A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 15th 15, 03:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On 15/03/2015 00:20, wrote:

On Saturday, March 14, 2015 at 4:44:44 PM UTC, Judith wrote:

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.


Are you claiming that parliament has not made it clear that a person under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by cycling on the pavement?


Parliament has not made it clear that a person (aged) under 10 is not
committing a criminal offence by cycling on the pavement.

That is because it is an offence to cycle on (ie, along) the footway.

The fact that someone aged under 10 may be treated as being below the
age of criminal responsibility:

(a) does not mean that anything they do cannot be a crime (see below) and
(b) does not mean that their parent or guardian is not liable at law for
any damage or injury caused (just as the owner of an animal would be
liable).

I assume (and I am being charitable here) that even you would not claim
that it is alright for a 9-yr-old with a gun to shoot people (because he
is "a person under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by killing
another person".
Ads
  #12  
Old March 15th 15, 05:50 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On 14/03/2015 22:50, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 21:30, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:25, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:19, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:14, Mrcheerful wrote:
On 14/03/2015 20:06, Bod wrote:
On 14/03/2015 16:44, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:43:41 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
wrote:

snip


You are only telling part of the story. Going by the guidance put
forward
by the two ministers, it seems clear that the intention of
parliament
was
to give the police powers to deal with cyclists who cycle on the
pavement in a way which poses a danger or annoyance to pedestrians.

Paul Boateng specifically said that the law was not aimed at
'responsible
cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of
fear of
the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users',
and
Robert Goodwill reiterated that guidance.


I have already pointed out that what Boateng said was not "guidance"
whatsoever.

It has no legal basis whatsoever.

If Parliament had wanted to permit one class of cyclists to use the
pavements
then they would have made it clear in the law.

They didn't.

It is illegal for anyone to cycle on the pavements.

Hope this helps.

Not on shared pathways, where, miraculously, there are no problems.
You're one of the drama queens in this ng.

there are problems, such as this one:
http://road.cc/content/news/75569-te...clist-southend





And how many people are killed or seriously injured by vehicles on the
roads every day?
You've found *one* instance. Not exactly carnage on shared pathways,
is it.


You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong,
conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use
paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the
pedestrian.

You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-)


Just admit it, you were wrong. Name calling is not very grown up.

lol.
  #13  
Old March 15th 15, 06:03 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning


You stated 'there are no problems' I point out that you are wrong,
conflicts and crashes between cyclists and pedestrians on shared use
paths are common, some have even ended in fatalities, usually the
pedestrian.

You *are* a drama queen........ and ICMFP ;-)


Just admit it, you were wrong. Name calling is not very grown up.


nice to see that the child's helmet is on back to front

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...-pavement.html

This sums you and a few others up with your sad pettiness.
It's from the very link you just sent:

"It's hard to imagine the equivalent level of jobsworthness in another
vocation. It's like a cinema attendant refusing to let a kid of 14 years
and 364 days into a 15-certificate film showing for a birthday party; or
a postman binning – not delivering – a child's application for a Blue
Peter badge because the 5 in the postcode look a little like an S. It's
a number of fairly unpleasant, petty, unnecessary acts by people in
positions of power"
  #14  
Old March 15th 15, 10:30 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 2:07:43 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

I assume (and I am being charitable here) that even you would not claim
that it is alright for a 9-yr-old with a gun to shoot people (because he
is "a person under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by killing
another person".


Nice strawman.

I didn't even claim that it is OK for a child under 10 to ride on the footway.

My claim is that Parliament has made it quite clear that a child under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by riding their bicycle on the footway.

Neither would a child under 10 be committing a criminal offence is they killed you.

It is also of note that plenty of adults kill innocent cyclists each year without being found guilty of a criminal offence.
  #16  
Old March 15th 15, 12:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On 15/03/2015 09:30, wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 2:07:43 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:


I assume (and I am being charitable here) that even you would not claim
that it is alright for a 9-yr-old with a gun to shoot people (because he
is "a person under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by killing
another person".


Nice strawman.


