Police Check

[Tony1951]

I'm just slightly bewildered at the concept of a respectable individual who is not prepared to cooperate with a polite request to say what they are doing by a police officer, when asked, or to identify themselves when asked who they are.

I am put in mind of a video a couple of months ago by a bizzare delinquent, living in some hilly suburb in the north west who filmed and published video of his refusal to stop and fleeing at breakneck speed down footpaths. I easily found his actual address just from the information shown on screen.

Some people identified with the 'lad'. Don't understand that. He was one of those riff raffy wretches that fit themselves up with a go pro and set out to confront and abuse police doing their jobs while filming them for some riff raff channel on youtube.

Enabling outlawry on e-bikes, or approving of it is no good for any of us. The more it happens the more trouble we will get as riders.

 

[Sparksandbangs]

Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles
(1)A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

Road Traffic Act 1988
192 General interpretation of Act
“road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,

Common law definition:-
A highway is a way over which there exists a public right of passage, that is to say a right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and repass without let or hindrance. (Halsbury’s Laws (2019 Ed) 55[1]).

 

[AndyBike]

Absolute legality is one thing, but if a cop asks you details etc and you refuse, chances are they're not going to salute you and say, thank you for your time Sir, and wave you off on your merry way.
They're going to make the interaction difficult. They're going to then question you about the bike, what you have in your pockets or any number of things.

Have you been drinking Sir, or Your eyes seem a little glazed, have you taken any drugs.
Or even, we've had reports of such and such and you fit the bill
You will then be detained(ie handcuffed, without the cuffs being locked, so any movement they will tighten in a rather uncomfortable way) They'll then demand your id on pain of arrest and a wee trip down the station.

 

[Tony1951]

I tend not to believe AI unless I've fact checked it first. It wasn't that long ago that Google AI was saying the best way to stick cheese on pizza was to glue it.

The rate of improvement is at an astronomical curve. The progression is really bonkers - but I doubt I need to tell you that.

 

[soundwave]

first thing i did when i got my bike is try get plod to chase me, they never bothered.

i have had plod in my house told them my bike was de restricted as rode past them going through the gate then masked up back then came in my house and took of there masks so sparked up a spliff

 

[Tony1951]

QUOTE="soundwave, post: 749808, member: 13916"]

first thing i did when i got my bike is try get plod to chase me, they never bothered.

i have had plod in my house told them my bike was de restricted as rode past them going through the gate then masked up back then came in my house and took of there masks so sparked up a spliff
[/QUOTE]

And you are not ashamed to tell us this?

 

[soundwave]

8 years ago lol

 

[Tony1951]

Anybody can stop and ask you questions. The question is whether you have to answer or co-operate in any way. We've established that you have to co-operate when they stop you on the road, but even then, I'm not sure what they can do if there's no grounds for suspicion of a crime. This is what AI says:
"In general, if a police officer stops you on your bicycle, you do not have to give them your personal details unless they suspect you of committing a crime or have reasonable grounds to believe you are linked to an offense."
"
In general, if a police officer stops you on your bicycle, you are required to stop and provide your name and address if they reasonably believe you have committed a traffic offense, or are acting suspiciously. However, you are not legally required to allow the officer to search your bicycle or its contents unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed and have obtained the necessary legal authority to do so (such as a warrant or specific legal power like stop and search). "

A lot of people make assumptions about police powers, which the police use to their advantage, especially to intimidate you, but you have rights, which they're not allowed to infringe on.I'm not really interested in what's polite or friendly. I just want to know where the border is between what you must do.

PACE Code G 2012 (accessible)

www.gov.uk

.



In relation to the power of arrest - If a person refuses to identify themselves when asked by police, who believe they have reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence, the officer may arrest them:

(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name):

An officer might decide that a person’s name cannot be readily ascertained if they fail or refuse to give it when asked, particularly after being warned that failure or refusal is likely to make their arrest necessary (see Note 2D). Grounds to doubt a name given may arise if the person appears reluctant or hesitant when asked to give their name or to verify the name they have given.

I doubt you have any other option but to cooperate with a policeman who stops you anywhere at any time, unless you are happy to be arrested and to have biometric samples taken from you - DNA, Finger Prints and photographs.

Of course you can remain silent and unresponsive,but doing so will certainly escalate the whole business to a level most people would regard as inadvisable, unless the individual seeks some form of martyrdom.

Personally - I'd happily give my name and address, show identification if asked and explain what I was up to.

I have never had to do more than open my mouth and use the word 'Officer' a couple of times to entirely satisfy any enquiry that has been made of me between the ages of 14 and 74. Maybe half a dozen times including being pulled over for speeding in 1971 and failure to comply with a traffic sign in 1975, when I was obviously at fault.

I remember about fifty years ago at about five in the morning, being quizzed by an officer when I was waiting for my mate outside his house. I was sitting in my mini van with the engine running and I had a shotgun and ammunition in the back. We were going shooting and my mate had over slept. He asked me my name and wrote it down. I told the cop we were going shooting pigeons and that I had a firearm with me. He just said something like, 'Have you got a license'. I answered, 'Of course', and laughed . 'Oh - ok then. We just like to see who is about at night,' and went on his way. He didn't ask to see it, and I don't think I had it with me.

 

[Tony1951]

8 years ago lol

It is stuff like this that has brought the change in attitude to e-bikes and all the checks and confiscations.

It has also brought you a lot of pain and trouble, and cost the NHS money to put you back together.

Be careful with your videos. You very easily identify yourself. Gloucester.......

 

[saneagle]

PACE Code G 2012 (accessible)

www.gov.uk

.



In relation to the power of arrest - If a person refuses to identify themselves when asked by police, who believe they have reasonable grounds for suspicion of an offence, the officer may arrest them:

(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name):

An officer might decide that a person’s name cannot be readily ascertained if they fail or refuse to give it when asked, particularly after being warned that failure or refusal is likely to make their arrest necessary (see Note 2D). Grounds to doubt a name given may arise if the person appears reluctant or hesitant when asked to give their name or to verify the name they have given.

I doubt you have any other option but to cooperate with a policeman who stops you anywhere at any time, unless you are happy to be arrested and to have biometric samples taken from you - DNA, Finger Prints and photographs.

Of course you can remain silent and unresponsive,but doing so will certainly escalate the whole business to a level most people would regard as inadvisable, unless the individual seeks some form of martyrdom.

Personally - I'd happily give my name and address, show identification if asked and explain what I was up to.

I have never had to do more than open my mouth and use the word 'Officer' a couple of times to entirely satisfy any enquiry that has been made of me between the ages of 14 and 74. Maybe half a dozen times including being pulled over for speeding in 1971 and failure to comply with a traffic sign in 1975, when I was obviously at fault.

I remember about fifty years ago at about five in the morning, being quizzed by an officer when I was waiting for my mate outside his house. I was sitting in my mini van with the engine running and I had a shotgun and ammunition in the back. We were going shooting and my mate had over slept. He asked me my name and wrote it down. I told the cop we were going shooting pigeons and that I had a firearm with me. He just said something like, 'Oh - ok then. We just like to see who is about at night,' and went on his way.

That's right. The key phrase is "Reasonable grounds for suspicion of committing an offence". There have been various test cases that determined suspicious behaviour and non-co-operation is not enough. They has be some sort of evidence of an offence being committed. If you were observed going up a hill without pedalling, that would be enough, or if someone had reported that they'd seen 500w stamped on your motor, that would also be grounds for suspicion of an offence. Riding a bike with fat tyres and a deliveroo box on the back and wearing a black balaclava wouldn't be grounds for suspicion of an offence.

You should watch some of the auditors on YouTube. They test the behaviour of police and security guards by acting suspiciously at government establishments, council offices, police stations, industrial sites, tourist sites and migrant hotels, partly for entertainment, partly for your education and partly to eliminate tyrannical behaviour. They're mainly very polite and cooperative, but they stick to their rights and any rules. Over the couple of years they've been doing it, the behaviour of police and security staff has improved massively, though they generally use intimidation tactics and try to claim authorities that they don't have.

 

[Tony1951]

That's right. The key phrase is "Reasonable grounds for suspicion of committing an offence". There have been various test cases that determined suspicious behaviour and non-co-operation is not enough. They has be some sort of evidence of an offence being committed. If you were observed going up a hill without pedalling, that would be enough, or if someone had reported that they'd seen 500w stamped on your motor, that would also be grounds for suspicion of an offence. Riding a bike with fat tyres and a deliveroo box on the back and wearing a black balaclava wouldn't be grounds for suspicion of an offence.

I'm not so sure you and I have the same view of what a policeman might say about his 'reasonable suspicion' if he were ever challenged by his superiors. If instructed to clear nuisance high powered delivery bikes off the streets in response to complaints, he can say anything he likes about what his reasonable suspicion was. He will know exactly what will pass the sniff test.

'Offences have been reported. I need to check your bike'.

He can in reality stop any, and every e-bike, and look at it, and speak to the owner.

If you asked him why he stopped you, he would likely say,

'We have had a lot of offences in this area and I thought your bike looked like I should take a look at it.'

He might refer to speed, or rate of pedalling. He might say he 'thought' he spotted a throttle on the bike when you were riding, so he stopped you. What matters is HIS view, or reported view of it in the moment when he made the decision to interact with you.

He does not have to be right. He need only show he thought he might have grounds. This is 'reasonable suspicion.'

If the bike is compliant - like in the video you posted a little while back, you will rapidly be on your way.

If it is non-compliant, identification details will be requested.

If the person being investigated on 'reasonable suspicion' or having committed an offence, declines to give their name and satisfy him that the name is correct - probably by showing id, he can, and likely will arrest them with all the pain in the behind that entails - dna - photograph in mug shot library, finger prints and the rest. On the other hand he might just decide it isn't worth the trouble to arrest. It will involve work for him. Or he could be out to make a name for himself.

Police have VERY wide powers AND they have a lot of discretion. Which is why I am always polite and forthcoming. They just let me go on my way, because I am not giving any signs of being a scrote, or trying to hide something. I have always been handled reasonably, because I am polite and reasonable with them. One of my sons when he was a student, aged about 18 got reported for drunk and disorderly purely because he took the sarcastic route and made a disparaging remark about the officers who were questioning him about why he was running down a street at 1 AM. Night in cells. Caution for D&D. