Home
Force issues apology for inaccurate leaflet

Hampshire Police has apologised for a leaflet sent out by one of its neighbourhood policing teams which featured an inaccurate list of ‘endorsable’ cycling offences. One of the ‘offences’ listed was “Cycle helmets used correctly”.

Failing to wear a cycle helmet is not an offence – and using one correctly most certainly isn’t.

Other supposed offences associated with a ‘minimum’ £50 fine included ‘No cycle lights fitted’ and ‘Cycle lights not illuminated’ – there is no requirement for lights to be fitted during the day; and also ‘Cycle carrying more than one person’ – which would be bad news to those on tandems.

In a statement, Hampshire Police said:

“We would like to apologise for any confusion caused by incorrect information contained in a leaflet handed out by a school in Totton.

“We have looked into this and it would appear that a final version was issued without final approval by Hampshire Constabulary.”

The force also published the correct information about cycling offences which could result in a fixed penalty notice of £50. These are not endorsable offences in that points are not applied to a driver’s licence.

  • Contravening traffic sign / road markings
  • Cyclist failing to stop when directed by uniformed PC / Traffic Warden
  • A standard pedal cycle carrying more than one person
  • Cycling on footway

Lights not illuminated (when riding between sunset and sunrise)

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

40 comments

Avatar
StraelGuy [956 posts] 6 months ago
5 likes

*Ahem* Cockwombles *Cough*...

Avatar
tritecommentbot [2268 posts] 6 months ago
17 likes

Apostrophe mayhem.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [1252 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes

'poor interaction with other road users/members of local community' .....

 

Is this joke?

Avatar
Dr_Lex [426 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes

"...other road user's" 

Other road user's what? That entire sentence reads poorly, too.  Then "users'" and "members'".

 

Tw@tmuffins

Avatar
usedtobefaster [197 posts] 6 months ago
1 like
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

'poor interaction with other road users/members of local community' .....

 

Is this joke?

 

Unfortunately not.

I recieved it as a PDF attachment via the ParentMail email system from my daughters secondary school.

Avatar
Al__S [1227 posts] 6 months ago
5 likes

"Issued without final approval"? But who made it? Who is being retrained so that they all understand the law when producing similar materials?

Avatar
Arceye [21 posts] 6 months ago
7 likes
  •  A standard pedal cycle carrying more than one person

Unless specifically adapted to do so, such as adding a child seat.

 

  • poor interaction with other road users/members of local community

So does this mean when a dumb ass driver creates a dangerous situation, it is against the law for me to ignore the situation and carry on riding.

Instead I must interact with them completely, tell them how much of a dumb ass they are, and that they don't deserve the right to be behind the wheel of a killing machine, then I must also get the attention of an innocent member of the local community and interact with them to make sure they saw the dumb ass actions of the driver.

Avatar
Mungecrundle [803 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes

I'm pretty sure that I cycle with "no inconsiderate and dangerous bike manoeuvres".

Probably just my middle age related rebellion against authority. I blame non violent video games.

Avatar
STiG911 [255 posts] 6 months ago
3 likes
Al__S wrote:

"Issued without final approval"? But who made it? Who is being retrained so that they all understand the law when producing similar materials?

Hmm.  'Ignorance is no defence' springs to mind.

Avatar
patto583 [52 posts] 6 months ago
13 likes

The whole leaflet is badly written and full of inaccuracies. Whoever wrote it doesn't just need training in the law, but in the use of the English language.

Avatar
psling [252 posts] 6 months ago
5 likes

Even this sentence is ambiguous:

"“We would like to apologise for any confusion caused by incorrect information contained in a leaflet handed out by a school in Totton..."

Was the leaflet handed out by the Hampshire Constabulary or by the school? Or by the Constabulary by the school? And why is that bloke in the photo trying to eat an apple without using his hands?

Avatar
hoffbrandm [35 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes

with the standard amount of typos and errors on this site, and the fact they said 'hants police' in the titlle (which I didnt know was the twitter handle for hamps police) I honestly thought they had just screwed up again.  and a cyclist had been find for not wearing a helmet in hantshire...

Avatar
DaveE128 [885 posts] 6 months ago
2 likes

I would say it's unbelievable, but it's Hampshire Police... 

Truly idiotic.

Didn't anyone else notice that it also lists "due care and attention..." as an endorseable offence?

