OP
OP
User169
Guest
Quite a few parents don't have child seats at all - children just sit (or stand) on the rack.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Quite a few parents don't have child seats at all - children just sit (or stand) on the rack.
mumbo jumbo
Senior Member
- Location
- Birmingham
What's with the £15 victim surcharge?! Where is there a victim in this case?
CopperCyclist
Veteran
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.
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
Fuelled with Jelly Babies
- Location
- South Wales
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.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
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.
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)
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
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
So would you suggest that this person takes the case further?
alci4
Well-Known Member
- Location
- birmingham
what a twat
he should be more worried about his childs safety than the fine the fu@kwit
he should be more worried about his childs safety than the fine the fu@kwit
CopperCyclist
Veteran
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
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
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.
