FPN for carrying child on bike

[CopperCyclist]

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...

Going slightly off topic here, so I'll allow myself to veer off once then promise to stop. A legal precedent can be set in any court, but it only MUST be followed if it was set by a higher court. If it was in a court of the same level then it shold be seen as 'persuasive' unless there are substantial differences to the facts.

Therefore, yes in a way a mags court can't set a binding precedent as they are the lowest criminal court - however they can set a precedent, and it can be referred to.

You're not wrong about magistrates and their 'curious interpretation of the law' though.

The problem here is the normal issue of media reporting. We don't get the whole story. I have lost count of time times a known high level criminal (think drug dealer/armed robber, normally both) is murdered, and the story in the media tells of a "family man, father of four". The one thing this job has taught me is to take everything in the media with a hefty helping of salt.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Ahem. Follow the links in my post above.

They do not state that the seat sold was designed to fit on the top tube. It it the gaffer tape that worries me. If the seat was secured by bolts why tape it?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1526926"]
Says something for Halfords if you have to gaffer tape a child seat together that's barely a year old.

Look at the picture again. He's bought a standard child's saddle and taped it to the top tube. And if this is the case, he deserves the fine.
[/quote]

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Going slightly off topic here, so I'll allow myself to veer off once then promise to stop. A legal precedent can be set in any court, but it only MUST be followed if it was set by a higher court. If it was in a court of the same level then it shold be seen as 'persuasive' unless there are substantial differences to the facts.

Therefore, yes in a way a mags court can't set a binding precedent as they are the lowest criminal court - however they can set a precedent, and it can be referred to.

You're not wrong about magistrates and their 'curious interpretation of the law' though.

The problem here is the normal issue of media reporting. We don't get the whole story. I have lost count of time times a known high level criminal (think drug dealer/armed robber, normally both) is murdered, and the story in the media tells of a "family man, father of four". The one thing this job has taught me is to take everything in the media with a hefty helping of salt.

 

[Red Light]

Going slightly off topic here, so I'll allow myself to veer off once then promise to stop. A legal precedent can be set in any court, but it only MUST be followed if it was set by a higher court. .....Therefore, yes in a way a mags court can't set a binding precedent as they are the lowest criminal court - however they can set a precedent, and it can be referred to.

Is the wrong answer. Magistrates do not set a precedent and no magistrate is bound by the decision of another magistrate*. And they certainly don't set it in the way you claimed they did viz:

Legal precedent set - a gaffa taped seat to the frame won't count as 'adapted' for the purpose of this law.

* not least because decisions of the magistrates courts are not reported and therefore unlike those of the High Court, Appeal Court etc, a magistrate won't typically have a clue what other magistrates have decided.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Is the wrong answer. Magistrates do not set a precedent and no magistrate is bound by the decision of another magistrate*. And they certainly don't set it in the way you claimed they did viz:



* not least because decisions of the magistrates courts are not reported and therefore unlike those of the High Court, Appeal Court etc, a magistrate won't typically have a clue what other magistrates have decided.

Please define not reported?

 

[Vikeonabike]

Holiday time for me....Copper Cyclist has nicked my job....Bonus

 

[gaz]

Holiday time for me....Copper Cyclist has nicked my job....Bonus

Ironic?

 

[Red Light]

Bottom line. From what you can see in the photo (including the fact that the child has the helmet on back to front) do you believe that the "home made" solution was safe?

As has come out subsequently in other reports it was not home made. It was a purchased seat designed for that purpose and meeting the relevant European Standards. One has good reason therefore to believe it was safe and it is clear that the bicycle was adapted to carry two using an approved adaptation.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

As has come out subsequently in other reports it was not home made. It was a purchased seat designed for that purpose and meeting the relevant European Standards. One has good reason therefore to believe it was safe and it is clear that the bicycle was adapted to carry two using an approved adaptation.

Has that been stated? The report I read stated Halfords said "some of the saddles they sell are designed to be fitted to the to tube". That doesn't mean the one they sold was for that purpose. Why was it described as bolted to the top tube rather than attached and why was their copious amounts of Gaffer Tape in place?

 

[Nortones2]

Please define not reported?

The "Law Reports" for example. http://iclr.co.uk/products/product-catalogue/the-law-reports Or the All England Law Reports. Or the Times.

 

[Red Light]

Please define not reported?

Not carried by The Law Reports and similar official records.

 

[Red Light]

Has that been stated?

"However the force declined to discuss further why the prosecution took place when the seat complied with European safety standards and was bolted to the crossbar." (Telegraph report)

You would think if was just a saddle duct taped onto the top tube they would have said because it didn't comply and was just a saddle taped to the top tube.

 

[Dave W]

"However the force declined to discuss further why the prosecution took place when the seat complied with European safety standards and was bolted to the crossbar." (Telegraph report)

You would think if was just a saddle duct taped onto the top tube they would have said because it didn't comply and was just a saddle taped to the top tube.

So again you are simply assuming. It is of course possible that the saddle did conform to regulations but only when mounted on a seat post.

He pleaded guilty, does that not mean anything to you? You appear to be defending an offence that someone has freely admitted that they are guilty of, why?

 

[pshore]

It's Elf-n-safety-gorn-mad.

The Health and safety argument always wins out especially when a child is involved.

I tell ya now, it'll be compulsory helmets for children, followed up by no under 16's allowed to cycle on the road. Any parent who lets their child cycle on the road is clearly dumb and not fit to parent.