# FPN for carrying child on bike



## User169 (31 Aug 2011)

Does anyone know what's going on here? 

http://www.dailymail...-seat-bike.html

Seems a bit odd given that bike seats for children are rather common.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Aug 2011)

Child's helmet is on backwards, btw.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Delftse Post said:


> Does anyone know what's going on here?
> 
> http://www.dailymail...-seat-bike.html
> 
> Seems a bit odd given that bike seats for children are rather common.



If it was a proper child seat then this would not have happened. Look at the picture it is an accident waiting to happen.


----------



## TheDoctor (31 Aug 2011)

I can't see a seat in that picture, just a load of gaffer tape. 

EDIT - Cross posted with AFS.


----------



## MacB (31 Aug 2011)

I can only assume that the seat was deemed unsafe or fell short of regulations, if it lacked retention or footholds it would have been pretty precarious for a child that young. I had the same sort of seat on a bike, bolted to top tube but it also had bolt on foot stirrups and you could attach a cross brace of belts, like a double seatbelt. I also had a bolt on one behind the saddle and used to ride with the older child on the crossbar and a younger one in the full seat behind the saddle.


----------



## User169 (31 Aug 2011)

Article's been amended now to add the relevant legal provisions which makes things a bit clearer.


----------



## MacB (31 Aug 2011)

Delftse Post said:


> Article's been amended now to add the relevant legal provisions which makes things a bit clearer.




Aaaaggghhhh, just had a look and foolishly scrolled down to the comments....oh my eyes!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

MacB said:


> Aaaaggghhhh, just had a look and foolishly scrolled down to the comments....oh my eyes!!!



I have to say that many seem pretty sensible to me. Ok being put on the CPR is a little extreme but the rest have a point.


----------



## gambatte (31 Aug 2011)

But it does say that the bike would have to be adapted and strictly speaking it was. It doesn't specify any standards to which it has to be adapted?


----------



## lukesdad (31 Aug 2011)

Discusting much safer to carry him sitting on the handlebars.


----------



## lukesdad (31 Aug 2011)

Like this ;


----------



## 2Loose (31 Aug 2011)

gambatte said:


> But it does say that the bike would have to be adapted and strictly speaking it was. It doesn't specify any standards to which it has to be adapted?



Much as I think the child needed to be 'saved' and the father spoken to regarding his unsafe seating arrangement, I agree. It does sounds as though making any old gaffer taped seating arrangement would count as 'adapted' in that wording so I wonder what law was being applied exactly.


----------



## subaqua (31 Aug 2011)

2Loose said:


> Much as I think the child needed to be 'saved' and the father spoken to regarding his unsafe seating arrangement, I agree. It does sounds as though making any old gaffer taped seating arrangement would count as 'adapted' in that wording so I wonder what law was being applied exactly.




http://www.etra-eu.com/newsitem.asp?menu=3&submenu=1&id=7658961

EN 14344 details standards for child seats. the one in the article obviously didn't meet any of these requirements. 

Simple.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

gambatte said:


> But it does say that the bike would have to be adapted and strictly speaking it was. It doesn't specify any standards to which it has to be adapted?



+1. The police and Daily Wail would have apoplexy is they went to the Netherlands.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> http://www.etra-eu.c...nu=1&id=7658961
> 
> EN 14344 details standards for child seats. the one in the article obviously didn't meet any of these requirements.
> 
> Simple.



But the Road Traffic Act doesn't specify any standards to be met and the standard you quote is only for legally selling a child seat. There is no restriction on a home made one for personal use AFAIK.


----------



## User169 (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> +1. The police and Daily Wail would have apoplexy is they went to the Netherlands.



Quite a few parents don't have child seats at all - children just sit (or stand) on the rack.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (31 Aug 2011)

What's with the £15 victim surcharge?! Where is there a victim in this case?


----------



## lukesdad (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1526895"]
It's for the victims of the other idiots, where £15 wouldn't be enough.
[/quote]


A tax then ?


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 Aug 2011)

This is a case of reading between the lines here. Theres been a lot of positive press for the police in the media lately after the riots. This seems to have annoyed some media outlets who have started running all the anti-police stories they can. (Ok I can accept that may be my bitter and twisted perception).

The guy has what looks like a horrendously unsafe adaption made for his child. Even then, as an above poster says, its still normally the manner of riding that draws our attention, so its not a big leap to say he was probably unbalanced and more than a little dangerous.

The blokes attitude didn't help him either. If you think £200 is excessive, its worth remembering (and its not pointed out in the article) that if he had accepted the FPN, it would have been £30. If you take a FPN to court and lose, you can expect to pay more for it.


----------



## Banjo (31 Aug 2011)

I took my son to school and back on the cross bar of an old mtb I had then. A bit of pipe lagging to sit on and his feet rested on the bottle cage. It was no more or less safe than a seat bolted on the back.


----------



## tyred (31 Aug 2011)

I remember being carried on a bike in this manner. It was common once. If the police want to improve road safety, they could start with people who text while driving.


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2011)

I recall there was a case similar to this last year, i think reported by the guardian bike blog, and the woman managed to get the ticket revoked and a public apology from the police.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> +1. The police and Daily Wail would have apoplexy is they went to the Netherlands.


not to mention Iran (the kid is on the mother's lap) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qQySYhfSrCU

(oh, and it's one of the great cinema scenes - worth 8.57 of anybody's time)


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> The guy has what looks like a horrendously unsafe adaption made for his child. Even then, as an above poster says, its still normally the manner of riding that draws our attention, so its not a big leap to say he was probably unbalanced and more than a little dangerous.
> 
> The blokes attitude didn't help him either. If you think £200 is excessive, its worth remembering (and its not pointed out in the article) that if he had accepted the FPN, it would have been £30. If you take a FPN to court and lose, you can expect to pay more for it.



But where is the illegality*? You don't do your case for the police any good by supporting the use of a trumped up charge (two people on a bicycle when it has clearly been adapted for two as required by the law) especially when you suggest its a proxy for doing something you didn't like the look of but was perfectly legal. And then to add to it with a little vindictiveness for his "attitude". I think I would have an attitude if the police stopped me for riding perfectly legally but the difference is I would not represent myself but pay a lawyer to take the case apart.

* and that sort of adaptation is not horrendously unsafe but actually quite common. One of the merits claimed for it is the child is cradled by the arms and body of the cyclist and thus better protected in an accident than flying off strapped to the bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But where is the illegality*? You don't do your case for the police any good by supporting the use of a trumped up charge (two people on a bicycle when it has clearly been adapted for two as required by the law) especially when you suggest its a proxy for doing something you didn't like the look of but was perfectly legal. And then to add to it with a little vindictiveness for his "attitude". I think I would have an attitude if the police stopped me for riding perfectly legally but the difference is I would not represent myself but pay a lawyer to take the case apart.
> 
> * and that sort of adaptation is not horrendously unsafe but actually quite common. One of the merits claimed for it is the child is cradled by the arms and body of the cyclist and thus better protected in an accident than flying off strapped to the bike.



So would you suggest that this person takes the case further?


----------



## Globalti (31 Aug 2011)

His front straddle cable looks a bit dodgy as well if you ask me.


----------



## alci4 (31 Aug 2011)

what a twat

he should be more worried about his childs safety than the fine the fu@kwit


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But where is the illegality*? You don't do your case for the police any good by supporting the use of a trumped up charge (two people on a bicycle when it has clearly been adapted for two as required by the law) especially when you suggest its a proxy for doing something you didn't like the look of but was perfectly legal. And then to add to it with a little vindictiveness for his "attitude". I think I would have an attitude if the police stopped me for riding perfectly legally but the difference is I would not represent myself but pay a lawyer to take the case apart.
> 
> * and that sort of adaptation is not horrendously unsafe but actually quite common. One of the merits claimed for it is the child is cradled by the arms and body of the cyclist and thus better protected in an accident than flying off strapped to the bike.