It is no strawman. It is a valid analogy.

I didn't even claim that it is OK for a child under 10 to ride on the footway.


OK....

My claim is that Parliament has made it quite clear that a child under 10 is not committing a criminal offence by riding their bicycle on the footway.


And that claim, as I explained, is 100% wrong. If it were not wrong, you
would be able to cite the Parliamentary resolution which you say had
that effect. But we need not fear that happening, because it isn't true.

A 9 year old shooting someone dead has committed a murder but might not
be prosecuted for it. The victim is still dead though, so claiming that
it is impossible for a child to commit the crime is ridiculous - the
crime has been committed.

Neither would a child under 10 be committing a criminal offence is they killed you.


Don't be so stupid.

You can do better than that.

It is also of note that plenty of adults kill innocent cyclists each year without being found guilty of a criminal offence.


Where to start with that statement...
  #17  
Old March 15th 15, 01:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Where to start with that statement...


How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty, and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.
  #18  
Old March 15th 15, 02:12 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,164
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 05:02:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Where to start with that statement...


How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty,


As is everyone.

and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway


Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835
Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . every person
so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every
such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the
standard scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

The offence is absolute, anyone riding a bicycle on a footpath commits
a criminal act whether they be 5 or 50.

when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.


You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding
on the footpath.

Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence,
only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so.

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "

It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.

  #19  
Old March 15th 15, 02:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,757
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On 15/03/2015 13:12, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 15 Mar 2015 05:02:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Where to start with that statement...


How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty,


As is everyone.

and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway


Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835
Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . every person
so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every
such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the
standard scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

The offence is absolute, anyone riding a bicycle on a footpath commits
a criminal act whether they be 5 or 50.

when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.


You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding
on the footpath.

Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence,
only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so.

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "

It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.

from the gov.uk site:

.....This means that children under 10 can’t be arrested or charged with
a crime. There are other punishments that can be given to children under
10 who break the law.

Children under 10 cannot be charged with committing a criminal offence.
However, they can be given a:
Local Child Curfew
Child Safety Order
Children under 10 who break the law regularly can sometimes be taken
into care, or their parents could be held responsible.


  #20  
Old March 15th 15, 03:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Grantham girl, 4, gets cycling-on-path police warning

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 1:12:54 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:

On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 11:54:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:

Where to start with that statement...


How about starting with the tenet that a person under 10 is innocent until proved guilty,


As is everyone.

and then examine how a person under 10 can commit the criminal offence of cycling on the footway


Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835
Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by
the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of
foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass,
sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any
truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether
any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to
suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . every person
so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every
such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding level 2 on the
standard scale, over and above the damages occasioned thereby.

The offence is absolute, anyone riding a bicycle on a footpath commits
a criminal act whether they be 5 or 50.


No they don't. The riding on the footway must be wilful.

when parliament has made it quite clear that children under 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility.


You are conflating the crime and the perpetrator. The crime is riding
on the footpath.

Parliament has not decided a child under 10 cannot commit an offence,
only that they cannot be found responsible for doing so.


I never claimed that Parliament had decided that a child under 10 cannot commit an offence. My claim was specific to a criminal offence.

"Children and Young Persons Act 1933
50 Age of criminal responsibility.
It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten
years can be guilty of any offence. "

It doesn't mean the crime goes away whether it be cycling on a
footpath or murder. It merely means the miscreant, if under 10,
cannot be brought to trial for the offence even when it is clear they
committed it.


Yes it does. It is not a crime for a child under 10 to cycle on the footway. It may or may not be an offence, but that is a different matter,
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
discount girl easter dress baby girl briggs washington state northface metropolis girl [email protected] Recumbent Biking 0 March 24th 08 01:37 PM
Police on the Innocent Railway Path (NCR1) Edinburgh Tom Orr UK 7 March 16th 06 04:23 PM
The Age: Police warning for iPod users daveL Australia 68 February 22nd 06 10:31 AM
[media] TheAge (AU) Police warning for iPod users Alan J. Wylie UK 12 February 17th 06 07:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.