A police officer in Lincolnshire reportedly threatened to confiscate a bicycle that was being ridden on the pavement by a four-year-old girl, leaving her in tears and forcing her father to carry both her and her bicycle to school.
According to the Grantham Journal, Sophie Lindley was riding her bike, which has stabilisers fitted, on a pavement on Trent Road last Monday morning as she headed to West Grantham Academy St John’s.
The youngster was accompanied by her father Dale, who was holding her by a lead.
He told the newspaper: “A police car pulled over and told me she had to get off her bike as it is against the law to ride on the footpath.
“He then drove off but said he’d be checking his mirrors, and if he saw her riding the bike again he would confiscate it.”
With his daughter in tears, Mr Lindley carried her and her bicycle, as well as other items, for the remainder of their journey.
Sophie’s mother, Emma Lindley, and her grandmother, Margaret Stephenson, both rang the town’s police station to complain – and were given conflicting responses.
“One said the law applied to everyone – no-one can ride a bike on the pavement,” explained Mrs Stephenson. “But another said it shouldn’t have happened, as it’s different with children.”
Mrs Lindley said: “You can’t expect a four-year-old to ride in the road, it’s not exactly safe. And she has the lead and wears a helmet.”
Her husband added: “We don’t have a car, and it’s almost two miles to the school. She can’t walk that with her little legs, which is why she’s always had the bike.”
The Grantham Journal says Lincolnshire Police have so far been unable to identify the officer who told Sophie to get off her bike.
A spokesman said: “Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children, officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”
Cycling on the pavement is illegal under section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888 and is nowadays punishable by a fixed penalty notice, although the law does not give police officers powers to confiscate a bicycle.
However, official guidance issued by then Home Office minister Paul Boateng in 1999 is that police officers should use their discretion.
In a letter to senior police officers, Mr Boateng said: “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.”
Last year, transport minister Robert Goodwill, who is responsible for cycling, confirmed that Mr Boateng’s guidance remained valid.
The Association of Chief Police Officers subsequently issued a statement which said: “We welcome the re-issued guidance from the Minister for Cycling in respect of cycling on the pavement and have re-circulated this to all local forces.”





















80 thoughts on “Police officer threatens to confiscate bike from 4-year-old – for riding on pavement”
You just couldn’t make it up
You just couldn’t make it up could you? What a fecking idiot. You really have to hope the plod is identified and charged with wasting police time.
Stupid law is clearly
Stupid law is clearly pointless, it is a detriment to cycling and should be scraped outright.
Cycling on pavements is dangerous? No it is not, reality shows that.
The pavement is a good place to learn cycling and gain confidence for all ages, making it illegal is a barrier to cycling.
The law against riding on the pavements was written for people riding horses, not bikes and should not have been extended to include bikes.
Every time I try to remind
Every time I try to remind myself what a difficult job the police have, one of them goes and does something to make me think that they’re really just a bunch of tw&ts.
And their Chief Constable is
And their Chief Constable is in the press complaining how Lincolnshire’s force is undermanned and can’t take any of the proposed cuts. If there were less officers like this and more doing the job correctly they wouldn’t be so stretched. X(
If that is true- I am sure
If that is true- I am sure that the Bobby’s mother is very proud of him upholding the law!
Mr Lindley, however, is
Mr Lindley, however, is deserving of much cake. Carrying the little one, and her bike and bag to school. Chapeau!
Unbelievable to pull over in
Unbelievable to pull over in a police car for a 4year old.
That 4 year old, given a mass
That 4 year old, given a mass of 20kg and speed of 3.2km/h (walking speed) would have a kinetic energy of 8.1 Joules, equivalent to the fastest cosmic rays! Imagine the devastation if she’d hit someone.
SamSkjord wrote:That 4 year
Appropriate calculation for a story from Grantham!
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Argh, Grantham … belatedly realise I could have got a ‘Bikesnatcher’ reference into the article 😉
Simon_MacMichael
Though I was thinking more of the other famous Granthamian, hence Newtonian physics seemed quite apposite.
I’m very surprised Grantham cops aren’t habitually armed, though, what with having to face down 4-year-old cyclists.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. It’s
Yeah, yeah, whatever. It’s bullshit and the parents are attention-seeking morons.
Kadinkski wrote:Yeah, yeah,
Hi there PC Kadinkski.
When it comes to adults
When it comes to adults cycling on the footpath, then I completely agree with the law, they should be on the road or cycle path, ( no excuses ).
As for kids, they should not even be allowed to cycle on the road until aged maybe 10 years and over due to general lack of awareness and judgement.
