Stopped by police
- Thread starter david1949
- Start date
I shudder every time I see a very young child being carried on a bike in traffic -last week I saw one who looked no more than 2 being towed behind his father's bike on a really busy main road. As cyclists we are totally vulnerable regardless of how good we are, that's something I accept- if I have an accident so be it. I have no right though to expose a child to that risk and would not dream of doing so. I'm talking here of public roads, not cycle paths.
Small children perched above rear wheels in child seats or towed in trailers do indeed look vulnerable, to the point where we might fear for their safety.
But is there any evidence that they do in any way suffer accidents and injury?
I think not. In all my cycling years and with trade associated knowledge, I've never heard of a single accident involving them. That's probably due to road users taking additional care when they see children in these vulnerable circumstances.
Once again this may be an example of how we have become overly obsessive about child safety and protection.
Children often far prefer alternative transport to boring cars as I well know from the many young kids on the local estates who've begged rides in my large goods trailer on my return trips from recycling. In Holland and Denmark babies and small children are carried in a wide variety of manners on bikes, goods trikes and recumbents, often perched quite precariously or in open goods trailers without restraints, their enjoyment frequently self-evident. Adult safety obsessions all too often deprive children of experiences they are entitled to, and there's little doubt that today's children have impoverished lives compared with those of much older generations.
Life is only worthwhile if it has value, and the wider the experience, the more value a life has.
I've carried my children for short trips on my bikes for years, firstly using a child seat and now with them sitting on the back of my cargo bike (sometimes 2 at a time). On public roads traffic always gives me a wide berth and I've not had a single incident in 7 years.
The roads where I live are pretty quiet and when the kids are young they enjoy it much more than traveling by car.
Wear bright clothing and cycle carefully and you should be fine.
The roads where I live are pretty quiet and when the kids are young they enjoy it much more than traveling by car.
Wear bright clothing and cycle carefully and you should be fine.
OMG, you'd have a field day with my eldest then - nrly 5 yrs old - skiing, mountain biking, rock climbing, power kiting and shock horror - riding on the road when we go for a bike ride.
You expose children to risk every time you wake them up in the morning (and there is even a certain risk to letting a child sleep!).
There is one thing about managing risk but you shouldn't be so risk averse that it stops you doing anything. Exposure to risk is an important element of growing up - it teaches you to manage that risk and to take steps to minimise the risk - not doing something is NOT managing risk!
Take my example of my eldest riding on the road - he wanted to come with me for bike rides - I've continually stated that riding on the pavement is not acceptable (until then we walked to the promenade where it is a shared use route - i.e. pedestrians and cyclists). Telling him he couldn't come was not an appropriate response (I hate the cheap get out clause of "you're not old enough"). So I decided to manage the risk associated with him riding on the road by taking certain steps - a bike flag, attending a cycling safety course with him, ensuring he had adequate protection, even setting up a little practice road down the driveway. This way I have ensured I have reduced the risk to a minimum and I am comfortable that he understands how to ride safely on the road. Yes, he still might be involved in a road accident but now there is no more risk of that event happening than that event happening to me, or when he is 10 - or 18 - or 30. In fact, by starting him riding on the road now, under my supervision, I think I have significantly decreased the chance he will be involved in an accident when he's older.
As I said before, exposure to risk is an important part of development for a child - just because something "might" happen doesn't meant it "will" happen and because something "might" happen, that is not a reason to "not" undertake said activity.
More people are injured falling from ladders each year than are hurt in cycling accidents - it wont stop me going up a ladder though - I'll just make sure I do it properly.
You can't wrap them up in cotton wool forever but you can teach them to take responsibility for themselves and teach them how to control their own environment/destiny.
Last edited:
Not entirely disbelieving you, but most lawyers I know can spell prat - it is right there in the job description after all. Not entirely disagreeing with you either - my point would be that sometimes prattishness is called for in challenging authority and it is healthy for police officers to meet a well-informed prat occasionally.
Compare the position in America where, in many places, crossing an empty road without waiting for the green man is an offence (jaywalking). I always thought that single law undermined the US's claim to be the "land of the free". Historian arrested for jaywalking | UK news | The Guardian
Last edited:
I have been trying to resist looking at this thread and the associated video footage because I knew it would do me no good whatsoever. However, the cloud base is down to 300 feet AGL, the visibility has dropped to less than 2KM so I am grounded, bored and have one hour to go until the end of my shift. The thread has won, it has drawn me in. Those same dark forces which control the eyes and divert the unwilling gaze toward dreadful images of 60 year old men dressed in pastel shades of Lycra have won. I have indeed looked at the thread and....