1. Police officers quite often and quite correctly stop road users having noticed a number of offences. We could then:
- report them for ALL offence
- ticket them for ONE offence and warn them for the others
- warn them for ALL.
In this case 'warn' = an informal verbal warning. We can't mix tickets/summons and can't give more than one ticket. Its therefore common practice to have your attention drawn by one offence, but end up giving a ticket for another offence present and simply warning for the rest. On the whole this tends to go in the road users favour as its much more common for us to ticket the more minor offence.

2. There are no stated cases in this matter for a legal definition of 'adapted' (caveat: that I could find after searching. I stand ready to be corrected!). For both ends of the scale, I don't think anyone would think a properly bought and fitted child seat wouldn't count, and at the other end of the scale I don't think anyone would accept a child tied on to the frame with rope would count. This chaps was some where in the middle, and imho, towards the 'unsafe' end of the spectrum. The legal recourse for him if he believes it an acceptable adaptation is to challenge it, have the court find in your favour and make the stated case. He tried, and the court found his adaption was unsafe. Legal precedent set - a gaffa taped seat to the frame won't count as 'adapted' for the purpose of this law. (baring appeals from him)

3. I'm not going to lie to anyone. Yep, if I stop you for a minor road traffic offence, and find you to be courteous and polite, you can bet you mortgage on the fact you're walking away without a ticket. If I stop you and find you to be abusive, rude, arrogant etc. I'd wouldn't gamble on it.
The difference will be that whichever stance you take, I will be nothing but courteous and polite to you regardless.

If you want my one criticism of the police in this case, they shouldn't have given him a fixed penalty, they should have reported him. You have the absolute right to refuse any FPN offered to you, and the fact he ripped it up gives a good indication he wasn't accepting it. Obviously if you refuse any FPN, you should then expect the police to report you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> 1. Police officers quite often and quite correctly stop road users having noticed a number of offences. We could then:
> - report them for ALL offence
> - ticket them for ONE offence and warn them for the others
> - warn them for ALL.
> ...



You sound like an old school copper.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> 2. There are no stated cases in this matter for a legal definition of 'adapted' (caveat: that I could find after searching. I stand ready to be corrected!). For both ends of the scale, I don't think anyone would think a properly bought and fitted child seat wouldn't count, and at the other end of the scale I don't think anyone would accept a child tied on to the frame with rope would count.



The Daily Wail clearly states the seat was bolted to the frame and the duct tape was extra - "Ghulam Murtza, 26, had bolted a seat to his crossbar and further secured it with duct tape". That is clearly an adaptation, not any old seat held on with duct tape and such seats are commercially available. So what is the offence?



> This chaps was some where in the middle, and imho, towards the 'unsafe' end of the spectrum. The legal recourse for him if he believes it an acceptable adaptation is to challenge it, have the court find in your favour and make the stated case. He tried, and the court found his adaption was unsafe. Legal precedent set - a gaffa taped seat to the frame won't count as 'adapted' for the purpose of this law. (baring appeals from him)



It wasn't "gaffa taped" on, it was bolted on. No legal precedent is set in a magistrates court. I thought you would have known that. And magistrates courts are known for their curious interpretation of the law - vide the similar in many ways case of Daniel Cadden who was ticketed by two police officers for a trumped up offence and found guilty by the magistrate only to have it overturned on appeal. But appealing costs a lot of money if you don't have the support of e.g. the CTC so is beyond the means of most people.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> The Daily Wail clearly states the seat was bolted to the frame and the duct tape was extra - "Ghulam Murtza, 26, had bolted a seat to his crossbar and further secured it with duct tape". That is clearly an adaptation, not any old seat held on with duct tape and such seats are commercially available. So what is the offence?
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't "gaffa taped" on, it was bolted on. No legal precedent is set in a magistrates court. I thought you would have known that. And magistrates courts are known for their curious interpretation of the law - vide the similar in many ways case of Daniel Cadden who was ticketed by two police officers for a trumped up offence and found guilty by the magistrate only to have it overturned on appeal. But appealing costs a lot of money if you don't have the support of e.g. the CTC so is beyond the means of most people.



If it was bolted to the frame either P clips or a hole in top tube would be required. The former laughable the latter would weaken the bike considerably. ALso if the bolt held the seat securely why use gaffer tape?


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If it was bolted to the frame either P clips or a hole in top tube would be required. The former laughable the latter would weaken the bike considerably. ALso if the bolt held the seat securely why use gaffer tape?



Laughable?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Laughable?



Thought it said Lego at first  That does not use P clips. That is a good idea.


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Thought it said Lego at first  That does not use P clips. That is a good idea.



A p clip is essentially the same principle.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> A p clip is essentially the same principle.



OK accepted but I would vouch that that design is far stronger than a P clip bodge. It also looked as though it had a harness on it.


----------



## Dave W (31 Aug 2011)

He either pleaded or was found guilty, any further speculation about the offence being made out or not is therefore pointless and a waste of server capacity. 

Naturally if a police officer had let him ride past with the child on the bike and an accident had ensued the Daily Hate Mail would blame the police. See a pattern?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Dave W said:


> He either pleaded or was found guilty, any further speculation about the offence being made out or not is therefore pointless and a waste of server capacity.
> 
> Naturally if a police officer had let him ride past with the child on the bike and an accident had ensued the Daily Hate Mail would blame the police. See a pattern?



Agreed.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

Dave W said:


> He either pleaded or was found guilty, any further speculation about the offence being made out or not is therefore pointless and a waste of server capacity.



So you think Daniel Cadden was guilty for not using a cycle lane? He was found guilty by a magistrate that didn't think cyclists should be on the road at all. It took a lot of money provided by the CTC's Cyclist Defence Fund to get his decision overturned.

In fact if we took your approach most of the major miscarriages of justice would never have been revealed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So you think Daniel Cadden was guilty for not using a cycle lane? He was found guilty by a magistrate that didn't think cyclists should be on the road at all. It took a lot of money provided by the CTC's Cyclist Defence Fund to get his decision overturned.
> 
> In fact if we took your approach most of the major miscarriages of justice would never have been revealed.



Bottom line. From what you can see in the photo (including the fact that the child has the helmet on back to front) do you believe that the "home made" solution was safe?


----------



## subaqua (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But the Road Traffic Act doesn't specify any standards to be met and the standard you quote is only for legally selling a child seat. There is no restriction on a home made one for personal use AFAIK.




the guy must at some point have bought the seat.


----------



## Dave W (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So you think Daniel Cadden was guilty for not using a cycle lane? He was found guilty by a magistrate that didn't think cyclists should be on the road at all. It took a lot of money provided by the CTC's Cyclist Defence Fund to get his decision overturned.
> 
> In fact if we took your approach most of the major miscarriages of justice would never have been revealed.



So based on one case you can recall being wrong they are all wrong and open to being questioned?

You don't believe the offence was made out having read just what the hate mail wants you to read, where as the magistrates would have had the full story and most likely the actual bike itself. 

I'd personally much rather put my faith in those that had all the facts and thought it was proven beyond reasonable doubt than someone's musings on an internet forum after reading a snippet from a well known police hating rag.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> the guy must at some point have bought the seat.



The seat would have been sold for a given purpose however. I doubt that purpose was to be bolted and gaffer taped to a top tube.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Dave W said:


> So based on one case you can recall being wrong they are all wrong and open to being questioned?
> 
> You don't believe the offence was made out having read just what the hate mail wants you to read, where as the magistrates would have had the full story and most likely the actual bike itself.
> 
> I'd personally much rather put my faith in those that had all the facts and thought it was proven beyond reasonable doubt than someone's musings on an internet forum after reading a snippet from a well known police hating rag.


----------



## srw (31 Aug 2011)

Clearly guilty of carrying a child unsafely - he bought the seat from Halfords.

More seriously, both of those other articles point out that "he felt he had no choice" but to plead guilty - which suggests there's something we're not being told. 

Incidentally, the start of the original Wail article, retrieved from google is entertaining:


> The 'backie' - a ride on the back of someone's push bike - has been a part of cycling ever since man took to two wheels. It was, therefore, with some surprise to a biking father that he ended up in court and faced with a *...*



It's Elf-n-safety-gorn-mad.


----------



## srw (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The seat would have been sold for a given purpose however. I doubt that purpose was to be bolted and gaffer taped to a top tube.



Ahem. Follow the links in my post above.


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> It wasn't "gaffa taped" on, it was bolted on. No legal precedent is set in a magistrates court. I thought you would have known that. And magistrates courts are known for their curious interpretation of the law...



Going slightly off topic here, so I'll allow myself to veer off once then promise to stop. A legal precedent can be set in any court, but it only MUST be followed if it was set by a higher court. If it was in a court of the same level then it shold be seen as 'persuasive' unless there are substantial differences to the facts.

Therefore, yes in a way a mags court can't set a binding precedent as they are the lowest criminal court - however they can set a precedent, and it can be referred to.

You're not wrong about magistrates and their 'curious interpretation of the law' though.

The problem here is the normal issue of media reporting. We don't get the whole story. I have lost count of time times a known high level criminal (think drug dealer/armed robber, normally both) is murdered, and the story in the media tells of a "family man, father of four". The one thing this job has taught me is to take everything in the media with a hefty helping of salt.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

srw said:


> Ahem. Follow the links in my post above.



They do not state that the seat sold was designed to fit on the top tube. It it the gaffer tape that worries me. If the seat was secured by bolts why tape it?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1526926"]
Says something for Halfords if you have to gaffer tape a child seat together that's barely a year old.

Look at the picture again. He's bought a standard child's saddle and taped it to the top tube. And if this is the case, he deserves the fine.
[/quote]


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Going slightly off topic here, so I'll allow myself to veer off once then promise to stop. A legal precedent can be set in any court, but it only MUST be followed if it was set by a higher court. If it was in a court of the same level then it shold be seen as 'persuasive' unless there are substantial differences to the facts.
> 
> Therefore, yes in a way a mags court can't set a binding precedent as they are the lowest criminal court - however they can set a precedent, and it can be referred to.
> 
> ...


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Going slightly off topic here, so I'll allow myself to veer off once then promise to stop. A legal precedent can be set in any court, but it only MUST be followed if it was set by a higher court. .....Therefore, yes in a way a mags court can't set a binding precedent as they are the lowest criminal court - however they can set a precedent, and it can be referred to.



Is the wrong answer. Magistrates do not set a precedent and no magistrate is bound by the decision of another magistrate*. And they certainly don't set it in the way you claimed they did viz:



> Legal precedent set - a gaffa taped seat to the frame won't count as 'adapted' for the purpose of this law.



* not least because decisions of the magistrates courts are not reported and therefore unlike those of the High Court, Appeal Court etc, a magistrate won't typically have a clue what other magistrates have decided.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Is the wrong answer. Magistrates do not set a precedent and no magistrate is bound by the decision of another magistrate*. And they certainly don't set it in the way you claimed they did viz:
> 
> 
> 
> * not least because decisions of the magistrates courts are not reported and therefore unlike those of the High Court, Appeal Court etc, a magistrate won't typically have a clue what other magistrates have decided.



Please define not reported?


----------



## Vikeonabike (31 Aug 2011)

Holiday time for me....Copper Cyclist has nicked my job....Bonus


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Holiday time for me....Copper Cyclist has _*nicked*_ my job....Bonus



Ironic?


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Bottom line. From what you can see in the photo (including the fact that the child has the helmet on back to front) do you believe that the "home made" solution was safe?



As has come out subsequently in other reports it was not home made. It was a purchased seat designed for that purpose and meeting the relevant European Standards. One has good reason therefore to believe it was safe and it is clear that the bicycle was adapted to carry two using an approved adaptation.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> As has come out subsequently in other reports it was not home made. It was a purchased seat designed for that purpose and meeting the relevant European Standards. One has good reason therefore to believe it was safe and it is clear that the bicycle was adapted to carry two using an approved adaptation.



Has that been stated? The report I read stated Halfords said "some of the saddles they sell are designed to be fitted to the to tube". That doesn't mean the one they sold was for that purpose. Why was it described as bolted to the top tube rather than attached and why was their copious amounts of Gaffer Tape in place?


----------



## Nortones2 (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please define not reported?


The "Law Reports" for example. http://iclr.co.uk/products/product-catalogue/the-law-reports Or the All England Law Reports. Or the Times.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please define not reported?



Not carried by The Law Reports and similar official records.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Has that been stated?



"However the force declined to discuss further why the prosecution took place when the seat complied with European safety standards and was bolted to the crossbar." (Telegraph report)

You would think if was just a saddle duct taped onto the top tube they would have said because it didn't comply and was just a saddle taped to the top tube.


----------



## Dave W (31 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> "However the force declined to discuss further why the prosecution took place when the seat complied with European safety standards and was bolted to the crossbar." (Telegraph report)
> 
> You would think if was just a saddle duct taped onto the top tube they would have said because it didn't comply and was just a saddle taped to the top tube.



So again you are simply assuming. It is of course possible that the saddle did conform to regulations but only when mounted on a seat post.

He pleaded guilty, does that not mean anything to you? You appear to be defending an offence that someone has freely admitted that they are guilty of, why?


----------



## pshore (31 Aug 2011)

srw said:


> It's Elf-n-safety-gorn-mad.



The Health and safety argument always wins out especially when a child is involved. 

I tell ya now, it'll be _compulsory helmets for children_, followed up by _no under 16's allowed to cycle on the road_. Any parent who lets their child cycle on the road is clearly dumb and not fit to parent.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

Dave W said:


> So again you are simply assuming. It is of course possible that the saddle did conform to regulations but only when mounted on a seat post.
> 
> He pleaded guilty, does that not mean anything to you? You appear to be defending an offence that someone has freely admitted that they are guilty of, why?



I'm not aware of any European Standard for bicycle saddles, only one for child seats; EN14344 European Standard for Child's Seats for Bicycles. Category C15 within the standard is seats to be mounted between the handlebar and the rider and that can carry children up to 15 kg. If you can find another European standard that covers saddles generally I might revise my assumptions but absent that its difficult to see what other interpretation is possible.

The fact that such seats are specifically covered in the Standard means they are officially accepted to be safe and an acceptable modification to a bike to carry a child passenger whatever some uninformed bobby might think

As for pleading guilty it could easily be ignorance of the law (he defended himself) or pragmatism in the face of the (generally much more expensive) alternative. The system encourages admission of guilt especially if you are not well off. If you contest an FPN you go to Court and get, as here, a much higher penalty even if you plead guilty and if you plead not guilty you generally get hit by a much higher penalty still. Remember Daniel Cadden would have had to accept the guilty finding of a magistrate had the CTC not come forward to pay to contest it. That finding initially cost him £300 for failing to cycle in a cycle lane.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2011)

People, it's in the Daily Mail, why are we giving any credence to anything contained in the article?

To be fair though, if I was the boy's mother and he'd taken MY kid out on that contraption, I'd have thrown him over the Severn Bridge.

Or at least relegated him to the couch for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1526942"]
The bloke wasn't using the saddle properly, if wasn't using don't pegs supplied with a saddle designed to fit to the top tube, and was generally fudging it and putting his son at more risk than if he'd done things properly. [/quote]

Its not clear that he was using it improperly. While his son has his feet on top of the forks in the picture there is clearly something in the right place that looks like foot pegs cropped off at the bottom of the Daily Wail photo. It could easily have been the photographer asking him to put his feet up for photographic purposes.

