Police stopping cyclists in Preston

[GGB_Andrew]

And asking cyclists' for proof of ownership of bike as part of an operation to crackdown on bike crime.

We featured this story on our site yesterday and have had plenty of comments already. Would be great to know how you feel about what the Police are doing up in Preston

http://www.goinggoingbike.com/blog/stop-and-proof-campaign-brings-results/

 

[diapason]

Hmmm - how to you 'prove' ownership of a bike, unless you've bought it from a bike shop and have kept the receipt. I built my bike up from bits, and would be hard pushed to find any documentary evidence now.

 

[BSRU]

And asking cyclists' for proof of ownership of bike as part of an operation to crackdown on bike crime.

We featured this story on our site yesterday and have had plenty of comments already. Would be great to know how you feel about what the Police are doing up in Preston

http://www.goinggoin...brings-results/

Sounds like a good idea but I would be very concerned as my main commuter bike is a couple of years old now and I have no written proof it is actually mine.

 

[addictfreak]

I have 4 bikes, 3 I bought new and 1 second hand. I must admit I have no proof that I actually own any of them!

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I have my bike registered on the immobilise.com database, to which the police have access. Presumably they could check the database from the registration number or the frame number.

(Of course, they would have to lie down on the dirty, wet floor to read the frame number because I have no intention of turning my bike upside down and getting air in the hydraulic brake lines.)

 

[wiggydiggy]

It does say they are only stopping 'suspicious' bikes, and despite reports from london (and elsewhere) of thieves dressing like cyclist to avoid detection the criminal element in preston isn't that sophisticated!

 

[thnurg]

There is no legal requirement to prove ownership of a bike. If they suspect that the bike is stolen then it is up to them to prove it, not for you to prove innocence.

Nor do you have to talk to them. IANAL but I DO know about Rice v Connolly 1966 where it was decided that refusing to give information to Police is not grounds for arrest.

 

[HovR]

Whilst it sounds like a good idea in theory, it doesn't sound like it would work very well in practice. I know for sure that I don't have any proof of ownership for my bikes.

I think this comment on the blog page sums it up pretty well:

I don’t carry any proof of ownership – why should I? Unless the police can prove a bike is stolen then they are overstepping the mark – innocent until proven guilty.

In the same way that I couldn't prove on the spot that I own my bike, they must also be able to prove if I didn't own it before they could confiscate it.

Regarding proving ownership; I guess the easiest thing to do would be to stick a picture of the frame number in your wallet?

 

[LosingFocus]

Regarding proving ownership; I guess the easiest thing to do would be to stick a picture of the frame number in your wallet?

I was thinking similar. Ive got snaps of my bike(s) on my phone, dating back to March.

 

[Bman]

Its good that they are doing something.... I appreciate the thought and effort.

I dont actually own my bike, its a c2w bike

 

[thnurg]

I've just read the article and it angered me. This is NOT a police state and they can't do just whatever they bloody well feel like. Their job is to uphold the law, not to make it up as they go along in order to make their jobs easier.
If some idiot in a funny costume tries to take my bike just because I can't prove it's mine they will have a fight on their hands.
They have no lawful right to confiscate a bike unless they have evidence that the bike has been used in unlawful activity.

If I'm feeling cooperative then I'll show them my ID and let them take a photo in case a bike matching mine is ever reported stolen.

 

[Silver Fox]

There is no legal requirement to prove ownership of a bike. If they suspect that the bike is stolen then it is up to them to prove it, not for you to prove innocence.

Nor do you have to talk to them. IANAL but I DO know about Rice v Connolly 1966 where it was decided that refusing to give information to Police is not grounds for arrest.

Not entirely the best advice to give.

Maybe supplying your name and address so the police can at least verify who you are would be a good idea otherwise you may find yourself arrested on suspicion of theft of pedal cycle.


Have you heard of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Careful, R v Connelly is to do with a (completely unlawful) arrest of someone who refused to explain what they were doing in an area of give any details. It's a bit different to suspecting a bike is stolen, and then the rider adds to that suspicion by refusing to give any details.

And for the liberal ones who are starting to panic, chill. No one is going to haul you away to the nick and your bike away to the police station just because you can't prove you own it. I couldn't prove ownership of mine either. The absolute MOST that would likely be done is note made of the bike you were riding and your details in case it was reported stolen later - and that really is the most, I suspect most members of the public will simply be cycling by. The operation sounds like a decent, proactive op and as a cyclist, I'd welcome it.

Sigh. Go on, I'm ready now. Let loose with the police state posts, the arguments of your right to not be hassled, and basically all the other complaints that some people tend to love using - until the moment they actually become a victim of crime.

 

[ColinJ]

Not entirely the best advice to give.

Maybe supplying your name and address so the police can at least verify who you are would be a good idea otherwise you may find yourself arrested on suspicion of theft of pedal cycle.

Have you heard of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

I did a quick search for the PCEA 1984 and found that it was modified by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and according to that Wikipedia article ...

Police constables may arrest anyone they have reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of an offence they suspect has been committed. These powers to arrest only apply if one or more of the following reasons apply:

1. To enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his "real name")
2. As reason 1 but in respect of the person's address

(etc.)

So they need to have a 'reasonable' suspicion that you are riding a stolen bike, but once they have that you do have to talk to them. I suppose you could try arguing that didn't have reasonable grounds to suspect that your bike was nicked but you'd have to talk to them to do that, and I don't think you'd get further than the police station if you did!

 

[wiggydiggy]

Mountain out of a molehill here surely? Besides if you get stopped just lock it to the nearest lampost. Let em try and take it then