Well, not entirely the reaction that I was expecting. Pc Trout, or whoever he is, seems to be lacking in the knowledge department. Full marks to him for going out and proactively engaging with the law breaking public, but really, he does need to know the basics of how to deal with an offence and offender at the roadside. He didn't appear to know his powers and was clearly floundering, which made him look silly.
The stoooodent of law wasn't much better either. I wonder, what was the motivation for his stunt? He had clearly set-up the situation and I don't know what I am supposed to think. Should I be thinking, what a clever stoooodent of law this man is, he can humiliate a policeman with his brain? Or should I be admiring the bravery of this stoooodent of law, for he is prepared to answer back and argue with a policeman. Or should I think, what a compassionate and understanding stoooodent of law he is. He's forgiven the policeman and written a short but, trite, note of forgiveness in the form of a film credit at the end of his little creation.
The whole episode is a sad reflection on some of the toss-pots which populate the legal profession and also some of the numb nuts who populate the law enforcement side of things. No one, or any particular side, has come out of this covered in glory.
And another thing...
I feel quite sorry for Pc Spout. He has messed up, but he now has to suffer the humiliation of having, not the finest hour of his career, broadcast on pooh tube. A deliberate act of nastiness by the lawyers apprentice, calculated to publically hurt, up-set and humiliate Pc Grout. And then in a typically self satisfying lawyer kind of way, the future partner of Carbuncle & Haemorrhoid attempts to portray himself as a compasionate and caring man who bears Pc (I'm running out of names for him) no malice.
In conclusion, I believe the whole incident was brought about by the would-be lawyer being in possesion of a willy which extends no more than 2 centimetres when at peak levels of excitement. And there is the problem......
Well, not entirely the reaction that I was expecting. Pc Trout, or whoever he is, seems to be lacking in the knowledge department. Full marks to him for going out and proactively engaging with the law breaking public, but really, he does need to know the basics of how to deal with an offence and offender at the roadside. He didn't appear to know his powers and was clearly floundering, which made him look silly.
The stoooodent of law wasn't much better either. I wonder, what was the motivation for his stunt? He had clearly set-up the situation and I don't know what I am supposed to think. Should I be thinking, what a clever stoooodent of law this man is, he can humiliate a policeman with his brain? Or should I be admiring the bravery of this stoooodent of law, for he is prepared to answer back and argue with a policeman. Or should I think, what a compassionate and understanding stoooodent of law he is. He's forgiven the policeman and written a short but, trite, note of forgiveness in the form of a film credit at the end of his little creation.
The whole episode is a sad reflection on some of the toss-pots which populate the legal profession and also some of the numb nuts who populate the law enforcement side of things. No one, or any particular side, has come out of this covered in glory.
And another thing...
I feel quite sorry for Pc Spout. He has messed up, but he now has to suffer the humiliation of having, not the finest hour of his career, broadcast on pooh tube. A deliberate act of nastiness by the lawyers apprentice, calculated to publically hurt, up-set and humiliate Pc Grout. And then in a typically self satisfying lawyer kind of way, the future partner of Carbuncle & Haemorrhoid attempts to portray himself as a compasionate and caring man who bears Pc (I'm running out of names for him) no malice.
In conclusion, I believe the whole incident was brought about by the would-be lawyer being in possesion of a willy which extends no more than 2 centimetres when at peak levels of excitement. And there is the problem......
Last edited:
I thought I was going to be stopped by the police the other day for failing to signal when I was making a turn into a giveway...I normally always hand signal, but on this particular day I didn't and as luck would have it, there was a police car right behind me... they continued to drive slow behind me and I expected the old siren, but nothing..they overtook me and sped off. I'm not sure if it's actual law to hand signal or just generally accepted good highway code practice... can someone clarify?
I think a cycle under road traffic law is considered to be a vehicle and the "driver" has the same responsibilities as any other driver and so you are obliged to signal.
BUT there is is another clause somewhere which suggests that some articles in the highway code which are not law per se but if you are in an accident which is caused in part by not obeying one of the articles then the court can take that as a contributing factor.
