Police Info

[Simon]

Criminal damage, end of.

Accept the fact and stop trying to argue the law.

Plead your case, tell them your move on, make sure you get into the conversation that you have no where to go as well, that usually shuts them up for a bit.

If their a fanny about it, then sure, argue the law which your only 50% sure about but otherwise just get out of the fine, their usually alright about it.

[Robwalker]

Nice to see support for our support from one of the 'senior' members from the forum. In what way is it criminal damage? Damaging the pavements with my tyres?

Sort it out you stuck up, tunnel visioned, prickface, f**k.

[Simon]

Nice to see support for our support from one of the 'senior' members from the forum. In what way is it criminal damage? Damaging the pavements with my tyres?

Sort it out you stuck up, tunnel visioned, prickface, f**k.

I'm not even going to bother typing a response to that, as it may upset your nursery school teacher because i'll be using bigger words then she is teaching you, as thats clearly the stage of education you are at.

[Tomm]

Sort it out you stuck up, tunnel visioned, prickface, f**k.

Um

Street trials is criminal damage. You can say it's not if you have - hand on heart - never come up short on a tap/gap/ whatever and landed on your bash. That's nobody on here. Basically you're an idiot.

Whether or not it's worth arresting you/ fining you for is clearly up to the police man/woman who catches you. I reckon if you're nice, friendly, civil etc and move on when asked you'll most likely get away with it. But if you're an obnoxious spoilt teenager who wants to show off to his mates and argue, then you probably deserve all you get.

[Walleee]

Nice to see support for our support from one of the 'senior' members from the forum. In what way is it criminal damage? Damaging the pavements with my tyres?

Sort it out you stuck up, tunnel visioned, prickface, f**k.

haha I can't believe you don't get it! It's funny how the internet can give you impressions of people, like them being intelligent....

[Robwalker]

I'm not even going to bother typing a response to that, as it may upset your nursery school teacher because i'll be using bigger words then she is teaching you, as thats clearly the stage of education you are at.

Or because you dont want to make a fool of yourself? Although i must say i do adore your pathetic attempt at a comeback. However... Well, just doesnt work does it?

Um

Street trials is criminal damage. You can say it's not if you have - hand on heart - never come up short on a tap/gap/ whatever and landed on your bash. That's nobody on here. Basically you're an idiot.

Whether or not it's worth arresting you/ fining you for is clearly up to the police man/woman who catches you. I reckon if you're nice, friendly, civil etc and move on when asked you'll most likely get away with it. But if you're an obnoxious spoilt teenager who wants to show off to his mates and argue, then you probably deserve all you get.

And to both of you two, seriously... Um ?

I dont know how you got from being able to cycle legaly on paths, to riding street trials? Im not saying that trials isnt crinimal damage, infact i can come up for a number of reasons for and against. But am i wrong to be thinking that members of the forum and trials community should atleast try to support the sport?

But anyway lets keep it on topic eh?

[Will Fairburn]

there are gunna be so many 20"s after reading this topic

Haha nice one Ash

[mettam1988]

basically if you arent a kid dont ride on the pavement and you wont get a fine, its pretty simple. if you want to take the risk then dont complain if you get caught. its like speeding, ive never understood people who argue about it with the officer. if youve done wrong be man aenough to admit it.

its not like pedalling makes u go much faster on a trials bike anyway, might as well get off and walk to be honest.

and simons right, if your hopping about on walls and leaving marks etc then its a fair cop.

[craigjames]

Or because you dont want to make a fool of yourself? Although i must say i do adore your pathetic attempt at a comeback. However... Well, just doesnt work does it?

And to both of you two, seriously... Um ?

I dont know how you got from being able to cycle legaly on paths, to riding street trials? Im not saying that trials isnt crinimal damage, infact i can come up for a number of reasons for and against. But am i wrong to be thinking that members of the forum and trials community should atleast try to support the sport?