I ride on one footpath
I ride on one footpath regularly. It leads to a country pub, which from the side road I use is 50 yards away on the same side of a busy B-road (40 mph limit- often ignored).
I could cross the road, cycle along 50 yards and cross back, or dismount and walk the 50 yards. My decision is based on the presence of pedestrians (rare). If present, I dismount. If not, I cycle slowly along the footpath. Except that about 50% of the time, someone has parked across it. But hey – *that’s* OK…
There used to be an exemption
There used to be an exemption in law for children cycling on the pavement, although I believe a “child’s cycle” was not precisely defined.
Or did I dream this? Somebody out there must know.
I do thing I remember during
I do thing I remember during a time at school when police visited, talking about road safety and describing cycle proficiency test, it was said that wheels 16″ or smaller are allowed on the footpath.
But I guess they may have been describing what they regard are acceptable under the their discretion.
The police have no power to
The police have no power to confiscate a child’s bike. The word this plod was looking for was STEAL!
Is it still a bicycle if it
Is it still a bicycle if it has stabilisers…4 wheels??
The law against riding on the
The law against riding on the footway is from 1835 and uses the word ‘carrige’, not bicycle. A carrige can certainly have four wheels.
bet he wouldn’t behave the
bet he wouldn’t behave the same towards his own kids being
on the pavement and safe as opposed to being “targets” for the
arse holes in cars !!!!!
wonder if he pointed out where a 4 year old should be riding ???
Was she cycling furiously and
Was she cycling furiously and dangerously? A Ladybird or Slug may have been harmed.
This is what forces people to
This is what forces people to buy cars and exacerbate the problem. I live in central Manchester and the catchment is a third of a mile and yet half the parents drive there, making it too dangerous for my children to cycle. So they have to walk or ride the pavement.
The law requires change to
The law requires change to protect children. It needs to explicitly allow children to cycle on the pavement, rather than the age of criminal consent exempting those under 10 from prosecution creating a loophole (in Scotland at least).
As for that particular officer, well… let’s hope his next trip to the loo involves giving birth to a terrified hedgehog.
It is my understanding that
It is my understanding that it is not possible to issue a fixed penalty to someone under the age of 16. At which point whilst they are technically breaking the law by cycling on the pavement they cannot be punished for it.
I would have pushed my luck
I would have pushed my luck and tested his threat of confiscation. That would push the issue beyond being just an anecdotal incident and the bad publicity the police would get would be worth it.
Come Monday morning he should
Come Monday morning he should find someone to drive behind him to keep safe then he and his daughter should ride down the middle of the road at 2mph. Not breaking any laws then, make sure to call the local paper beforehand.
In Sydney you can ride on the footpath up to 14 years old and an adult can accompany. I think changing the law to something like that makes more sense then plod’s discretion as it as at the moment.
Quote:It is my understanding
This seems to be correct – Certinally children under 10 cannot be served a Fixed penalty notice (as they are below the age of criminal responsibility)
‘Confiscating’ the bike seems to be totally outside of the police’s powers, and may even be an assault.
The one question I would have – could the parent be liable for a fine if they are present and allow the child to cycle on the pavement?
http://www.ridingabike.co.uk/html/cycling_myths_busted.html
Personally – this is just outrageous.
This week I saw 4 policemen
This week I saw 4 policemen patrolling on foot on the same road, in pairs, near a primary school, I thought at the time it was unusual to see so many bobbys actually out walking, now I realise, they were hoping to leap on any unsuspecting 4 year old’s riding their bikes home.
I always understood it that a
I always understood it that a child under the age of 10 years old was exempted from the law with regard to cycling on the footpath provided that they were not riding in a fashion that would endanger other users.
As a side-note the Police Operational Handbook 2015 makes no mention of discretion either for age nor vulnerability. The Officer was therefore factually correct.
This makes him a ‘Good’ Officer but not a ‘Good’ person.
“Policing with Pride” indeed.
If I’d been that cop, I
If I’d been that cop, I would’ve tased her. That’ll show her.
The law is the law. The
The law is the law. The officer was correctly doing his job…
Which actually highlights the need for serious raised kerb safe cycleways throughout Lincolnshire.
Thanks officer!
AJ101 wrote:The law is the
I never knew that policemen could confiscate vehicles without even a court. I look forward to this law being applied to law breaking motorists.
Sounds like the police are
Sounds like the police are just as bad as they are in US… at least here they also pick on adults.
Modern, developed nations do not near the police forces they think they do… consider, when is the last time you had to call the police? when was the last time you saw/heard about a police officer wasting time? (this article is good example).