As for the helmet being on back to front in a study of helmet wearing in children 96% were found to be worn wrongly so he's in good company. I've seen more than my fair share of back to front helmets out on the road.




> For what it's worth, even the saddles designed for a top tube are dangerous. There have been some nasty injuries where children's feet have caught in the front wheel.



Whether that is right or not, its a bit like EN certified helmets and bike lights. They may not be very good but they are nevertheless officially approved as both safe and acceptable for carrying a child passenger on a single bike. And the standards do officially cover top tube mounted child seats.


----------



## Bayerd (31 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> not to mention Iran (the kid is on the mother's lap) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qQySYhfSrCU
> 
> (oh, and it's one of the great cinema scenes - worth 8.57 of anybody's time)



Thanks for that, I really enjoyed it. I also couldn't help noticing that in certain parts the female appears to be saying a lot more than is conveyed in the subtitles......


----------



## Ian 74 (1 Sep 2011)

When our kate was 2 I bought a seat that bolted into the same spot on the bike, it did however have a bit of a back rest and a clip round sort of seat belt with a foot rest making her secure, she was only 2 after all. We had a great time.

A spare seat secured with gaffer tape and a wobbly toddler? Recipe for disaster. The seat I bought was only about £15, if you are going to have your kids on your bike you should put your hand in your pocket and buy something suitable and something safe. F@£kin nutter.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> A spare seat secured with gaffer tape and a wobbly toddler? Recipe for disaster. The seat I bought was only about £15, if you are going to have your kids on your bike you should put your hand in your pocket and buy something suitable and something safe. F@£kin nutter.



Seems to me he's no more a F@£kin nutter than you. His seat was bolted to the top tube according to the reports just like yours and was bought from Halfords. He then also duck taped it over the top for whatever reason of his own.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2011)

Bayerd said:


> Thanks for that, I really enjoyed it. I also couldn't help noticing that in certain parts the female appears to be saying a lot more than is conveyed in the subtitles......



A couple of years ago I went to a talk by the Chairman of Tata Motors in London with a preview of the Tata Nano. He told the story that the inspiration was to provide proper safe transport for families like this of which there are very large numbers in India, Pakistan and the Far East

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HNngqQ64K4&feature=related[/media]


[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8m3UihKogM&NR=1[/media]


----------



## growingvegetables (1 Sep 2011)

He bought it from Halford's? Hmmmm, couldn't find anything vaguely resembling his bodge job here


----------



## subaqua (1 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> When our kate was 2 I bought a seat that bolted into the same spot on the bike,* it did however have a bit of a back rest and a clip round sort of seat belt with a foot rest making her secure*, she was only 2 after all. We had a great time.
> 
> A spare seat secured with gaffer tape and a wobbly toddler? Recipe for disaster. The seat I bought was only about £15, if you are going to have your kids on your bike you should put your hand in your pocket and buy something suitable and something safe. F@£kin nutter.



and thats the bit EN 14344 states must be present. that would be fine. no problems. Guy wouldn't have been issued with the FPN. from the pic it looks like its a standard saddle , which would not have an EN14344 approval. 

ignorance of the law is no defence, and to be fair if I tried to take my kids on anything like that seat in the original my wife would be chopping some of my bits off and mincing them .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

subaqua said:


> and thats the bit EN 14344 states must be present. that would be fine. no problems. Guy wouldn't have been issued with the FPN. from the pic it looks like its a standard saddle , which would not have an EN14344 approval.
> 
> ignorance of the law is no defence, and to be fair if I tried to take my kids on anything like that seat in the original my wife would be chopping some of my bits off and mincing them .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> People, it's in the Daily Mail, why are we giving any credence to anything contained in the article?
> 
> To be fair though, if I was the boy's mother and he'd taken MY kid out on that contraption, I'd have thrown him over the Severn Bridge.
> 
> Or at least relegated him to the couch for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526954"]
If if has to gaffer tape it down then it's not secure and nothing like the proper ones.
[/quote]

That's the only reason I've ever used the stuff for.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526954"]
If if has to gaffer tape it down then it's not secure and nothing like the proper ones.
[/quote]

Maybe but also if its a Halfords one and like the Leco one I can quite imagine in shifting in use and duct tape might be a way of trying to fix it down. But it seems like everyone has made up their minds that it must be a reckless ordinary saddle duct taped onto the crossbar irrespective of what is said in the news reports and some seem to take exception to carrying a child on the crossbar at all, even though its a widely used place in Europe and there is a European standard for such seats. Still nothing like a good lynching is there?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Maybe but also if its a Halfords one and like the Leco one I can quite imagine in shifting in use and duct tape might be a way of trying to fix it down. But it seems like everyone has made up their minds that it must be a reckless ordinary saddle duct taped onto the crossbar irrespective of what is said in the news reports and some seem to take exception to carrying a child on the crossbar at all, even though its a widely used place in Europe and there is a European standard for such seats. Still nothing like a good lynching is there?



I was under the impression that you of all people would not make a decision until you had all the data. You have read between the lines just as others have and reached a different conclusion.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Maybe but also if its a Halfords one and like the Leco one _*I can quite imagine in shifting in use and duct tape might be a way of trying to fix it down. *_



Then clearly the saddle is not fit for purpose!


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was under the impression that you of all people would not make a decision until you had all the data. You have read between the lines just as others have and reached a different conclusion.



It doesn't take much reading between the lines to come to my conclusions. It takes a lot of ignoring the lines to come to the common view here that it was just a standard saddle duct taped on.

"In this case Murtza had bought the seat from Halfords and attached it to the bike with bolts, before wrapping it in duct tape to make sure it was secure. A Halford’s spokesman confirmed that some of its seats were designed to fit to the crossbar and that instructions were provided. 

The spokesman added: “All Halfords child bicycle seats are approved to the European Safety Standard EN14344.”..........

........However the [police] force declined to discuss further why the prosecution took place when the seat complied with European safety standards and was bolted to the crossbar" 




​Now if I'd been the police spokesperson under questioning by a national newspaper and it had been just a saddle duct taped on the crossbar I would have answered that question very forcefully with a "no it wasn't. it was just an ordinary saddle he had tied on the cross bar with duct tape" rather than declining to talk about it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> It doesn't take much reading between the lines to come to my conclusions. It takes a lot of ignoring the lines to come to the common view here that it was just a standard saddle duct taped on.
> 
> "In this case Murtza had bought the seat from Halfords and attached it to the bike with bolts, before wrapping it in duct tape to make sure it was secure. A Halford’s spokesman confirmed that some of its seats were designed to fit to the crossbar and that instructions were provided.
> 
> ...



Are you failing to spot the "_*Some of its seats *_were designed to fit to the crossbar and that instructions were provided." Also European Safety Standard EN14344 covers three seat types only one of which is designed to fit in the top tube. I ask again "Why the Gaffer tape?"


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

I bought many moons ago a child seat from a guy at work, it fixed on the back behind my seat and had a fully moulded shape for a child including belts etc, it worked for both my kids,"not at the same time" and was only a tenner, How much do you value your kids life, secondhand seats are not expensive.


----------



## StuartG (1 Sep 2011)

Had the guy spent £200 on a solicitor to represent - he might well have got off ... £2000 for a barrister, almost definitely


----------



## 2Loose (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526962"]
Bored now. 

This bloke was obviously stopped for a reason. 

