A Lancashire cyclist who spent a night in a police cell for being drunk in charge of a pedal cycle has been given a conditional discharge by magistrates in a prosecution brought under a law dating back to the 19th Century.
Andrew Walne, aged 53 and from Colne, had been wheeling his bike along the pavement at around 6pm after stopping “for a pint” following a ride on 18 July, reports Pendle Today.
Police were called after it was alleged that his bike had struck a parked Vauxhall Astra car, which he denied.
The officer who attended discovered Walne sitting on a wall, dressed in his cycling outfit complete with shoes and helmet.
Parveen Akhtar, for the prosecution, said that when he asked his name, the cyclist did not respond.
The officer subsequently claimed he was drunk and that he could smell alcohol on his breath, magistrates were told, she added.
After attempting to pick up his bike and continue his journey home, he and the officer had an argument, resulting in Walne being put into handcuffs.
He was subsequently charged under the Licensing Act 1872, for the purposes of which a bicycle is deemed to be a “carriage.”
Janet Sime, defending him at Burnley Magistrates’ Court, said that she had “a lot of sympathy with Mr Walne.
“The situation is he really did everything right. He had been out on a bike ride and called for a pint.
“He didn’t feel drunk, but he didn’t feel capable of riding his bike and he pushed it home, a distance which would take less than five minutes.
“Whilst doing that he did have a tumble because of his cycling shoes. He didn’t make contact with any vehicle.”
The owner of the vehicle was at the scene with other people and was described as being aggressive, claiming that the cyclist had caused damage to the vehicle.
The motorist told him he would call the police, which Walne, who was afraid for his own safety, agreed to.
Ms Sime said: “He doesn’t believe he would have been drunk.
“He spent 18 hours at the police station in custody waiting to be charged with this.
“He was doing the right thing not riding his bike and was just pushing it home. He didn’t know that would be an offence,” she added.
Walne was given a three-month conditional discharge, the minimum the magistrates said they could impose, as well as being told to pay a £20 victim surcharge.
While most of the provisions of the Licensing Act 1872 have been replaced by more recent legislation, section 12 remains in force, albeit with some of the original wording amended or repealed by subsequent legislation.
According to the Legislation.gov.uk website, among other things, it applies to persons found “drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine, or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearms.”
Besides cyclists, the 1872 Act has also been used to prosecute people alleged to be drunk in charge of vehicles such as mobility scooters or golf buggies, which are not subject to drink-driving legislation.
56 thoughts on ““Drunk” cyclist who had been pushing bike was locked up by police under 19th Century law, court told”
Bloody ridiculous and an
Bloody ridiculous and an absolute waste of tax payers money.
Anti cyclist police driving the wedge between cyclists and drivers even further.
Nice waste of resources Lancs
Nice waste of resources Lancs plod.
Surely the minimum would have been to dismiss the whole case ‘coz it’s shite?
It’s illegal to push a bike
It’s illegal to push a bike while drunk, but not a pushchair with a baby in it. Right.
Yet if he’d locked it up and walked home and the bike subsequently been stolen, I wonder what the police response would have been. “Here’s your crime reference number.”
Just more anti-cycling shit from the police and judiciary.
Oh, hang on – he was “A [b]Lycra- clad[/b] cyclist”. He deserves all he gets.
srchar wrote:
surely a pushchair is a carriage. What makes you think the act wouldn’t apply?
ConcordeCX wrote:
If the pushchair had a kid in it the consequences would probably be worse.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Because the police wouldnt bother with it…
ConcordeCX wrote:
It’s actually an offence to drunk in charge of a child under the age of 7. A whole different world of hurt.
And like all things, it’s never as straightforward as portrayed. It looks like the bloke refused to give his name. That’s a requirement. Call the cop’s bluff and you get what you deserve.
Still 18 hours in the pokey seems harsh.
Snake8355 wrote:
I am pretty sure you are not obliged to tell the police anything (not even your name) unless they tell you under caution exactly what it is they suspect you of.
brooksby wrote:
It depends almost entirely on the circumstances, and the local byelaws. By and large you do not have to give your basic details unless you have been detained (You have been prevented from simply walking away). If you have been detained you have the right to know why (except in rather unusual circumstances).
except…
“2. Driving. If you are the driver of any vehicle including pedal cycles you can be required to give your name, address and date of birth (Road Traffic Act 1988 s163-168).”
madcarew wrote:
Thanks for that.
