http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8733192/Parent-fined-for-carrying-child-on-bike.html
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Parent fined for carrying a child on a bike...
(19 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"Murtza was prosecuted for committing an offence under section 24 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, under which it is illegal to carry a passenger on a bike unless it has been designed for or adapted to do so."
That last bit is quite important. Reading the article I tohught he'd just bgeen carrying his kid on the bike on the ahndlebars or whatever like in the olden days (I remember my dad doing this with me as a kid), but he did actually have the kid in a child seat specifically designed for the purpose and attached actually more securely than the instructions had provided! I would have thought that would pass the 'adapted' test - and yet not only was he prosecuted, but then actually found guilty. Madness.
Posted 12 years ago # -
When I originally looked at the picture I thought, oh some padding and gaffa tape, but on reading the article it's clear the seat has the appropriate certification. Unless kids have to be strapped in too?
Elf n safety gone mad though!Posted 12 years ago # -
am tempted to say that this would never happen in leafy/white South Edinburgh...and that if it did, a lawyer would effectively argue it.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"some padding and gaffa tape" I suspect that's what Mr Policeman thought too, then when the person was anything other than wholly compliant he decided to issue an FP.
Posted 12 years ago # -
and yet not only was he prosecuted, but then actually found guilty
Well he did plead guilty? Although that's beside the point...
Even if it was the wrong seat fitted in the wrong way, you think a good talking to and "don't let me catch you doing that again" would have been more than appropriate. At which point if he is caught again, he's only got himself to blame. Of course we don't know for sure if he got lippy before or after the fixed penalty was handed out...
Ch Insp Phil Fortun, commander of East Staffordshire Local Policing Team (LPT), which covers Burton defended the prosecution.
"It is our duty to protect people and ensure the safety of the communities we serve,” he said.
Well that is one community that can breathe a sigh of relief about being safer.
Could any of our more legally-fluent contributors comment on if this could happen in Scotland? Would you have to get the Procurator Fiscal to decide to press charges, rather than the Polis?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Very dodgy reporting here.
The Halfords spokesman is of course right that all their child seats meet the requirements of EN 14344. This sets out minimum standards relating to centre of gravity, method of attachment and minimum dimensions of backrests, footrests etc.
However, the photo at the top of the article seems to show that this chap has attached a child's saddle to the crossbar and not a child seat - two different things. A child's saddle does not meet the requirements of EN 14344, not having back/footrests etc.
Should the prosecution have gone ahead - not sure, as I don't know the circumstances of the case. However, from the information available it would seem that the policeman and court acted within the law.
If the photo in the article is the bike in question, then I'm kind of amazed that anyone would think that was a good set up for carrying a two year old on a bike (legal or not) - the first emergency stop and they would be off over the handlebars.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Morningsider - thanks for clarifying. I thought it was a weird looking seat (rather than saddle) with the child obscuring the view. That it's a saddle is slightly different (Still think he should have just been given a slap on the wrist and sent home though!)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Of course we don't know for sure if he got lippy before or after the fixed penalty was handed out..."
Well he did rip it up (and was fined for littering) so there's a reasonable chance that he got at least a bit lippy!
Posted 12 years ago # -
Ah. Our antiquated systems here haven't shown the photo on the article. I had read it as a child seat, rather than just a saddle. Right. Makes more sense. And yes, dodgy reporting.
Though I agree with Kaputnik, a wee slap on the wrists and on your way guv.
Certainly does seem like Mr Murtza failed the 'attitude test' after initially being handed the FP.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The position of the bike saddle, that's presumably the adult's in this photo, is very strange to say the least. I know I couldn't cycle for long with a saddle set up like that let alone with a child balanced on the handlebars.
Nonetheless I still think the guy was hard done too.Posted 12 years ago # -
I used to carry my son around the village on a seat a bit like that. More properly made in that it was designed to be bolted around the crossbar and it had a wee backrest and a strap that clipped around his waist but barely much better. We had to stop using it when he reached a size that he would complain that I kept kneeing him in the bum. It was great fun though for short trips. He liked it more than staring at my backside or riding in the trailer.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I may be mistaken, but I think the boy has his h*lmet on back-to-front.
Shouldn't they be flat across the front and recessed at the back to fit round the tendons on the back of the head...?
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think you are entirely correct, Greenroofer
Posted 12 years ago # -
However, the photo at the top of the article seems to show that this chap has attached a child's saddle to the crossbar and not a child seat - two different things. A child's saddle does not meet the requirements of EN 14344, not having back/footrests etc.
But it was still a proper child seat, sold by Halfords and
fitted correctly. From the article:-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.
Why should the man be prosecuted for buying a child seat from
Halfords?I hardly ever see kids on the crossbar but on the way home
tonight I saw two children being carried on the crossbar
with their legs hanging over the handlebars. One of them
was quite small but the others feet were practically
trailing on the ground in front of the bike.Posted 12 years ago # -
"Why should the man be prosecuted for buying a child seat from
Halfords?"Because what he appears to have attached to the top tube is a saddle, not a seat.
"A Halford’s spokesman confirmed that some of its seats were designed to fit to the crossbar and that instructions were provided."
No suggestion that the seat in this instance was one such seat so-designed.
It's all still a bit jobsworthy, and I reckon it only got as far as it did because the chap got angry.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hmm, okay. All a bit weird one way or another. If it had been
me I'd have probably got angry too.Posted 12 years ago # -
From the comments section:
"Well, it might be a child’s saddle, designed to go on the seatpost of a child’s bike but somehow cobbled onto the crossbar of an adult bike, where it doesn’t fit properly, hence all the duct tape, but it is NOT a bicycle childseat and does not even begin to conform with EN14344. I should know. I helped to write it.
Suffice to say, if you knew what I know about the differences between safe and unsafe childseats and the things that can happen to children carried in the latter, you would not critcise the action of this policeman.
Not so sure about the court though. £115 would buy a decent childseat. Rather than simply raking that into the coffers, it would seem more just and restorative to the actual victim, i.e. the child, to use some of that money to have a proper childseat fitted to the bicycle.
Chris Juden, CTC Senior Technical Officer"
Posted 12 years ago # -
Anyone seen the new Mary Poppins film yet?
I was wondering if I could similarly adapt my big bike to carry additional children...
I'm not sure it would past S24 of the RTA and chicanes would be a definite no-no...
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