But anyway lets keep it on topic eh?

i gotta agree with him, the topic is about riding on the pavement with which i have got stopped about but not fined before. no one mentioned street riding or any type of trials. if there is a legal lopop hole whcih can be proved than that fantastic and great somebody is highlighting a potential get out clause. no need to get all bitchy about it really is there.

somebody check it up, it'll be on the web somewhere. cheers tom for highlighting the potential 30 quid saver to em and a lot of riders

edit:spelling

Edited March 12, 2007 by curly_freak

[Sneakers O'Toole]

Pavement for people

Road for wheels

I don't get what the fuss is about???

You don't see roadies riding on the pavement. Obviously anyone that rides street will ride on the pavement but you gotta at least admit what your doing is probably against the law.

[B.E.A.U]

ive been pulled for having no saddle and no lights before yes lights i can understand i cant fit one on the back though ive tried it eitehr dont fit or i kick it off pedaling. they said i was being cheeky when i explaind so i rode off n just left em. they have also in my area had a go for my rear brake and wide bars i mean wtf wide bars ow you going to knok someone over.

there twats they cant do there jobs at all they cant catch people unless there n a car either

[Simon]

no need to get all bitchy about it really is there.

Take note kids.

By the way, Rob, instead of spending my time thinking of colourful words to throw at you, i actually looked into this.

I've now read a fair chunk of around 6 legislations that may shed light on the subject.

I found an awesome website that pretty much answers every single one of your questions, but for the lesser able amongst us, i've extracted a few important sections.

It is important to note that most legislation relating to 'cycling on footpaths' actually relates to the riding of cycles on a 'footway set aside for the use of pedestrians' which runs alongside a road. For example, the 'fixed penalties' brought in a few years ago do NOT apply country footpaths where there is no road. Fixed penalty notices also cannot be applied to areas such as parks, shopping precincts etc. unless a byelaw has been passed making cycling such areas an offence, nor do they apply to anyone under 16.

"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. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

To sum up, the website has again done it for me, kinda annoyed i spent near on an hour looking through fooking wank goverment websites which are no help at all.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are 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 road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

[CBProductions]

Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement

Does that mean we will see high ranking officers on the beat rather than the twisted power hungry c**ks. I think not. I believe that this legislation needs revising and altering. In all fairness they cant give out random penalties to one part of the country and have others just looking on. A set law does need to be made and we as a forum should make a ple to let us have some sorts of rights when it comes to all this.

[chrishayton]

Basically riding on the pavement is dangeous to pedestrians. you turn a corner and bump into someone, you fault. you fall off and bump into someone, your fault. someone steps infront of you and you collide, its your fault. Imagine you didnt do trials and then think about what your saying. bikes on pavements are just dangerous, trials the least i supose due to good brakes and control but still. i know its a bitch and i ride on the pavement all the time. but if you get spoken to be polite, explain about how you feel scared riding on the road and just again be polite!, i have never been fined and i rode in the centre of manc 3 times a week for 2 years, and because i was very polite they let me off all the time.

At the end of the day trials is always in the wrong unless your riding on the road safely.

[guineasmithpig]

i guess what the legislation is saying is that reckless use of the pavements by cyclists is frowned upon, and thats the instance that the fixed fine should be applied. but if you are using the pavement responsibly and cautiously, then they can't just slam you with a fine

in such a case, i'd explain to the officer that i'm riding responsibly and taking care not to endanger pedestrians. and if he feels compelled to get me off the pavement then i'll ride on the road at danger to myself. but if he's gonna automatically stick a fine in my face, i'll contest it with his superior powers.

and i think the point that Simon is getting at is that, if they've seen you hoping on items of public property and generally 'dicking about' (in their eyes) then they're going to assume that your a danger to the public. trials is totally alien to most people, and they don't understand it. with the amount of chavvy youth culture around town centres at the moment, i don't blame them. all young people getting tarred with the same brush, even though we are doing something constructive and exercising our creative and sporting sides. and in such a case, you'd be lucky that they don't pull the 'criminal damage' game on you for even the slightest scratch to something.

oh, and on a final note, i think it would be wise to respect the 'elders' on the forum a little more. they have seen trials progress over many years now, and this sort of thing has been going on for a loooooong time now, with no change occuring. and i'm pretty sure it never will, possibly even getting worse, due to the youth culture mentioned previously

Smithy

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I've heard this stuff before about wheels under 20" and small frame sizes being allowed on the pavement and technically it may be right but the law is in place to allow 3 year olds with stabilisers to ride on the pavements.