(Odd, though, that we’ve established that if you’re walking your bike then you’re a pedestrian not a cyclist , so the RTA wouldn’t have applied in the case in the story).
srchar wrote:
I was going to suggest that as he only lives ‘a few minutes walk away’ (according to the original article), maybe he should have gone home, changed his shoes and left his bike at home.
Of course if he had, no doubt he would have been berated by his wife and kids and would never have made it back to the pub. Heck, that’s probably the reason why he went to the pub in the first place, probably the reason he went on the bike ride in the first place. I’ll wager that he got his gear on, told his wife that he was going for a four hour ride and decided to pop in for a pint before setting off – then staggered home four hours later (never having got any further than the pub).
srchar wrote:
It is actually illegal to be drunk in charge of a child
Vauxhall Astra though – that
Vauxhall Astra though – that’s insulting!
Drunk in charge but no
Drunk in charge but no mention of a breath test
spen wrote:
The drink-driving laws only apply to motorised vehicles, and cyclists and pedestrians cannot be breathalysed.
burtthebike wrote:
Yep.
Unfairly it is the police who decide whether you are too drunk as a cyclist or pedestrian by watching you.
Bluebug wrote:
It seems likely his behaviour (argumentative / abusive / failing to follow proper instructions) was such that plod deemed it sensible to arrest him so they could remove him from the situation. To do that they needed to charge him with something. I’d say the truth of the matter is slightly beyond “I was just walking along and fell down and they areested me”, but does seem utterly stupid for him to have been convicted, though pleading guilty was a bit of a hamper to getting let off.
burtthebike wrote:
So basically the police can make up how drunk you were.
What a stupid case this is, surely you may as well just ride everywhere including the pavements, in a shopping centre, etc. as not riding your bike appears to still be riding your bike.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
The drink-driving laws only apply to motorised vehicles, and cyclists and pedestrians cannot be breathalysed.
— burtthebike So basically the police can make up how drunk you were. What a stupid case this is, surely you may as well just ride everywhere including the pavements, in a shopping centre, etc. as not riding your bike appears to still be riding your bike.— spen
They also have special hearing that hear things that no-one else can, they can work out speeds precisely based on two seconds visual observation and also the special power of making up laws as they go along. Luckily for me I also have a bullshit detector on tap, know a little about the law and was not afraid to use it. I was driving my car home and was within a few hundred metres and got the ‘manner of driving’, speeding, screeching tyres, I can arrest you for not having your driving license and so on BS.
gnoring the fact the driver was all over the shop, never indicated when not in pursuit mode/no flashy lights/sirens, drove over the mini roundabout, over the dividing line at the junction, at no point identified themselves and were basically caught out lying like two little children trying to bully someone to make up for their inadequacies. if it wasn’t so late and I’d just had a tiring 3 hour drive I’d have spent a lot more time owning their arses.
Matey boy should have just refused to give his details, on foot, so long as he’s not harming anyone or presenting a danger to himself he’s breaking no law having had a few sherberts. that he’s pushing a bike is not only irrelevant, it’s showing responsibility to not riding it which would be grounds to stop him.
Should the CDF not take this on as the police and the magistrate have acted unlawfully?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
The drink-driving laws only apply to motorised vehicles, and cyclists and pedestrians cannot be breathalysed.
— burtthebike So basically the police can make up how drunk you were. What a stupid case this is, surely you may as well just ride everywhere including the pavements, in a shopping centre, etc. as not riding your bike appears to still be riding your bike.— spen
Not only can they not tell how drunk you are, they cannot tell if the symptoms you are showing are caused by alcohol consumption or something totally different.
burtthebike wrote:
Biarrely I got breathtested in Australia last year while on a training ride. The police had set up a booze bus and I was riding down the inside of the queue of traffic when a really unpleasant cop told me to get in the queue and submit to a breath test. Having had a particularly unpleasant experience with Aussie police when I was 15, I did as I was told.
burtthebike wrote:
I was once knocked down from behind by a motorist while I was cycling in Cambridge. The police breathalysed me ( and didn’t seek to identify the motorist, who left the scene of the acident).
