Drunk' cyclists investigated by Mersey tunnels police

[Andy Roadie]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...cyclists-investigated-mersey-tunnels-10663935

Looking at the video they seem to be capable of "proper control" of a bicycle so don't seem to have broken any laws.

 

[steveindenmark]

"We wouldnt have done it if we were sober". I think that is a bit of a give away.
Drunk in charge of a bicycle is an offence.

 

[Pale Rider]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...cyclists-investigated-mersey-tunnels-10663935

Looking at the video they seem to be capable of "proper control" of a bicycle so don't seem to have broken any laws.

I agree, they should plead not guilty.

The video doesn't disclose a great deal, other than cyclists riding where they were legally allowed to do at that time of night.

There is the statement from one of the lads to say they had been on a night out and they'd 'had a few drinks', but that shouldn't be enough to convict them of cycling under the influence later that same night.

The lad does say 'we wouldn't have done it if we were sober', but the comment about sobriety is one anyone could make about having a few drinks.

Presumably there's no medical evidence.

The video and the comments are not enough, in my view, to satisfy a panel of magistrates so that they are sure the cyclists were drunk.

 

[snorri]

Drunk in charge of a bicycle is an offence.

What is the definition of "drunk" in relation to cycling?

 

[Mrs M]

I'd be more concerned with the people in the car, not concentrating on their driving.

 

[Pale Rider]

What is the definition of "drunk" in relation to cycling?

The cyclists have been charged under Sect 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Quoting:

"A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence."

Seems to me the video does not show they were incapable of proper control of the bicycles.

There may be a statement(s) from car drivers/passengers of which we are unaware.

It will be up to the magistrates to judge, but the standard of proof is high, they need to be 'satisfied so that they are sure' of guilt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/30

 

[Tin Pot]

The article focuses on cycling not being allowed at that time in the tunnel. And they are in control. So I'd say it's a slap on the wrist of being where they shouldn't, not hard time for being drunk in charge.

 

[Pale Rider]

The article focuses on cycling not being allowed at that time in the tunnel. And they are in control. So I'd say it's a slap on the wrist of being where they shouldn't, not hard time for being drunk in charge.

The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.

If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.

 

[Tin Pot]

The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.

If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.

Oh right, my mistake then. I read am to pm.

The cops should investigate and let them go, in that case.

Sounds like a nice way to finish an evening (safely)

 

[Pale Rider]

Sounds like a nice way to finish an evening (safely)

It certainly does, which is another reason why I suspect the magistrates will be reluctant to convict.

Even though, strictly speaking, they should view the incident in isolation.

 

[DaveReading]

The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.

If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.

Which makes the Wirral Mayor's comments daft and irrelevant:

"You can cycle at certain times, but people are probably going to think automatically they can cycle through at any time on the bikes. We need to review the rules, and maybe make them more explicit."

Doh.

 

[Pale Rider]

Which makes the Wirral Mayor's comments daft and irrelevant:

"You can cycle at certain times, but people are probably going to think automatically they can cycle through at any time on the bikes. We need to review the rules, and maybe make them more explicit."

Doh.

Quite so, and the worrying thing is the likes of the town mayor is the type of local worthy who will also be a magistrate.

 

[steveindenmark]

The article says they were in the Queensway tunnel in which cycling is allowed from 8pm to 8am.

If that's correct, they were cycling on a road on which they were legally allowed to at the time.

Maybe so but they were still drunk.

The fact that they can control their bikes is immaterial. I arrested a guy for driving a car. He controlled the car OK, he looked and talked OK and was three times over the legal limit. Does that mean I should have had a quiet chat about drink driving and let him go? Of course not.

As always, you dont get the full story in the newspapers.

 

[glenn forger]

some drunk cyclists who did zero harm are getting more press attention than drunk drivers who kill.

 

[Crandoggler]

Jesus wept. One rule for cyclists and another for motor vehicle users? The hypocritical and self righteous comments from some on here are laughable.

How many motor users drink and drive on a road they're allowed to use and cause any harm? Absolutely idiotic to think that this isn't an offence.