Don't ride your bike on the path.

[muckymotor]

Or it'll be confiscated, four year old told.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-...

It's a bit early for April Fools

[rewc]

Its amazing that at a time when Police Forces are claiming there is not enough money to fund them that officers find enough time to do this sort of thing.

[anonymous-user]

It amazes/frightens me that people with absolutely zero common sense can get into the police force.

[Trevor450]

That's ludicrous.

Meanwhile, in Darlington, cyclists can injure people with impunity.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlin...

[Johna]

Threatening to confiscate a four year olds bike is cruel and idiotic.

[terry tibbs]

child is below criminal age anyway

none of us were there, could have just been said in jest and it got taken the wrong way - no one has a sense of humor anymore and everyone is so touchy feely

[gus607]

NO NO the police can't say that, think of the children.

What if the child caught some old biddies ankle ? or worse. Is that OK?

Well done copper.

[rewc]

gus607 said:

NO NO the police can't say that, think of the children.

What if the child caught some old biddies ankle ? or worse. Is that OK?

Well done copper.

I suspect that if any old biddies had been about that the father would have ensured the child could not harm them. He was after all using a lead so the child was under his control.

This is the guidance to the Police from the Government "However, official guidance issued by then Home Office minister Paul Boateng in 1999 is that police officers should use their discretion.
In a letter to senior police officers, Mr Boateng said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so."

That is the problem, bring in a law that appears reasonable and the Police soon use it to boost their FPN issue rate.

[pits]

Now they just need to focus on all the adults who think they can ride on the pavement.

[Pothole]

rewc said:

gus607 said:

NO NO the police can't say that, think of the children.

What if the child caught some old biddies ankle ? or worse. Is that OK?

Well done copper.

I suspect that if any old biddies had been about that the father would have ensured the child could not harm them. He was after all using a lead so the child was under his control.

This is the guidance to the Police from the Government "However, official guidance issued by then Home Office minister Paul Boateng in 1999 is that police officers should use their discretion.
In a letter to senior police officers, Mr Boateng said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so."

That is the problem, bring in a law that appears reasonable and the Police soon use it to boost their FPN issue rate.

Tell me exactly how this "responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users" applies to a 4 year old?

[anonymous-user]

Trevor450 said:

That's ludicrous.

Meanwhile, in Darlington, cyclists can injure people with impunity.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlin...

The sooner we get the criminal element of cycling off our streets, the better. Too many of us are put at risk by reckless, criminal cyclists thinking the rules of the road are there to be bent to suit their own agenda. Criminal lycra-clad maniacs.

[WinstonWolf]

OpulentBob said:

Trevor450 said:

That's ludicrous.

Meanwhile, in Darlington, cyclists can injure people with impunity.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/darlin...

The sooner we get the criminal element of cycling off our streets, the better. Too many of us are put at risk by reckless, criminal cyclists thinking the rules of the road are there to be bent to suit their own agenda. Criminal lycra-clad maniacs.

I assume you want this to apply to cars as well, seeing as they kill and injure far more people?

[rewc]

Pothole said:

Tell me exactly how this "responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users" applies to a 4 year old?

I think it applies to the Father who was using the pavement rather than the road as a 4 year old was involved. He showed consideration to other pavement users by having the child on a lead.

[OldGermanHeaps]

Any serving bib on here want to comment? Its st like this and lieing on traffic stops that makes vast swathes of the population anti police surely stuff like this must make your job 5 times harder when you have zero goodwill from most of the people you deal with every day?

[anonymous-user]

OldGermanHeaps said:

Any serving bib on here want to comment?

Sure. If it's true it's pretty stupid.

There are hundreds of millions of police / public interactions per year. I don't worry about the occasional one like this as long as it's identified for what it is.

[BGarside]

OpulentBob said:

The sooner we get the criminal element of cycling off our streets, the better. Too many of us are put at risk by reckless, criminal cyclists thinking the rules of the road are there to be bent to suit their own agenda. Criminal lycra-clad maniacs.

Not sure if trolling

You might as well say the same of the criminal element of drivers, driving uninsured, without MoT, breaking the speed limits, parking on pavements, talking on their mobiles, middle land hogging, not indicating, etc, etc, etc. How many drivers respect the rules of the road?

The debate over cycling on pavements also often ignores the reason why people do it - because the roads are often too dangerous to use, as a direct result of decades of traffic growth, increasing car dependency, lack of cycling infrastructure, increasingly aggressive, selfish, ignorant drivers and a general public attitude of contempt for all cyclists based on the actions of a few.

Do you hate all drivers and assume they are all criminals based on the law breaking behaviour of a significant minority?

[Drumroll]

So according to Lincolnshire police "Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal." So all the toddlers need to get off the footpaths onto the roads. Because that really would be safe. No wonder respect for the police is now so low.

[anonymous-user]

Nah, I'm just pissing about. Most threads accuse one side or the other of deliberately going out of their way to injure cyclists or peds or to deliberately block cars then video the reaction etc, when in 99.9% of cases it's an innocent mistake or an unawareness of the rules. I was just getting the emotion out of the way early.

(I speak as a road designer who has been directly accused of building facilities designed to kill cyclists, so tend to consider them "professional victims", despite being a pedallist myself and having a fleet of on and off road bikes and knackered knees from many moons of riding.)

[Mk3Spitfire]

Drumroll said:

So according to No wonder respect for the police is now so low.

That line gets rolled out all the time by the unimaginative. It's a one off, probably taken out of context, media gold story. If this incident is why "respect for the police is so low" then we really are in trouble.

[over_the_hill]

Drumroll said:

So according to Lincolnshire police "Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal." So all the toddlers need to get off the footpaths onto the roads. Because that really would be safe. No wonder respect for the police is now so low.

The full quote is

Lincolnshire Police said:

apologised and said: "Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal.

"However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children officers should use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances."

However, common sense obviously did NOT prevail in this case did it.