So, did they breathalyse him
So, did they breathalyse him to determine that he was drunk?
I can only think that he must have been really argumentative to get a policeman to charge him for that considering that there was an aggressive motorist as well. Usually the police don’t side with aggressive people.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I can only think that he must have been really argumentative to get a policeman to charge him for that considering that there was an aggressive motorist as well. Usually the police don’t side with aggressive people.— hawkinspeter
Probably did a “Balin Hobb”.
TBD the law is the law. A
TBD the law is the law. A bike is defined as a carriage, thankfully. This gives cyclists unfettered rights to travel the highways
No expert but it seems to me the problem here is the defendant didn’t go for trial by jury (a legal right) defendant pleaded guilty in the magistrates court. They have to impose conditions.
That said I’d do the same in the court, who wants the stress of a crown court case.
Real issue here is why it was pursued by the authorities. They’re always bemoaning the fact of funding cuts leading them to prioritize.
A GUY PUSSHING A BICYCLE AFTER A PINT A PRIORITY?
WiganCyclist wrote:
Of course it’s a priority. Any available means must be used to rid the streets of cyclists, to clear the way for self driving cars and lorries.
This reminds me of an
This reminds me of an incident that still rankles almost 60 years later.
I was 12 years old and pushing my bike ‘the wrong way’ along the footpath of a one way street (Town Walls, Shrewsbury).
Just as I reached the end of the street a PC appeared and told me to get on my bike and pedal the right way back the way I had come. When I protested that I was walking and had not ridden the bike he informed me that a bicycle was a ‘vehicle’ and that I had broken the law.
Kapelmuur wrote:
I had the same thing once too. Unbelievable.
Only the once though – there’s a twat in every barrel. I’d like to think he felt a bit stupid afterwards.
Duncann wrote:
I once got a £30 fine for looking the wrong way down a one way!
Kapelmuur wrote:
I saw this and started seeing if I could find out whether this was correct – not wanting to be one who would cycle against the flow of a one-way street (unless permitted), but would happily push a bike along the pavement as Kapelmmur and Duncann have done. The alternatives of riding around or carrying the bike don’t always appeal either.
Is one not allowed to push a bike on the pavement contrary to the flow of traffic on a one-way street?
Hug wrote:
Load of boll****.
You are allowed to push your bike on the pavement, as when pushing your bike you are regarded as being or as travelling on foot. On some one way streets particularly in London you are allowed to cycle the opposite way to traffic on the road, and in some cases where there are signs on the pavement.
Next time the police do that to you (or warn your kids) get the officer’s number and file a complaint.
Hug wrote:
Of course you are. There is no traffic on the pavement, so you are not contrary to the flow.
madcarew wrote:
Again, Crank v Brooks…
CARRY THAT BIKE!’
Don’t fall for the piffle that you have to wheel your bicycle in the gutter if walking on a footway with your machine, or that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a “foot-passenger” (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not riding it or driving it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: “In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger’. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand.”
Source: Bike hub, cycling and the law
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
Kapelmuur wrote:
I’m pretty sure I read, from no less an authority than Martin Porter QC, last week, that a person wheeling a bicycle is a pedestrian.
Username wrote:
You can be a pedestrian and “in charge” of a vehicle. e.g. walking in a car park towards your car with keys in hand.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m really not sure that’s legally correct, otherwise giving your children the keys to go get something from the car would be illegal.
madcarew wrote:
Seems that “in charge” isn’t clearly defined. I found this page (http://www.ibblaw.co.uk/service/road-traffic-offences/drunk-charge-motor-vehicle) that indicates that the intention to operate the vehicle is one of criteria (which would absolve young children). Unfortunately, the onus is on the person to prove that they didn’t have any intention to drive. It seems that the owner of the vehicle remains “in charge” by default unless they do something like handing the keys to someone else (probably not your children though).
pigs gonna pig
pigs gonna pig
Quote:
sauce: http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/
He should appeal and throw the book at the muppet plod.
don simon wrote:
Crank v Brooks – perfect!
So this guy has a criminal
So this guy has a criminal record for doing sod all?