He was then ticketed for a reason. He had a strop. He pleaded guilty. We're stupid enough to take notice of the inaccurate, biased media. We're stupid enough to override those who know the facts by making up our own despite only having the media words.
[/quote]

+1


----------



## MissTillyFlop (1 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> It doesn't take much reading between the lines to come to my conclusions. It takes a lot of ignoring the lines to come to the common view here that it was just a standard saddle duct taped on.
> 
> "In this case Murtza had bought the seat from Halfords and attached it to the bike with bolts, before wrapping it in duct tape to make sure it was secure. A Halford’s spokesman confirmed that some of its seats were designed to fit to the crossbar and that instructions were provided.
> 
> ...




I think maybe the fact he start screaming and shouting was probably what tipped the balance, who knows whether he would even have got a ticket if he had tried talking calmly (yes, I know the cop just could have been an ars*hole, who fancied writing out some tickets today - both are possibilities.)

From reading the guidelines on children on bicycles, one of the major issues is whether the child is able to sit up and support themselves on the bike if they are not strapped in, so maybe the kid wasn't able to do so?

Who knows. 

Whilst the guy may or may not have been breaking any laws, surely the question he should have asked is not "is it legal?" but "is it safe?" because if he skidded/went over a bump/pothole, the child would be on the floor.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

Years ago my father used to have a big old steel bike with metal mudguards, we used to sit astride the rear mudguard and he gave us rides along the road, how times have changed.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (1 Sep 2011)

Years ago, my cousin Jill took me for a spin on her massive Mercedes motorbike when I was three. My parents went mental and I was in love (with the motorbike, not my cousin!)

I also remember spending most of my time during summer in the buff until I was about 7, but times have changed, for better and for worse.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

what was seen then as fun, Conkers, backies on your mates bike from school,etc are all now H&S issues,but if it was all so dangerous the human race would have died out, there should be a difference between fun and, thats illegal/prosecution etc . I miss the old days.


----------



## subaqua (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> *what was seen then as fun, Conkers, backies on your mates bike from school,etc are all now H&S issues*,but if it was all so dangerous the human race would have died out, there should be a difference between fun and, thats illegal/prosecution etc . I miss the old days.




no they are not. Backies are illegal playing conkers isn't ( yet, but watch what the tories do  ) 
Conkers have never been banned, the peercieved issue comes from people with not enough training failing to apply the correct procedures to assesing risks .

risk = severity x Liklehood in the conker case using the standard 5x5 grid

 Li *Liklehood
*

Ratin 0 = Zero to very low

Rating 1 = Very unlikely

Rating 2 = Unlikely

Rating 3 = Likely

Rating 4 = Very likely

Ratin 5 = Almost certain


*Severity*


Rating 0 = No injury or illness

Rating 1 = First aid injury or illness

Rating 2 = Minor injury or illness

Rating 3 = “3 day” injury or illness

Rating 4 = Major injury or illness

Rating 5 = Fatality, disabling injury, etc


the risk of an injury in my view ( as a former conker player) would be calculated as follows.

conker in eye Liklehood 2 x severity 1 giving a risk factor of 2 no control measures required. 


1-4 means safe to proceed 5-9 means control measures required 10-25 means do not attempt without control measures 


had the bloke who assesed the risk assesed the risk of conker particle in the eye then it could be different but that was not what was assesed when you read the full reports not what was posted in the media


----------



## Arch (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> what was seen then as fun, Conkers, backies on your mates bike from school,etc are all now H&S issues,but if it was all so dangerous the human race would have died out, there should be a difference between fun and, thats illegal/prosecution etc . I miss the old days.



Actually, it's rarely actually a H and S issue. That's a very convenient excuse, often used wrongly. I believe the H and S executive get very fed up about it, because it belittles the important work they do. I think it was only a few weeks back they published their annual list of made up "H and S excuses".

I find myself torn on this question. Because actually, it's probably fine to carry a kid sitting on the crossbar or rack, if you're careful and experienced (both the parent and the kid) - the Dutch manage it fine (and with adults too!). But it is against the law here, unless your bike is properly adapted, and from the pic I get the feeling it isn't (although it is hard to tell on the evidence presented). The fact that the kid is pictured wearing a helmet back to front doesn't inspire confidence in the dad, personally. I suspect there was a lot of attitude involved too.

And I think the backie has been illegal since the rules began, so it's not a case of the good old days v now for that one.


----------



## CopperCyclist (1 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> ........However the [police] force declined to discuss further why the prosecution took place when the seat complied with European safety standards and was bolted to the crossbar"
> 
> Now if I'd been the police spokesperson under questioning by a national newspaper and it had been just a saddle duct taped on the crossbar I would have answered that question very forcefully with a "no it wasn't. it was just an ordinary saddle he had tied on the cross bar with duct tape" rather than declining to talk about it.



Media tend to be directed to send all questions to the Press and PR department. Their stance is usually to make vary little comment. This sometimes annoys us, as if we give out all of the facts our actions are understandable. To know why they choose to give the comments you do you'll have to ask them, or someone that works for them.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

A school did say a while back that conkers was'nt allowed, and did'nt they cancel a tournament somewhere because of fears over safety ? also if that seat fitted to his crossbar is illegal it means riding on a mudguard was, but it was still great and I would do it now if my dad was still alive and pay the fine myself, just for the pleasure .


----------



## Ian 74 (1 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Seems to me he's no more a F@£kin nutter than you. His seat was bolted to the top tube according to the reports just like yours and was bought from Halfords. He then also duck taped it over the top for whatever reason of his own.



Do you have kids red light? Have you cycled with them on your bike? A seat on the top tube, on its own is not safe and would not pass any safety standard test, if you bothered to read my post you would have noted that I said my childs seat had a back rest, safety belt and a foot rest which is nothing like the gaffa taped creation sported in the article. Also remember just because something is written in the paper doesn't make it so ie, I bought it at Halfords so it must be legal... Having looked on the Halfords Website I can see nothing resembling a seat that secures onto the top tube. He may however have purchased a childs bike seat and then gaffa taped it onto his bike.... Well done you for jumping in with two feet.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> Do you have kids red light? Have you cycled with them on your bike? A seat on the top tube, on its own is not safe and would not pass any safety standard test, if you bothered to read my post you would have noted that I said my childs seat had a back rest, safety belt and a foot rest which is nothing like the gaffa taped creation sported in the article. Also remember just because something is written in the paper doesn't make it so ie, I bought it at Halfords so it must be legal... Having looked on the Halfords Website I can see nothing resembling a seat that secures onto the top tube. He may however have purchased a childs bike seat and then gaffa taped it onto his bike.... Well done you for jumping in with two feet.


----------



## xpc316e (1 Sep 2011)

I cannot read fast enough to keep up with this topic. Having looked at the photo which heads the article, it looks as though the child's feet are resting on the fork crown: seats like this usually have a small bar with stirrups on for attaching to the down tube so that the child can secure its feet. It looks like a rather poor bodge if you ask me, and I'd not be happy that my child was even comfortable, let alone safe, with this Heath Robinson affair.


----------



## User482 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526962"]
Bored now. 

*This bloke was obviously stopped for a reason. 
*
He was then ticketed for a reason. He had a strop. He pleaded guilty. We're stupid enough to take notice of the inaccurate, biased media. We're stupid enough to override those who know the facts by making up our own despite only having the media words.
[/quote]

Yes, because the police never stop people without good reason.


----------



## xpc316e (1 Sep 2011)

And for all those folk who say that the Dutch get away with it etc: my first wife was Danish and as a young child her nanny took her out for a ride while she sat on the rear carrier. Her right foot got trapped between the spokes and the seat stay and was almost severed in the ensuing 'accident'. 'Elf an Safety' gawn mad I tell ya.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

User482 said:


> Yes, because the police never stop people without good reason.


.


----------



## benb (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> A school did say a while back that conkers was'nt allowed, and did'nt they cancel a tournament somewhere because of fears over safety ? also if that seat fitted to his crossbar is illegal it means riding on a mudguard was, but it was still great and I would do it now if my dad was still alive and pay the fine myself, just for the pleasure .



