- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Pint (picture copyright Simon MacMichael).jpeg"Drunk" cyclist who had been pushing bike was locked up by police under 19th Century law, court told
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.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- imajez 2 hours 48 min ago
Nothing new about zebra [or light controlled] crossing on roundabouts. Sheffield has had them for decades, possibly since the 1970s.
- David9694 4 hours 18 min ago
Herefordshire man fined after throwing parking ticket...
- OnYerBike 5 hours 38 min ago
I'm sure that sort of thing will come sooner or later. But presumably a key ingredient (and why you'd turn to a big brand like Fizik) is knowing...
- muhasib 5 hours 43 min ago
"the cost to rebuild the M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange is £317 million. The project is expected to be completed in 2025. "
- mark1a 6 hours 7 min ago
I think they did, from memory back in the 70s/80s... haven't seen one for years though, our current milkman uses a standard van, albeit hybrid.
- kingleo 7 hours 21 min ago
I believe that straight forks that are used on carbon frames are more dangerous than the old steel forks because they are more rigid, the old steel...
- S.E. 7 hours 53 min ago
Yes, sleep apnea produces more CO... I'm not aware of any doping effect but what do I know....
- Gd29 10 hours 2 min ago
That's true enough. But doesn't address my point that the chainset you get as a replacement will not physically fit chainrings from the chain set...
- brooksby 10 hours 32 min ago
In all fairness, it almost certainly NEVER happened…
Add new comment
56 comments
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?
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.
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.
Probably did a "Balin Hobb".
Drunk in charge but no mention of a breath test
The drink-driving laws only apply to motorised vehicles, and cyclists and pedestrians cannot be breathalysed.
Yep.
Unfairly it is the police who decide whether you are too drunk as a cyclist or pedestrian by watching you.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
Vauxhall Astra though - that's insulting!
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 Lycra- clad cyclist". He deserves all he gets.
surely a pushchair is a carriage. What makes you think the act wouldn't apply?
If the pushchair had a kid in it the consequences would probably be worse.
Because the police wouldnt bother with it...
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.
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.
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)."
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).
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).
It is actually illegal to be drunk in charge of a child
Nice waste of resources Lancs plod.
Surely the minimum would have been to dismiss the whole case 'coz it's shite?
Bloody ridiculous and an absolute waste of tax payers money.
Anti cyclist police driving the wedge between cyclists and drivers even further.
Pages