/or texting ...

Ian

[Flinders]

Thirdcrank, my uncle was a village bobby way back in the 1960s, and I know what you mean, things are very different these days.

However, as a teacher in my past, I was told 'never threaten what you don't know for sure you can carry out'. If the person really did threaten to confiscate the bike, they were out on that particular wobbly pier a very long way......

[Vorpal]

In Germany this is covered by law: children up to 8 years old must cycle on the pavement, from 9 - 10 they may cycle on the pavement.

The policeman threatened to confiscate the bike. This reminds me of a punishment applied by the Australian Police to those cycling without a helmt: the cops let their tyres down!

Not sure if I want to laugh or cry.

I understood that in Germany, children under 8 may not cycle in the road unless accompanied by someone who is at least 15. I don't think that there is a legal requirement for them to use the pavement, but if they are out and about without someone who is at least 15, then they are effectively required to use the pavement.

[pete75]

And whilst the officers were busy threatening and reprimanding the poor child, I wonder how many drivers passed speeding and/or texting ...

Ian

This is the Lincolnshire force we're talking about. They've used tasers against children as young as 10 as well as a 78 year old. Thank god we don't give them guns.

[Tonyf33]

And whilst the officers were busy threatening and reprimanding the poor child, I wonder how many drivers passed speeding and/or texting ...

Ian

This is the Lincolnshire force we're talking about. They've used tasers against children as young as 10 as well as a 78 year old Thank god we don't give them guns.

Well for one the word 'used' with regard to 10 year olds I know for a fact is not actually 'used' in the true sense, you mean a taser was drawn. The youngest person a taser was actually used on was I think 14 and as we all know some 14 year olds are almost men these days.
In any case, if a situation would decree that others are in danger and to cause the least amount of harm a taser is the best solution why is that a problem? Or are you suggesting that being coshed with a truncheon or 3 officers driving you to the ground whilst you're holding a knife or other weapon with all the potential dangers that posesses (for both officers & other person) is the best alternate?
Whilst my respect for the police is waning can we at least have accuracy with regard to how tasers etc are 'used' and not garbage that crops up in the headline of the daily fail only for the actual real 'facts' to appear right at the bottom of said article

[pete75]

And whilst the officers were busy threatening and reprimanding the poor child, I wonder how many drivers passed speeding and/or texting ...

Ian

This is the Lincolnshire force we're talking about. They've used tasers against children as young as 10 as well as a 78 year old Thank god we don't give them guns.

Well for one the word 'used' with regard to 10 year olds I know for a fact is not actually 'used' in the true sense, you mean a taser was drawn. The youngest person a taser was actually used on was I think 14 and as we all know some 14 year olds are almost men these days.
In any case, if a situation would decree that others are in danger and to cause the least amount of harm a taser is the best solution why is that a problem? Or are you suggesting that being coshed with a truncheon or 3 officers driving you to the ground whilst you're holding a knife or other weapon with all the potential dangers that posesses (for both officers & other person) is the best alternate?
Whilst my respect for the police is waning can we at least have accuracy with regard to how tasers etc are 'used' and not garbage that crops up in the headline of the daily fail only for the actual real 'facts' to appear right at the bottom of said article

No idea if they've been reported in the daily fail but they come from stats released by the Home Office and were widely reported in the local press here in the county. They did actually fire at a 78 year old.
I've lived in Lincs for over 50 years and know the local police will usually either drastically over react to incidents or (more usually) take no action at all. Just look at this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/363771/police-use-of-taser-janjun-2014-tabs.ods Why the high number of taser incidents in Lincolnshire, a fairly peaceful rural county with a population of just 720,000, no large cities and one of the lowest population densities in the country. Compare it to neighbouring counties like Nottinghamshire with much higher population density and a large, notoriously boisterous city as it's capital. Lincs police use tasers between 2 and 3 times as often as Notts police. Even in South Yorkshire, densely populated with large towns and cities, taser use is under half that of Lincs. It all smacks of over reaction.

Not only that by almost all measures the Lincs force is one of the worst performing in the country generally appearing well down the bottom half of any police performance league tables. Seven years ago in 2008 they tried to increase their council tax precept by 79%. That was the year after they were ranked as the second worst performing force in the country. If they reduced it by 79% they might come closer to providing value for money for the service they provide to the people who pay for them.