Whenever I'm riding on the pavement and I see the fuzz I get off and start walking. Was riding in Aberdeen once with Fraz Milloy when we came towards some polizei- I got off and started walking and Fraz rode straight past them and got collared! They told him he should've taken my lead and started walking, just common sense really.

On the point of criminal damage, even if you don't end up on bash, you're tyres will still be leaving marks which could be seen as graffiti and again (in theory) you could be done.

I've never been properly done by the police for riding trials, on or off the pavement, but have obviously been asked to move on and usually if you're pleasant to them and don't make a fuss nothing usually comes of it. There will always be those evil nasty Nazi's giving the fuzz a bad name but that's life- there are always arseholes out there trying to stop anyone enjoying themselves. Just ride away and have a laugh at his expense (out of earshot of course!).

Dave

[Simon]

I've heard this stuff before about wheels under 20" and small frame sizes being allowed on the pavement and technically it may be right but the law is in place to allow 3 year olds with stabilisers to ride on the pavements.

No where says anything about frame sizes, atleast, not that i could see.

I can't find anywhere that has a full copy of The Highways Act 1835 to fully check though, but the 1980 one doesn't say anything about frame sizes, and nor can i find any updates to either acts, or any related act mentioning frame sizes.

It is just age, as far as i can see.

[poopipe]

sensible words

yeah - you generally just have to exercise a bit of common sense and you won't get shafted.

I pretty much only ride on the pavement these days - the trials bike is too slow for the roads and the bmx has no brakes so I'm buggered if I'm gonna risk rush hour traffic on either of them.

I regularly ride past coppers on the pavement on both bikes round here and haven't once been asked to get off and walk - I think it's because I ride at walking pace when there's people about, give way to pedestrians (they have a right to be there - i don't) and generally try not to be a nuisance. If I were asked to get off and walk I'd do it straight away and only get back on when the cozzers were out of sight

[F-Stop Junkie]

There's a good article HERE

No provision for children's bikes, or anything with a small seat tube.

[Simon]

There's a good article HERE

No provision for children's bikes, or anything with a small seat tube.

Welcome to 10 posts ago Chris.

[Hendrix]

I'm searching the tinternet for something that says the 20" thing.

But it seems right to me - and like a copper can be arsed to ring in?

Most cops, unless they're on bikes, wont be bother to go after you, if you bolt if they show up...

...so when you hear "oi, you" - BOLT!

[Tomm]

On that site that Simon linked to, the main thing seems to be that it's up to the Police officer's discretion. So even if there was a law about riding small-wheeled bikes on pavements (And I'm not convinced that there is, I've looked before), it sounds like the Police could probably still use their discretion to come down hard on you if you're being a cock.

Besides, if they really wanted to 'do' you for something, I'm sure there are hundreds of little laws that you are breaking (disrupting the peace and that sort of thing). So best thing is just to try and be polite. Also, you have to think that trials is a fairly small community, and that by arguing and causing trouble you'll probably give us all a bad name.

I assumed from the start of this thread that this was about riding trials bikes in town centres. If you actually use your trials bike for transport, then you can ignore what I said in the previous post about criminal damage, but I think it probably applies to 99% of us

[Hendrix]

I can't do damage...

'cause I can't do jumps yet

[joe b]

Nice to see support for our support from one of the 'senior' members from the forum. In what way is it criminal damage? Damaging the pavements with my tyres?

Sort it out you stuck up, tunnel visioned, prickface, f**k.

Where the f**k did that come from . He was stating a clear fact, like Tomm backed him up on, street trials is pretty much criminal damage - you can deny it all you want but thats reality, unfortunately .

This topic shows another advantage natural has over street...

Cheers,

Joe.

Edited March 13, 2007 by joe b

[Netherking]

trust me theres a bald b*****d on a mission round Hull, been giving out fines to us lot like nobodies business

i just got a f**king fine!!

that bald b*****d sure gets around. hes in ipswich apprently.

gave me a £30 fine for bumping onto the pavement to enter the shop where i work!!

i hate it, stupid power hungry pigs