We have far too many regulations and laws and too many police to along with them. This is a area where we can cut tax spending. Of course the police themselves are all too happy to tell us that we desperately need them. But it is not true.
I’m struggling to accept this
I’m struggling to accept this was a regular Police Officer. Not even a bobby fresh out of training school would do such a thing, surely?
My money is on this being an officious, and very immature volunteer police officer or a ‘Special’ trying to play the part and failing miserably and horrendously… or even a PCSO or a civilian employee who thinks he’s a cop on his way to taking the police car in for a service. It happens, cos it happened to me once and the guy pretending to be a cop who stopped me for doing 43 in a 40 limit was a mechanic for the police. He got nicked for impersonating a cop. It happens. I really don’t want to think a real cop did this. Road cc need to chase this up. So do lincs Police.
If this really did happen
If this really did happen like this then that Police officer is a jobs-worth prat with the common sense of a lemming.
As for those that feel it’s OK for children on pavements but no adults with no excuses. I ride often with my kids (from age 4 to 11). When out on the country lanes (with no pavement) we always feel safe – I have to as my youngest is on a bike train behind me. But to get to these lanes we have to travel about a mile along a busy A road. My choice, travel on the road with them or use the single narrow pavement/path that is on one side of the road only. There rarely anyone walking on them anyway. I tried going on the road once, far too many plonkers who passed way to closely despite a nice wide road with ample room to take a wide berth – we we use the path for that mile and never had a spot of bother – even when passed by Police. But, what are those with strong views on this?
Of course common sense must prevail. We don’t all possess the same levels of common sense, and I’m afraid it can’t be taught either. But ministerial guide lines aren’t law and this is where arguments and defences fall down. The law needs to be changed, such as provision in law for parents riding with young children and kids on the way to school.
I can safely say that if that had been me, with that officer then my daughter would have continued on her bike. The officer would most certainly not have been confiscating, and if he had attempted to issue a ticket to my daughter (because after all it was the daughter committing the offence) then it would have been torn up. Let them bring it to court and let him show himself to be the prat of a Policeman that he clearly was on that day.
Rdpearsonuk wrote:…. far
seems to be part of driver instruction today, 5 uncomfortable close passes on my 100mile ride.
one on a road that narrowed suddenly, one a taxi (all other taxi drivers were great) and 3 learner drivers under ‘instruction’ really what is the point in being in the car with dual controls and then letting the learner do dangerous stuff. Might as well just give them a manual to read and send them out.
If a child receives a fine
If a child receives a fine then the parents are responsible for the payment.
If this incident actually happened then i concur the officer is a complete muppet. In relation to seizing items if the said item was used in committing an offence we can seize it but by god if anyone on my team brought in a 4yr olds bike for what is described in the article they would be told in no uncertain terms to return it immediately by our supervision.
It could well be a special or a cso driving the car and to be honest there are some who dont know their arse from their elbow.
stumps wrote:In relation to
How about bringing in a car which was used in dangerous driving?
I’d have tasered the brat and
I’d have tasered the brat and planted smack on the dad.
Maybe that’s why I failed the entry exam.
felixcat – its impossible for
felixcat – its impossible for me to say yes or no as its all depending on the circs, yes we have the power to uplift a vehicle but we have to be able to justify it, hence my comment about being told to return the bike straightaway.
Dangerous driving can include the condition of the vehicle, what it was carrying, how it was carrying said items etc so its not just the manner of the driving that constitutes dangerous driving.
So if a vehicle was in a dangerous condition or dangerous load then it would be uplifted, or if the dangerous driving included serious injury or death it would be uplifted. Hope that better illustrates it.
stumps wrote:
Dangerous
Is it necessary that the vehicle should be ” in a dangerous condition or dangerous load”, not just driven dangerously, for it to be confiscated? If this is the case, then the child’s bike, as far as the story goes, could not be confiscated and it is not just the absurd triviality which made you say that the policeman would be out of order. I don’t want to belabour the point, but I want to get to the bottom of what you think your powers are. You joined in this thread to tell us that a policeman might be within his powers to confiscate the child’s bike. If I am mistaken here I am glad to hear it.
Thick pigs throwing their
Thick pigs throwing their weight around. F*****g bullies. Shame on them for making a 4 year old girl cry. Is there no depths the Filth won’t lower themselves to? The git copper who told the girl he would confiscate her bike needs sacking.
Quote:If a child receives a
Are you saying that a child under 10 CAN be issued with a fixed penalty notice?
