Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

'Drunk' Mersey tunnel cyclists to be prosecuted for cycling while under the influence

Incident was captured on film by man in a passing car

Four men who cycled CityBikes through the Queensway tunnel after a night out are to be prosecuted for cycling when under the influence of drink or drugs. Footage of the incident had earlier spurred a Merseytravel committee member to call for a review of Mersey tunnel cycling rules.

The four cyclists reportedly took the decision to cycle home to Wallasey after a Boxing Day night out because they were unable to get a cab.

One of the cyclists, Jonny Ward, said: “It was a bit stupid and dangerous, and we’d had a few drinks – it wouldn’t have happened if we were sober – but it is legal to cycle at that time.”

It is not however legal to cycle when under the influence of drink. A Merseytravel spokeswoman told the Liverpool Echo that constables from the tunnels police force had stopped the cyclists at the time and will now prosecute.

“We are aware of the incident and can confirm that Mersey Tunnels Police stopped the cyclists who will be summonsed for prosecution under Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 – cycling when under the influence of drink or drugs.

“Cyclists using the Queensway tunnel are required to abide by the statutory regulations and laws that govern road users.”

According to Bike Hub’s page on Cycling and the Law, cyclists caught riding while intoxicated can be fined up to £2,500. Unlike driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, however, there is no set threshold beyond which an offence is committed.

The page says that unlike in some jurisdictions, cyclists found guilty of such an offence do not have their licences endorsed, although it also points out that under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, “the courts have the power to disqualify a cyclist from driving a car for any offence.”

There’s also a comprehensive analysis of the legal situation in the UK in this factsheet prepared by national cyclists’ charity, CTC.

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.

Add new comment

13 comments

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
1 like

Given the sentences they dish out to motorists what are going to do. Pay them?

Avatar
burtthebike | 8 years ago
0 likes

Did they endanger anyone else?  No, so is the continued legal action against them worth the resources it is taking?  Especially when drivers get away with killing cyclists and not being prosecuted?

Sorry, the ? key on my keyboard is stuck?

Avatar
Canyon48 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Almost feel like I'm the only one who agrees with them getting charged....

At the end of the day, they got caught breaking the law. What they did was *hilariously* stupid. I do also agree that the charge for driving offences is usually pathetic, but that's a diffirent story.

I don't see any need for cyclists to be banned from the tunnel though.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Canyon48 | 8 years ago
0 likes

wellsprop wrote:

Almost feel like I'm the only one who agrees with them getting charged....

At the end of the day, they got caught breaking the law. What they did was *hilariously* stupid. I do also agree that the charge for driving offences is usually pathetic, but that's a diffirent story.

I don't see any need for cyclists to be banned from the tunnel though.

I think it's a waste of time charging them even if they can prove "incapable of having proper control of the cycle". A simple warning from Mr Plod would surely do the trick and I doubt they're going to do it again. I personally don't want to see tax money wasted on this non-issue and a cycle-ban doesn't seem a proportional response either.

Avatar
Dan S | 8 years ago
0 likes

Proving it is not hard. Under the influence does not mean over a certain limit. It means "under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle". You simply look at how they were acting and decide based on that.

Given that one of then apparently said it was stupid and dangerous and wouldn't have happened if they'd been sober, proving this offence really isn't going to be a problem.

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 8 years ago
3 likes

What a fantastic use of time & funds...

Avatar
barbarus | 8 years ago
0 likes

So how did the driver of the car legally take that photo then?

Avatar
stewieatb replied to barbarus | 8 years ago
0 likes

barbarus wrote:

So how did the driver of the car legally take that photo then?

Click through to the Liverpool Echo article with the video - it's been filmed by the front seat passenger in the car.

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 8 years ago
0 likes

Unless they breathalysed them, how would they prove it?

Avatar
swldxer replied to Accessibility for all | 8 years ago
0 likes

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Unless they breathalysed them, how would they prove it?

That would prove nothing anyway, 2 pints is not drunk - it's only above the DD limit. It is not the same thing.

Avatar
kie7077 | 8 years ago
2 likes

1 month cycling ban, that'll show 'em.

Avatar
swldxer | 8 years ago
0 likes

Good luck with that - it has been successfully argued in the past that it is not possible to cycle when drunk. And of course, there is no breath test allowed either.

Avatar
Grumpy Bob replied to swldxer | 8 years ago
0 likes

swldxer wrote:

Good luck with that - it has been successfully argued in the past that it is not possible to cycle when drunk. And of course, there is no breath test allowed either.

Some years ago while riding  a bike in Cambridge, I was run down from behind by a motorist (who left the scene). When the police arrived, I was given a breathlyser test. Maybe the policeman was overkeen!

 

Latest Comments