- 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
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Police Stop & Question Powers / Staying Local
Yesterday, I watched this video on the BBC site, in it, the Police stopped the lad and ask for his details.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-55842241
In the article itself, there's a link to a Government site, which says you don't have to give your info to them or even stop.
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights
It made me wonder, if in the unlikely event you're stopped when cycling outside your "local area", and asked for your details.
Do the above rules apply, or are there newer "Covid rules" which means you must get your details, and therfore face a possible fine or not?
Thanks.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- NE2Wheels 1 sec ago
I was trying to encourage someone to go ahead and get back on two wheels, and take the positive steps they can to control their own destiny, which...
- John Emms 6 min 47 sec ago
Interesting that "cyclists don't contribute to the town"....
- captain_slog 19 min 59 sec ago
These are all shown mounted to the seatpost. That's not always an option for me and I have one of these to mount a rear light horizontally: https:/...
- Destroyer666 45 min 1 sec ago
Well they had tools to whack out headset cups, so I guess a crank removal tool is just one tool among others in the bag. Or more likely - your...
- wtjs 1 hour 41 sec ago
Surely, they can't be dim enough to sit on it for as long as possible and then claim 'something...something..GDPR..etc'? Can they?...
- KDee 1 hour 16 min ago
Most phones now have a decent IP rating so I wouldn't worry about a little condensation. Your sweat won't get into it and I don't think there's a...
- wtjs 1 hour 53 min ago
they have a hard upper cut-off so they don't dazzle...
- wtjs 2 hours 7 min ago
not only have I reported them for a close pass, which the police are taking further......
- auldain 2 hours 34 min ago
Halve the £15.49, and maybe, just maybe, I might consider staying.
Add new comment
39 comments
My non legal understanding is that you are not required to provide the Police with details unless they are stopping you for a specific suspicion of an offence, wish to issue you with a fixed penalty notice or having first arrested you.
My pragmatic view would be to ask if you are required to give details and if they say "yes you are" then to give them and get on with your business. Then if you want to make some sort of citizens rights protest about it afterwards make a formal complaint and escalate that as far as your social conscience and willingness to devote your energies allow.
Having watched the video, Nino antagonised the officer by asking him why he wasn't questioning other people.. if he had just politely answered the questions asked, he would have been on his way quickly but then Nino wouldn't have had any 'interesting' content for filming with his mobile phone.
If an officer feels 'antagonised' by a simple observational question, then perhaps policing is not for them. You will have course read the comments by the office's superiors who reviewed all the footage.
He "antagonised" the officer by exercising his legal right not to give his name. Seeing as the police have apologised and admitted that the officer was well out of order, it's a bit late to try and dredge up a defence for him.
It's a reasonable question. Only antagonising if you don't have a reasonable response.
In practice, you can cycle as often and as far as you like. However, as I know that Lancashire Constabulary would dearly like to give me a stuffing I have had to curtail my red-light crashing surveillance because I couldn't justify standing still by the roadside for an hour.
I think that most police officers are out there trying to do a decent job in what are probably increasingly difficult circumstances. When something goes awry these days, however, its filmed, immediately uploaded to Twatter / Faecesbook or the like and suddenly its picked up by the local / national press looking for something to sensationalise and very quickly we're discussing it on Road.cc. That said, as a middle-aged, white male I don't get stopped often and when I open my mouth my northern dialect, softened by university and 25 years working in London are usually enough for them to cross me off their terrorism suspect list.
So, if a police officer stops me and asks me for my name and address I'm going to tell him / her and hope that we can both get on with our day. There's no obligation to carry ID in the UK, and I certainly don't when I'm cycling, so this is going to come down to trust. I'm aware that there are civil liberties at issue and that an Englishman doesn't have to prove who he is, etc. but it strikes me that they can make your whole day a lot worse.
Of course, if they fine you for riding outside your area, etc. you have the right to challenge the fine in court. GIven the way the law is drafted I would suggest that you do so.
After 30 years in the Police i find the latest round of recruits very poor and the standard has dropped drastically. Most of todays newer recruits wouldn't have got in when i joined.
As for stop and search or whatever the snowflakes call it now is a minefield and i dont even pretend to know what all the changes are now i've retired.
In a car you can get stopped so the officer can examine your docs, which by law, you are meant to carry. If you dont have them then the officer can check your personal details to see if your are disq etc.
Mind you the comment from Liberty is about as much use as used toilet roll, no surprise there.
I trust that you're now retired.
Yes, its in the 2nd paragraph down.
Thank fuck for that, I trust you didn't exhibit your prejudices when you were working. But you probably did.