Ha lush, also for those who
Ha lush, also for those who mentioned it you can be arrested if your drunk and have a child in a pushchair.
Oh and yes we can say if someone is drunk or not.
Stumps wrote:
So basically, you’re saying trust me, and/or I’ll make shit up – figures.
Jitensha Oni wrote:
So basically, you’re saying trust me, and/or I’ll make shit up – figures.— Stumps
no. I think you’ll find he’s saying that if you stink of drink and act like a prick then you’ll be locked up.
In the eyes of the law, police can say whether a person is drunk. However are you seriously telling me that in the era of the camera phone that cops actually still just make stuff up?
And fell over because of his cycling shoes! Really, you believe that? The guy was pissed, tripped over his bike, fell against a parked car and then acted like a knob when the police turned up.
There this new thing called the necessity test that cops have to do. i.e. Is it necessary to lock someone up. Agreed it’s a petty offence. But there’s an audience, the guy refuses to give his name, then argues with the plod. If it was you, would you let him walk away. Thereby making you look like a twat.
I wouldn’t.
Snake8355 wrote:
How could the cop possibly think that it was “necessary” to lock him up? So what if a cop is made to look foolish – their job is to uphold the law, and ridiculing someone isn’t illegal.
It definitely sounds like something else was going on, and the fact that he wasn’t charged with “drunk and disorderly” indicates that he wasn’t considered drunk enough to apply that.
I wish he hadn’t pleaded guilty as he could easily have gotten off that charge if he’d challenged it at all.
I don’t think an appeal is
I don’t think an appeal is going to do much; didn’t he plead guilty? Also he got the minimum penalty.
Does ‘in charge on any
Does ‘in charge on any highway’ apply if the bike has been carried over the shoulder CX style? Do the wheels have to touch the highway?
“…the law is an ass…”
“…the law is an ass…”
-misattributed to Dickens
Everything about this makes
Everything about this makes me sad. The idiot copper whose pride was damaged by the fact the cyclist probably made him look like a fool in front of the public. The silly sod cyclist who didn’t have the wherewithal to check just how ludicrous the copper had been and challenge it in court. The senior plod who sanctioned pushing the offence instead of just telling the copper to go back to the cyclist and lecture him.
I guarantee you the copper in question is an absolute fucking laughing stock in his local nick – and almost certainly was before this. There’s no way an incident like this comes out of the blue (no pun intended) – he’s almost certainly got prior form for being a jumped-up, officious twat with a persecution complex.
Unlike a lot of the anti-cyclist bias shwon in the media, general public and by the police, this just looks like a typical case of a copper not liking having his nose put out of joint by the local shitbags on a daily basis, and seeing a chance to grab some petty revenge. Prick.
I get the feeling there’s
I get the feeling there’s more to this than the story lets on.
Guy had a pint and didnt feel he could cycle ? Either he’s not used to drinking (in which case why stop for a pint – it’s not something I ever do) or he’s had a lot more than one pint and maybe they kept him in until he sobered up ?
Thanks bluebay and madcrew
Thanks bluebay and madcrew for your replies. I agree that it’s utter rubbish – and being a “foot passenger” (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441 – thanks for reminding us of this don simon) would be the case for both situations Kapelmuur and Duncann describe, just as it was on the pedestrian crossing . I’d just wondered if there was some obscure law (rather the copper just making it up). Sorry Kapelmuur that your incident was some time before Waller LJ made his judgement.
Was he wearing a helmet and
Was he wearing a helmet and hi-viz though. Maybe this was the deciding factor that turned him from cyclist into criminal.
Tbh, I’d be pretty pissed off if some drunk staggered past my car with a bike and scraped it. It’s a couple of hundred quid job at the minimum these days.
I do hope Simon MacMichael
I do hope Simon MacMichael was careful after taking the picture for this article.
I think he should have been
I think he should have been given some sort of medal for responsible behaviour.
There seems to be a mistake
There seems to be a mistake in the headline – it refers to the subject as a ‘cyclist’, but it seems everyone involved agrees that he was pushing his bike, therefore not a cyclist but a pedestrian.
Good to know that Lancashire
Good to know that Lancashire police are fighting the important crimes.