That ridiculous incident had precisely nothing to do with H&S legislation. The HSE even sponsored a conkers tournament specifically to draw attention to the fact that it was a local decision, and was not done to comply with legislation. Its baffling to me how the HSE get blamed for every killjoy decision made. If you want to blame someone for our ludicrously risk-averse society, where no-one can take a balanced view of risk or take responsibility for their own actions, blame no-win no-fee ambulance chasing lawyers and the litigation culture.


----------



## Arch (1 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> That ridiculous incident had precisely nothing to do with H&S legislation. The HSE even sponsored a conkers tournament specifically to draw attention to the fact that it was a local decision, and was not done to comply with legislation. Its baffling to me how the HSE get blamed for every killjoy decision made. If you want to blame someone for our ludicrously risk-averse society, where no-one can take a balanced view of risk or take responsibility for their own actions, blame no-win no-fee ambulance chasing lawyers and the litigation culture.




Hear hear! Although I can imagine how someone who couldn't be bothered, or felt already overworked, would like to use a convenient excuse. We have kids at work who try and grab a ride hanging off the sides of the electric truck. They'd probably be safe enough at low speed, but if any of their parents saw, or something did go wrong, you can bet we'd get it in the neck. And since we aren't employed to amuse children, it gets very tiresome telling them to get off and go away.


twobiker: Lots of things are fun, but coincidentally, illegal. Being fun doesn't make it sensible. Even if some people can do something sensibly and safely, laws are there to protect us from eijits (and them from themselves).


----------



## benb (1 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> Lots of things are fun, but coincidentally, illegal. Being fun doesn't make it sensible.



Like crack.


----------



## Arch (1 Sep 2011)

benb said:


> Like crack.



I'll have to take your word for that....


----------



## pshore (1 Sep 2011)

Err ... would this be a good time to mention that I have here sitting on my desk a used Hamax Discovery 101 front mounted child seat for sale? Free roll of gaffer tape.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> Hear hear! Although I can imagine how someone who couldn't be bothered, or felt already overworked, would like to use a convenient excuse. We have kids at work who try and grab a ride hanging off the sides of the electric truck. They'd probably be safe enough at low speed, but if any of their parents saw, or something did go wrong, you can bet we'd get it in the neck. And since we aren't employed to amuse children, it gets very tiresome telling them to get off and go away.
> 
> 
> twobiker: Lots of things are fun, but coincidentally, illegal. Being fun doesn't make it sensible. Even if some people can do something sensibly and safely, laws are there to protect us from eijits (and them from themselves).



I don't need some killjoy clown telling me what is safe and what is'nt, you have a situation where some poor women and her disabled daughter are driven to suicide by yobos and nothings done and then you have a guy ,albeit a foolish one, done for giving his kid a bike ride, why because one is easy to catch and deal with and the other would cost more in policing with less chance of a prosecution, nobody bothered to tell those yobos it was dangerous to throw rocks at someones house, in both situations a child could have died ,.........................Oh hang on, one did.


----------



## Arch (1 Sep 2011)

I never said anything was fair. Life isn't, I had that drummed into me at the age of 5.

Just because one case is cocked up royally, doesn't mean anyone else ought to be able to do what they like.

The guy in the story can't choose and buy a proper seat, or fit a cycle helmet properly. Perhaps he's just in more need of telling stuff than you are.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

Arch said:


> I never said anything was fair. Life isn't, I had that drummed into me at the age of 5.
> 
> Just because one case is cocked up royally, doesn't mean anyone else ought to be able to do what they like.
> 
> The guy in the story can't choose and buy a proper seat, or fit a cycle helmet properly. Perhaps he's just in more need of telling stuff than you are.


Rant over, moved on


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> Do you have kids red light? Have you cycled with them on your bike?



Yes and yes and they are grown up now and cycle everywhere.



> A seat on the top tube, on its own is not safe and would not pass any safety standard test, if you bothered to read my post you would have noted that I said my childs seat had a back rest, safety belt and a foot rest which is nothing like the gaffa taped creation sported in the article.



Children have been riding on the top tube with nothing more than a seat and foot pegs (if that) for decades and its a very common way of riding in Europe. It seems to be only the UK that get apoplectic about it. 

As for the other items, EN14344 was updated in 2010 so what applies now may not have applied when the seat was bought. Up until very recently (and maybe again) the highly popular [url="http://ourmaninside.com/2011/08/20/a-child-seat-for-a-brompton-folding-bike-review/"]ITchair[/url] was available for the Brompton. It was simply a saddle and foot pegs with no back-rest, no belts etc. In fact the whole idea is that the child comes off the bike with the adult and protected by the cocoon of their arms and body rather than careering on strapped to the bike after the adult has come off so I would not use a seat belt with it even if one was provided.



> Also remember just because something is written in the paper doesn't make it so ie, I bought it at Halfords so it must be legal... Having looked on the Halfords Website I can see nothing resembling a seat that secures onto the top tube. He may however have purchased a childs bike seat and then gaffa taped it onto his bike.... Well done you for jumping in with two feet.



I agree that papers are not always right but given the journalist would have had to go and find out what the standards were and had spoken to the CTC, Halfords and others, its unlikely that they hadn't actually looked into it before writing the story. Re: Halfords, the standards have changed since the seat was allegedly bought so what they sell now may well be different.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

xpc316e said:


> I cannot read fast enough to keep up with this topic. Having looked at the photo which heads the article, it looks as though the child's feet are resting on the fork crown: seats like this usually have a small bar with stirrups on for attaching to the down tube so that the child can secure its feet. It looks like a rather poor bodge if you ask me, and I'd not be happy that my child was even comfortable, let alone safe, with this Heath Robinson affair.



You can see the footrests on the downtube right at the bottom of the photo and half cropped off. I suspect the feet on the forks are for photographic purposes as it makes a more compact picture than if the feet were on the pegs.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

xpc316e said:


> I cannot read fast enough to keep up with this topic. Having looked at the photo which heads the article, it looks as though the child's feet are resting on the fork crown: seats like this usually have a small bar with stirrups on for attaching to the down tube so that the child can secure its feet. It looks like a rather poor bodge if you ask me, and I'd not be happy that my child was even comfortable, let alone safe, with this Heath Robinson affair.



You can see the footrests on the downtube right at the bottom of the photo and half cropped off. I suspect the feet on the forks are for photographic purposes as it makes a more compact picture than if the feet were on the pegs.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are you failing to spot the "_*Some of its seats *_were designed to fit to the crossbar and that instructions were provided." Also European Safety Standard EN14344 covers three seat types only one of which is designed to fit in the top tube. I ask again "Why the Gaffer tape?"



No shoot Sherlock!!! They also sell seats that mount behind the saddle so of course only *some* of their seats are designed to fit on the crossbar. And of course EN14344 covers other types of child seat too. The fact is they do sell them and they are covered by the standard. But it seems that people here are not able to see beyond the gaffer tape despite all the press articles on it saying the seat was *bolted* and taped to the top tube.

Looking at the Leco seat I might well add something extra to fix it in place. You have either the choice of doing it up really tight and risk denting the thin top tube or leaving it a bit looser and risk the seat moving and scratching the top tube and paint. Which of us hasn't used the occasional bit of tape, inner tube or zip tie to supplement the manufacturer's fittings?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> No shoot Sherlock!!! They also sell seats that mount behind the saddle so of course only *some* of their seats are designed to fit on the crossbar. And of course EN14344 covers other types of child seat too. The fact is they do sell them and they are covered by the standard. But it seems that people here are not able to see beyond the gaffer tape despite all the press articles on it saying the seat was *bolted* and taped to the top tube.
> 
> Looking at the Leco seat I might well add something extra to fix it in place. You have either the choice of doing it up really tight and risk denting the thin top tube or leaving it a bit looser and risk the seat moving and scratching the top tube and paint. Which of us hasn't used the occasional bit of tape, inner tube or zip tie to supplement the manufacturer's fittings?