As a serving Police officer I
As a serving Police officer I find this very hard to believe that it was a fellow officer, if it was their Sergeant needs to kick their arse from here to kingdom come, yes as the law states
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
but the response should always be…
Whilst there is no exemption to this law for children, the police have always used common sense and discretion in exercising their powers over children cycling on the pavement. Very young children should not be expected to cycle on the road and we would not recommend any child does so until they have received cycle training. Children under the age of 10 are below the age of criminal responsibility, hence they cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. Enforcement of cycling on pavements is usually dealt with by a fixed penalty notice, which cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16.
Heaven help us if this it what is being turned out as police officers now!!
X( X( X(
scottharkins1971 wrote:As a
Kinda…but you’ve missed the point – together with all other posters so far I think – that the *guidance* issued by Paul Boateng (in 1999, when/shortly after fixed-penalty fines were brought in for pavement cycling IIRC) specifically allows for such discretion for those cycling responsibly, and was reiterated by Robert Goodwill (transport minister) last year.
oh what I wouldn’t give for a
oh what I wouldn’t give for a delete post button!
Meanwhile, whilst I was out
Meanwhile, whilst I was out and about today I came across this. It was left like that for at least an hour blocking the segregated path next to a busy high street (which has parking spaces!).
I also saw a Police car drive past it.
Image courtesy of Fly6 😉
Hard to pick up a BMW and put
Hard to pick up a BMW and put it in the boot.
Flying Scot wrote:Hard to
Leave a BMW blocking a red route, and they’ll find a way to pick it up and move it away quite quickly.
The problem is that parking is enforced by local authorities rather than the Police, and most simply ignore incidents such as this. There are many mandatory lanes in London that are regularly abused by local commercial companies (minicabs for example), and nothing is done about it.
Put this officer on bike
Put this officer on bike patrol duties for the next year.
gazza_d wrote:Put this
If he had confiscated the bike he should have been compelled to use it as his official police patrol vehicle from then on. I’m sure they could stick a flashing blue light on it somewhere.
FluffyKittenofTindalos
Which reminds me of being on holiday in Jamaica, stopped at a roadside drinks bar where two bicycle mounted police officers had also stopped. I took photographs of their bikes which had both red and blue lights fitted to the handlebars and I speculated to my companions that if these cops were obliged to pursue anyone they might need to go “Nee Nah Nee Nah” until they ran out of breath.
Of course, for all I know the bikes might have had sirens fitted as well as flashing lights but I thought it politic not to explore the point with the officers.
Put this 4 yr old on tag,
Put this 4 yr old on tag, that will learn her.
Oink oink
Oink oink
The article states:-
The
The article states:-
The youngster was accompanied by her father Dale, who was holding her by a lead.
Would he not be better off using a choke chain? 👿
felixcat – as i said we have
felixcat – as i said we have the powers to seize items BUT we have to justify why we have taken it and for what reason and in this scenario i cant see a reason to justify it. So ultimately we could have taken the bike but i dont know any officer i work with who would actually do it, thats the difference.
Just like the law states that you can get 5 years imprisonment for theft on first conviction – it will never happen.
As for the fines scenario mentioned earlier, if a child, because until they go to Mags court they are classed as a child / youth, and go to youth court the parent is responsible for the payment.
We wont give a penalty ticket to a child.
If you still cant get your head around it check out one of the many websites which explains the law in all its finer points.
Why do the English hate
Why do the English hate children? This wouldn’t happen in other countries.
Kim wrote:Why do the English
Cos they ride on the footpaths. Little shits.
Put em down the
Put em down the mines…..oops Mrs Thatcher closed em,
The last cyclist/police
The last cyclist/police interaction I witnessed was when a PC stepped into the road to allow an adult cyclist to proceed unhindered along the pavement.
This was at a location where the road is wide and has a green painted cycle lane.
Confusing.
(No subject)

During a cycle-training
During a cycle-training session, I was outside a school teaching five young riders the folly of pavement riding, when, yes, two cycling bobbies came along – on the pavement.
They pulled up showing genuine interest in the cycle-training, and offered to help at any future sessions.
Some banter ensued when I politely pointed out that perhaps they should have been riding on the road and not the pavement.
“Ah, we have dispensation so we can chase criminals.” “That’s Our Job”, they proudly told the youngsters, puffing out their chests and patting their equipment pouches.
We all looked around, and I asked my trainees if they could see any ‘criminals’. There were none to be seen, so I suggested that the two policemen seemed to have lost their quarry, much to the amusement of the children.
This caused them to change tack, with…
“Ah, but it is best to ride on the pavement when there is so much dangerous traffic”.
So I asked my trainees, who were now clearly enjoying the exchange, if they could see any ‘dangerous’ traffic.