No wonder PC Whatshisname did not know everything. I am sure when I was on the street I didn`t either, there are so many grey areas.
Did you know a cyclist cannot be done for speeding but he can be done for "Furious Cycling". Put it on your new years resolutions list to be stuck on for "Furious Cyling". I will even pay your fine, but it must say Furious Cyling on the ticket. I think it is a town law from 1847 or somewhere around there.
So Yes or No you may have to signal but the judge won`t like it if you get dragged to court for not doing it.
Steve
BUT there is is another clause somewhere which suggests that some articles in the highway code which are not law per se but if you are in an accident which is caused in part by not obeying one of the articles then the court can take that as a contributing factor.
No wonder PC Whatshisname did not know everything. I am sure when I was on the street I didn`t either, there are so many grey areas.
Did you know a cyclist cannot be done for speeding but he can be done for "Furious Cycling". Put it on your new years resolutions list to be stuck on for "Furious Cyling". I will even pay your fine, but it must say Furious Cyling on the ticket. I think it is a town law from 1847 or somewhere around there.
So Yes or No you may have to signal but the judge won`t like it if you get dragged to court for not doing it.
Steve
Tillson,
That is the most balanced and sensible evaluation of the whole thing. Personally I hate smart asses, and I bet that in 5 years time, if you ask this know-all about the law he currently knows so well, he will have forgotten it. The body of law is huge, and the Pc needs to have a smattering not only of Traffic Law, but the whole of the Criminal Law as well.
As a country, do we really want to go to the expense of contuinually training and paying for Constables who could match Mr Quiktongue?
The reality is that if the Officer had arrested etc. the matter would have been sorted out at the Custody office by a Sergeant with access to all the legal books he needs.
That is the most balanced and sensible evaluation of the whole thing. Personally I hate smart asses, and I bet that in 5 years time, if you ask this know-all about the law he currently knows so well, he will have forgotten it. The body of law is huge, and the Pc needs to have a smattering not only of Traffic Law, but the whole of the Criminal Law as well.
As a country, do we really want to go to the expense of contuinually training and paying for Constables who could match Mr Quiktongue?
The reality is that if the Officer had arrested etc. the matter would have been sorted out at the Custody office by a Sergeant with access to all the legal books he needs.
Cheap shot.
As far as I'm aware being a lawyer does not make you invulnerable from hitting an extra key on a keyboard.
Anything in the highway code that states "you MUST" is mandatory and will have a specific traffic violation/law supporting it.
Anything that states "you SHOULD" is advisory - if you don't do it you would not be contravention a specific law but not following an advisory though can open you up to a charge of driving without due care and attention etc.
Incidentally I wonder if the coppers ticketed the motorists they say were acting illegally.
I've tried, I went though a speed trap the other day doing over 10mph over the limit and when I saw it I pedalled as fast as I could but they took no notice of me.
True, but to do it twice on the same thread points less towards a typo and more towards a misspelling.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
"
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]"
That's interesting because I travel at about 15mph, and every day lines of cars overtake me on double white lines at pretty high speed, sometimes I wince because they do it on blind bends.
Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26]"
That's interesting because I travel at about 15mph, and every day lines of cars overtake me on double white lines at pretty high speed, sometimes I wince because they do it on blind bends.
Following on from the "Furious cycling" discussion I came across the following link:
Criminal Solicitors UK - your online network of expert criminal law solicitors
This included the following:
"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position. The height of the saddle should be more than 635mm above ground level."
Doesn't this make electric recumbent illegal ?
Criminal Solicitors UK - your online network of expert criminal law solicitors
This included the following:
"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position. The height of the saddle should be more than 635mm above ground level."
Doesn't this make electric recumbent illegal ?
I'd never heard this part either before:
"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position"
"The bike should only be under power by means of a switch biased to the off position"
Throttles fitted to E-bikes must not have a friction device to hold them in the open position, when released, they must return to the off position under spring pressure.
Pedelec devices, either rotation sensors or pedal shaft torque sensors are naturally biased to 'off', if you stop pedalling the electric assistance stops.
Pedelec devices, either rotation sensors or pedal shaft torque sensors are naturally biased to 'off', if you stop pedalling the electric assistance stops.
Ah, then you'll have a seat belt fitted as well.My recumbent doesn't have a saddle, it has a seat.
Nigel
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