Thus there is no confirmation that the seat sold was designed for that purpose. 

As for using tape and inner tube - Yes for lights but I would never use either to secure a seat, especially one for a child's use!!!!


----------



## User169 (2 Sep 2011)

Saw these for sale in the bike shop last night...


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Whilst the guy may or may not have been breaking any laws, surely the question he should have asked is not "is it legal?" but "is it safe?" because if he skidded/went over a bump/pothole, the child would be on the floor.



It is safe (otherwise it would be excluded from EN14344) and is widely used as a way of carrying children in Europe. Its more pleasant for the child and parent than having the child sat on their own out of sight looking at parent's back. And they don't come off on bumps and potholes because with the parent on the bike their arms go down either side of the child and the child leans back against the parents body so they are cocooned and secure with their head next to the parents so its easy to chat and look together. If you've not tried it I highly recommend it over the rear child seats except you might get arrested by a numpty bobby.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Thus there is no confirmation that the seat sold was designed for that purpose.



Or that it wasn't. You point was?

Of course if they weren't in the European standard, Halfords did not sell them and the police had said it wasn't an approved seat, just a saddle taped to the top tube then you might have a case.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Or that it wasn't. You point was?
> 
> Of course if they weren't in the European standard, Halfords did not sell them and the police had said it wasn't an approved seat, just a saddle taped to the top tube then you might have a case.



You interpret the given data one way, me another. If Halfords had said the saddle sold was one designed specifically for its' used purpose then I would question the FPN. It seems as though they were being vague in their response to distance themselves from the issue. I ask again. If the saddel had to be held in place with Gaffer tape was it fit for purpose?

One of our Police Officers has explained how exasperating the Police Press dept can be.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As for using tape and inner tube - Yes for lights but I would never use either to secure a seat, especially one for a child's use!!!!




What, you wouldn't wrap some old inner tube around the frame to protect it and the paint before bolting one on?

The trouble these days is everyone sees death and destruction under every stone. So children can't ride baccies or any of the other ways that have been nostalgically recounted here, their parents are accosted for irresponsibility or their children banned from training or events if they ride without helmets and they are threatened with being taken into care if they ride to school. Is it any wonder that so few people cycle in the UK whereas children grow up in a culture of cycling in places where these things are all allowed and considered normal? Over here, the couple at the end of this Dutch video would be arrested rather than used to promote the benefits and pleasures of cycling. 

Meanwhile I see today reports of big increases in children and teenagers having strokes due to unhealthy lifestyles, obesity being one of the major causes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> What, you wouldn't wrap some old inner tube around the frame to protect it and the paint before bolting one on?
> 
> The trouble these days is everyone sees death and destruction under every stone. So children can't ride baccies or any of the other ways that have been nostalgically recounted here, their parents are accosted for irresponsibility or their children banned from training or events if they ride without helmets and they are threatened with being taken into care if they ride to school. Is it any wonder that so few people cycle in the UK whereas children grow up in a culture of cycling in places where these things are all allowed and considered normal? Over here, the couple at the end of this Dutch video would be arrested rather than used to promote the benefits and pleasures of cycling.
> 
> Meanwhile I see today reports of big increases in children and teenagers having strokes due to unhealthy lifestyles, obesity being one of the major causes.



I would have used inner tube to safe the paint. Looking at the photo that is not what was done. Be realistic about this the guy was a prick and paid the price. If he had accepted the FPN he would be far less out of pocket.


----------



## Ian 74 (2 Sep 2011)

Are you not reading just a tiny weeny bit into it? They should change the cycle chat blurb to "Cycle Chat the friendly place to whip a dead horse"


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> Are you not reading just a tiny weeny bit into it? They should change the cycle chat blurb to "Cycle Chat the friendly place to whip a dead horse"



You could elect not to post on the thread


----------



## Ian 74 (2 Sep 2011)

Wheres the fun in that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> Wheres the fun in that.



Fair point


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Delftse Post said:


> Saw these for sale in the bike shop last night...


The type I had was like the one on the back but with armrests, standing like that if you hit a bump she could be bounced off, no headgear?


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If the saddel had to be held in place with Gaffer tape was it fit for purpose?



Even if its bolted on under all that gaffer tape and the tape is just a bit of belt and braces? In any case there are no standards set in law for the adaptation of a bicycle to carry a passenger so the FPN is highly suspect anyway. To issue a ticket otherwise then takes us back into the era of people being arrested because the police didn't like the look of 'em.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Even if its bolted on under all that gaffer tape and the tape is just a bit of belt and braces? In any case there are no standards set in law for the adaptation of a bicycle to carry a passenger so the FPN is highly suspect anyway. To issue a ticket otherwise then takes us back into the era of people being arrested because the police didn't like the look of 'em.



You seem to have an issue with the Police. It went to court (outside the control of the police) and he was found / pleaded guilty. This is how the judicial system works. He has the right of appeal.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (2 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> The type I had was like the one on the back but with armrests, standing like that if you hit a bump she could be bounced off, no headgear?



More to the point, if I was the kid, I'd be wailing "why do YOU get to sit down and I don't???!!! Arse bumholes!!!!"


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> More to the point, if I was the kid, I'd be wailing "why do YOU get to sit down and I don't???!!! Arse bumholes!!!!"


She would stop the flies though and if you put a rucksack on her she could carry the shopping.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (2 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> She would stop the flies though and if you put a rucksack on her she could carry the shopping.




True dat, as they say round these parts.

I was an exceptionally lazy child, I made my mum carry my baby brother so I could go in the pram - when I was 3 1/2


----------



## MissTillyFlop (2 Sep 2011)

Also, what is the point of having that...erm...thing, when there is a seat at the back?

Is there a phantom baby?


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Also, what is the point of having that...erm...thing, when there is a seat at the back?
> 
> Is there a phantom baby?


Its for her daughters imaginary friend.


----------



## Vikeonabike (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> To issue a ticket otherwise then takes us back into the era of people being arrested because the police didn't like the look of 'em.





Did I miss something, are we not doing that any more? Booger. So no more tickets for wearing loud shirts in a built up area after dark then? 

Does that mean that Section 69 of the Ways and Means Act of 1658 and Section 13 of the UnLucky act 1971 have been repealed...?


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Did I miss something, are we not doing that any more? Booger. So no more tickets for wearing loud shirts in a built up area after dark then?
> 
> Does that mean that Section 69 of the Ways and Means Act of 1658 and Section 13 of the UnLucky act 1971 have been repealed...?


Remember the comedy where the guy got done for having an offensive wife....classic. Derek Guyler was the best tv policeman.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Did I miss something, are we not doing that any more? Booger. So no more tickets for wearing loud shirts in a built up area after dark then?
> 
> Does that mean that Section 69 of the Ways and Means Act of 1658 and Section 13 of the UnLucky act 1971 have been repealed...?



Me finks so guv'nor.


----------



## User169 (2 Sep 2011)

Noticed the bloke over the road had one of these strapped to the back of his bike today....







Not sure if he was planning to put his daughter in it.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Did I miss something, are we not doing that any more? Booger. So no more tickets for wearing loud shirts in a built up area after dark then?
> 
> Does that mean that Section 69 of the Ways and Means Act of 1658 and Section 13 of the UnLucky act 1971 have been repealed...?



Yep, all replaced by the _And That One in the Spotlight, He Don't Look Right to Me. Get Him Up Against the Wall__ Act 1979_


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Delftse Post said:


> Noticed the bloke over the road had one of these strapped to the back of his bike today....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it a baby mincer?