We all looked up and down the near deserted road.
“Yes, there is a parked car over there” said one, – and that was it.
Nothing else, zilch, not even the local vicar with a shopping basket.
There followed a sheepish, “We must be on our way; lots of baddies to catch” from PC Senior Bobby, and I wished them a pleasant and safe ride. His junior, gave a knowing wink back at us as they left.
As the two set off, we stood and watched with jaws hanging, as one went along the road, while PC Senior Bobby bunny-hopped onto the …..pavement.
It didn’t take me long to decide whether they could indeed help with any future training.
keepontriking wrote:
“Ah, we
LOL – strange how that’s always the case when asked. I suspect they might have a dispensation ‘when’ on a call, but I doubt it’s when just on patrol.
keepontriking wrote:During a
=))
Nice one.
Ignorant f*****s.
I hope the said office in
I hope the said office in this article is named and shamed.
Disgraceful…
Disgraceful…
It must be true, it was in
It must be true, it was in the paper :^o
I would say it’s ok to ride
I would say it’s ok to ride on the pavement if, and only if, you have stabilisers on your bike.
pruaga wrote:I would say it’s
My son is 2. He has a balance bike and will never have stabilisers. I hope to get him a pedal bike for his 3rd birthday – do you think he’ll be ready for the road then?
jamesv wrote:pruaga wrote:I
Ok, fair point! 😀
pruaga wrote:jamesv
Ok, fair point! 😀— pruaga
My kids were 4 and 3 respectively when they learned to ride a bicycle, progressing straight from a balance bike and not being hindered by the use of stabilisers. A lot of kids our way learn to ride pretty young. I wouldn’t expect children to ride on the road until they’re 10 at the earliest, and even then, only on quieter roads and only after having some cycle training.
The risk of pedestrians being injured by pavement riding is minimal however. I wish people would see sense over this. They’re far more likely to be injured by a motor vehicle making an unplanned excursion onto the pavement.
pruaga wrote:I would say it’s
I’d say it’s ok to ride wherever is safest based on your immediate risk assessment of the situation. Riding through a town centre pedestrian area aside and based on a public highway without vehicle or cycle restrictions.
If ticketed I’d consider a counter claim of malicious prosecution.
Hopefully offending PC or impersonator is identified and suitable disciplined & re-trained.
I regularly cycle through a ‘cyclists dismount’ narrow footway next to a one way under bridge. I stop if someone is coming the other way and let them pass me, as I take up much less room sat on my bike leaning against the wall than I do stood next to it.
If I was her dad I’d have
If I was her dad I’d have told the PC to take the bike off her, but warned him against touching her!
I would have thrown that kid
I would have thrown that kid in the slammer and tazerd the ol’ fella.
Mike T. wrote:I would have
Just genuinely laughed out loud at this! Chapeau, sir.
I too am amazed that this
I too am amazed that this should happen – my kids ride on the pavement until we reach quieter roads as we live close to the South Circular in London. I do wonder sometimes why serving police officers who are also keen cyclists (and are sympathetic to the issues) like Stumps bother to post sometimes. They explain the law, and how the system works, often acknowledging the constraints that frustrate them, because, much as we all like to think we know the law, we are often wrong. They (he in this case) then gets a truckload of abuse for his pains as if he had written the law and was responsible for deciding how it should be implemented. it strikes me being a police officer is a bit like learning to drive. First you learn to pass your test, then you learn how to drive. There are some bad drivers with test passes, and there are some police officers who clearly have no common sense or idea of how to use discretion correctly. But there are many more that have more of these skills than I do, and I have been grateful to them in the past for the quiet word, rather than the heavy hand. I also find that the way I speak to them helps – I’m sure the dad wasn’t short or rude, but it never helps…
What Mid Life Crisis
So, the non-existent law compelling him to threaten to confiscate a bicycle was one he was helplessly enforcing, whether he liked it or not?
No, this officer is an obvious arsehole, making stuff up on the spot in order to intimidate the public into doing whatever he tells them.
He gets a truckload of abuse because he is a bully, unfit to do his job; not because of what corner the law paints him into.
The kid escaped lightly. If
The kid escaped lightly. If it had happened up here in Scotland, our routinely-armed cops would probably have shot her…
“sensitivity and careful use
:O “sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.” isn’t in the cards for officers with the intent on Ruling the Peasants harshly. Post this officers name as he is likely terrorizing so many others with abuse of authority. And, please, alter the law for those under 12 years old, over 65 or the disabled to ride safely as it is apparent “Discretion” is horribly missing in many officers abilities.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/01/court-oks-barring-smart-people-from-beco