Surely they'd've been too young or not even born yet?
actually I dont think you are obliged by law to carry them around with you, but you are obliged to show them on demand though, hence the 7 day wonder producer.
Many thanks for the replies.
I'm by no means an expert, but I think a lot of it comes down to "reasonable suspicion" that you are or have been involved in criminal activity.
While the new coronavirus rules don't change that directly (as far as I know), what they do is to make simply being outside without an excuse a crime - and therefore the threshold for "reasonable suspicion" is much lower.
I think you're most unlikely to be stopped on the road. Off-roading at a local beauty spot? Maybe, and they might see a fine as appropriate if you've driven to get there. Purely personally, I think that's nonsense - and they didn't fine Johnson for it - but under the regulations, it's dubious.
I believe more than one senior copper has gone on record as saying that if you leave from and return to your front door, and undertake the whole journey under your own steam, that is legitimate in their eyes (which seems an unusually sensible statement from a member of the constabulary, but there you go).
In the unlikely event you are stopped, politely give your name, your address if asked for it, and state that you have travelled here directly from your home for the purposes of permittted exercise. Even allowing for the very high w*nker % in the police force, I'd be very surprised if they didn't just wave you on.
I was stopped on the road through Hyde Park recently by a foot patrol - they asked why I was out (exercise), where I'd come from (Peckham) and where I was going (lap round the park and back home) and they said that's fine, enjoy your ride. They didn't ask for my name or proof of address. If the copper in the video had accepted the young man's (true) statement that he was going to work instead of trying unlawfully to force him to disclose his name and address the incident wouldn't have happened.
I didn't dispute that, and didn't comment on it.
You also seem to have shown exactly what I suggested; that if you politely give your name and explain what you're doing, there'll be no issue.
Or if only the officer of the law hadn't overeached his powers and hadn't acted like a jumped up bully boy then he wouldn't be facing any form of disaplinary procedure. Do you know how hard it is for a police authority to say that one of their officers had done something wrong?
With the admission from the WMP the victim here could potentially sue the police. And for me, I reckon that this officer should be prosecuted for wasting police time, his and his partners.
As noted elsewhere, I never commented on the video: I answered the question the OP asked. I think my feelings about the majority of the police were made very clear in my post. Quite why I have suddenly been seen as defending the copper in the video is genuinely beyond me.
You should really read what Rendel actually wrote, then compare his experience with the chap in Birmingham.
Why? I'd politely suggest you go back and do some re-reading.
The OP asked this: "
It made me wonder, if in the unlikely event you're stopped when cycling outside your "local area", and asked for your details.
Do the above rules apply, or are there newer "Covid rules" which means you must get your details, and therfore face a possible fine or not?".
I outlined a very clear response to this.
Rendell's experience tallied with exactly what I said would happen.
Where exactly is the dispute?
You put 'if you politely give your name, there will be no problem'.
Only rendel didn't have to give his name as he said in his posts. They asked where he was going and were happy with his answer.
But I didn't politely give my name and had they asked for it I would, like the chap in the video, have asked what the justification was for doing so. They politely asked what my reason for being out was, I politely explained what it was, and they left it at that. They knew the law and acted entirely legitimately and politely and professionally within it, whereas that cop in the video clearly didn't know the law and got very unecessarily aggressive when challenged on the fact.
Please point out which of my posts commented on the video. Thanks.
The OP asked whether one would face the same thing as the guy in the video did when out for a ride. You posted a (perfectly reasonable) comment saying you didn't think you would if you behaved somewhat differently to the guy in the video. You're de facto commenting on the question and therefore the video then, aren't you?
The OP asked this: "if in the unlikely event you're stopped when cycling outside your "local area", and asked for your details.
Do the above rules apply, or are there newer "Covid rules" which means you must get your details, and therfore face a possible fine or not?"
I answered his question. His question is clearly related to the subject of the video, but he didn't say 'will I be treated like the guy in the video?' In the same way, I very clearly didn't say 'don't act like the guy in the video'. If you have (independently) drawn the conclusion that the behaviour I advised is different to that shown by the individual in the video, that's a separate issue.
A post-hoc argument doesn't change the fact I (very deliberately) made no comment on the behaviour of either individual in the video, and stuck instead to actually answering the question asked. Not a very popular strategy, obviously.
Why would there be an "issue" for exercising your legal right to withhold your name?
The issue was the copper's, not the law's.
Liberty have an article on Covid powers granted:
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/coronavirus-wha...
Well that's a bit catch-22! You do not have to give your details simply when asked by the police, but such a refusal is in itself grounds for suspicion, which escalates their powers to a level where you do have to give your details.
Pages