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Delftse Post said:


> Noticed the bloke over the road had one of these strapped to the back of his bike today....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gonna need another roll of Gaffa tape


----------



## subaqua (2 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Gonna need another a bigger roll of Gaffa tape



FTFY


----------



## Ian 74 (2 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Gonna need another roll of Gaffa tape


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You seem to have an issue with the Police. It went to court (outside the control of the police) and he was found / pleaded guilty. This is how the judicial system works. He has the right of appeal.



And this is how the police sometimes work

"The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"

P.S He has no right of appeal unfortunately. Appeals cannot be heard on matters of fact, only of process, unless new evidence has come to light that was not available at the time. Since he has pleaded guilty and the legal situation on adapted bikes for two was available even if the defendant didn't know it, he has no chance in getting an appeal allowed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> And this is how the police sometimes work
> 
> "The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"
> 
> P.S He has no right of appeal unfortunately. Appeals cannot be heard on matters of fact, only of process, unless new evidence has come to light that was not available at the time. Since he has pleaded guilty and the legal situation on adapted bikes for two was available even if the defendant didn't know it, he has no chance in getting an appeal allowed.



You above all know that there are exceptions to rules. If we are to take the approach you are eluding to then we may as well do away with the Police altogether. 

So can he not appeal or does his appeal stand no chance of being allowed? I was under the impression that any decision could be appealed.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You above all know that there are exceptions to rules. If we are to take the approach you are eluding to then we may as well do away with the Police altogether.



I agree and it tends to be the exceptions that hit the headlines. This one seems to me very much to be one of those exceptions of a numpty bobby who got a little to corrupted by power. Bit like the Daniel Cadden ones.



> So can he not appeal or does his appeal stand no chance of being allowed? I was under the impression that any decision could be appealed.



As he's pleaded guilty the only thing that can be appealed is the sentence as the case was never heard. He has to lodge an appeal within 21 days of the sentence.


----------



## Norm (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You above all know that there are exceptions to rules. If we are to take the approach you are eluding to then we may as well do away with the Police altogether.


 Is this not the exact opposite to your stance in the RLJ thread?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Is this not the exact opposite to your stance in the RLJ thread?



Er No. I am saying that occasionally the Police make mistakes. Red Light seems to suggest that they are constantly at fault and are of no benefit to us.

Can you walk me through your logic (or did you think I actually meant Do away with the Police - If so I was being factious!)


----------



## Norm (2 Sep 2011)

I didn't reference the Police in my post, but you could misinterpret it that way. 

Your position in the RLJ thread is that it's illegal so it's wrong and your post which I quoted above says that there are exceptions to rule.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> I didn't reference the Police in my post, but you could misinterpret it that way.
> 
> Your position in the RLJ thread is that it's illegal so it's wrong and your post which I quoted above says that there are exceptions to rule.



To the rules when it comes to the Police getting it right. Look at the context in which that statement was made please.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er No. I am saying that occasionally the Police make mistakes. Red Light seems to suggest that they are constantly at fault and are of no benefit to us.



Where did I suggest that?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Where did I suggest that?



You do it every time you highlight a case were the Police are at fault.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You do it every time you highlight a case were the Police are at fault.



Perhaps you could point to where I did that in this thread then.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> Perhaps you could point to where I did that in this thread then.



Take this as an example 

And this is how the police sometimes work

"The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Take this as an example
> 
> And this is how the police sometimes work
> 
> "The judge decided that the police officer's evidence lacked credibility"



These are two different cases, in one, rlj , the light is red you ride across you break the law, in 2nd the case revolved around who the officer believed a supposedly frightened man locked in his car or two angry and aggresive men shouting at him, one is cut and dried the other is not.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> These are two different cases, in one, rlj , the light is red you ride across you break the law, in 2nd the case revolved around who the officer believed a supposedly frightened man locked in his car or two angry and aggresive men shouting at him, one is cut and dried the other is not.



Exactly but Red Light insists upon quoting such cases when the law is brought up.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er No. I am saying that *occasionally* the Police make mistakes. Red Light seems to suggest that they are *constantly* at fault and are of no benefit to us.





Angelfishsolo said:


> Take this as an example
> 
> 
> > And this is how the police *sometimes* work
> ...



I suggest you pop out and buy yourself a dictionary and use it to look up the meanings of "*constantly*", "*sometimes*" and "*occasionally*"


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> These are two different cases, in one, rlj , the light is red you ride across you break the law, in 2nd the case revolved around who the officer believed a supposedly frightened man locked in his car or two angry and aggresive men shouting at him, one is cut and dried the other is not.



And in the 2nd case the officers still went on with their initial "belief" despite the witness evidence etc and took the cyclists to Court based on evidence the Judge said "lacked credibility" and that was contrary to the evidence the witnesses and even the supposed victim gave. 

There was a very similar case last year on Oxford St where the police did the cyclist who had been knocked of his bike and strangled to unconsciousness by a taxi driver. The police handcuffed the cyclist despite clear signs of him having been strangled and sent away a volunteer witness without even taking his details. The witness wrote an account of what had happened and delivered it to the police the next day who conveniently ignored it and took the cyclist to Court anyway. Sometimes the behaviour of the police towards cyclists is shockingly poor.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> And in the 2nd case the officers still went on with their initial "belief" despite the witness evidence etc and took the cyclists to Court based on evidence the Judge said "lacked credibility" and that was contrary to the evidence the witnesses and even the supposed victim gave.
> 
> There was a very similar case last year on Oxford St where the police did the cyclist who had been knocked of his bike and strangled to unconsciousness by a taxi driver. The police handcuffed the cyclist despite clear signs of him having been strangled and sent away a volunteer witness without even taking his details. The witness wrote an account of what had happened and delivered it to the police the next day who conveniently ignored it and took the cyclist to Court anyway. Sometimes the behaviour of the police towards cyclists is shockingly poor.


And yet who would you call if you were in danger, not Ghostbusters, the Police, they have to respond to a multitude of different cases every day and as they are only human they can, get it wrong, but choose between them and the alternative, remember the recent riots, innocent people being burnt out of their livelihoods, the Police have to stand there and take the flak.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> And yet who would you call if you were in danger, not Ghostbusters, the Police, they have to respond to a multitude of different cases every day and as they are only human they can, get it wrong, but choose between them and the alternative, remember the recent riots, innocent people being burnt out of their livelihoods, the Police have to stand there and take the flak.



I agree but the problem is when they get it wrong and blatantly wrong, they tend to soldier on regardless. Any one of those cases could have been dealt with properly by listening to the witnesses and viewing the evidence at the scene but once their minds were made up the cyclists were guilty there was no turning them until the Court tells them their evidence is a load of rubbish and wrong. I bet even now they are still complaining the Court got it wrong.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Red Light said:


> I agree but the problem is when they get it wrong and blatantly wrong, they tend to soldier on regardless. Any one of those cases could have been dealt with properly by listening to the witnesses and viewing the evidence at the scene but once their minds were made up the cyclists were guilty there was no turning them until the Court tells them their evidence is a load of rubbish and wrong. I bet even now they are still complaining the Court got it wrong.


But they also have to put up with risking life and limb to catch someone only to have the court give them a few hours community service, if that, and set free to do it again. If the courts had displayed the same zeal for locking people up before as they did after the riots would people have been so keen on offending, Just shoot one looter and see how many others want to do it.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> But they also have to put up with risking life and limb to catch someone only to have the court give them a few hours community service, if that, and set free to do it again. If the courts had displayed the same zeal for locking people up before as they did after the riots would people have been so keen on offending, Just shoot one looter and see how many others want to do it.



I see, so the frustrations of the job justifies them to take it out on innocent people does it?


----------