Avatar
Butty [200 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes
usedtobefaster wrote:
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

'poor interaction with other road users/members of local community' .....

 

Is this joke?

 

Unfortunately not.

I recieved it as a PDF attachment via the ParentMail email system from my daughters secondary school.

 

if she is under 10 or the school has not accepted the use of FPN's then she could not be fined.

 

 

Avatar
dafyddp [432 posts] 6 months ago
5 likes

A crime against grocers'

 

Avatar
dafyddp [432 posts] 6 months ago
2 likes

Not sure my the copper in the top photo is bollocking the cyclist. There's a guy in the background imitating a Naval Seal.

Avatar
ktache [565 posts] 6 months ago
1 like

We have to obey traffic wardens now?

Avatar
TheLonelyOne [350 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes

Based on that photo, maybe the law* about bag shoulder straps dangling within munching distance of a wheel's spokes is being explained.

* sod's (sods ? sods' ?)

Avatar
ooldbaker [102 posts] 6 months ago
2 likes
dafyddp wrote:

Not sure my the copper in the top photo is bollocking the cyclist. There's a guy in the background imitating a Naval Seal.

In my picture he is in the basket. But It can't be that causing the lecture as it is the only thing not on the list.

Avatar
Man of Lard [332 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes
usedtobefaster wrote:

recieved

Received?

Avatar
peted76 [657 posts] 6 months ago
1 like
unconstituted wrote:

Apostrophe mayhem.

Made me LOL

Avatar
Bikebikebike [311 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes

I try not to interact with other road users' members, poorly or otherwise. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter [784 posts] 6 months ago
1 like

Fake laws to go with the fake news

Avatar
usedtobefaster [197 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes
Man of Lard wrote:
usedtobefaster wrote:

recieved

Received?

 

oops.  Give me a break I'm an ungineer and spelling isn't my strongest skill  1

Avatar
CygnusX1 [464 posts] 6 months ago
2 likes
road.cc wrote:

Hampshire police threaten to fine cyclists for wearing a helmet

Saw this headline and was going to have a go at the road.cc hack for missing out the word "not" (with not in the headline it would be embarassing enough for plod), but...

road.cc wrote:

One of the ‘offences’ listed was “Cycle helmets used correctly”.

Failing to wear a cycle helmet is not an offence – and using one correctly most certainly isn’t.

Really? PSML

Oh, and apologies to Alex for thinking you had ballsed up the headline!

Avatar
cbrndc [46 posts] 6 months ago
5 likes

Hampshire Constabulary again falling over themselves in the rush to punish cyclists for doing nothing wrong.  How is the close pass initiative going?  Any evidence of any effort whatsoever?

Avatar
burtthebike [926 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes

Worthy of Trump.

'poor interaction with other road users/members of local community'  So they'll be fining themselves then.

Utterly crass and unlikely to lead to better relations between the police and cyclists.

 

Avatar
JonD [468 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes
STiG911 wrote:
Al__S wrote:

"Issued without final approval"? But who made it? Who is being retrained so that they all understand the law when producing similar materials?

Hmm.  'Ignorance is no defence' springs to mind.

Particularly when you'd expect the author, if writing with reference to the law, to first consult the HC and assorted relevant RTAs before they even put pen to paper.

Avatar
Awavey [310 posts] 6 months ago
10 likes
hoffbrandm wrote:

with the standard amount of typos and errors on this site, and the fact they said 'hants police' in the titlle (which I didnt know was the twitter handle for hamps police) I honestly thought they had just screwed up again.  and a cyclist had been find for not wearing a helmet in hantshire...

Hampshire is often abbreviated in written form to "Hants". The abbreviated form is derived from the Old English Hantum plus Scir (meaning a district governed from the settlement now known as Southampton) and the Anglo-Saxons called it Hamtunschire.At the time of the Domesday book when this leaflet was likely written it was compressed to Hantescire.

Avatar
kil0ran [400 posts] 6 months ago
3 likes

Before those pesky immigrant Norman hordes arrived from Calais Southampton was called Hamwic  1

To be fair to Hants Police they did react pretty quickly when the error of their ways was pointed out to them - instigated in part by Hants Police Cycling Club. They're also seeking out target areas for OpClosePass by engaging with local cyclists on Twitter. Positive signs...

Pages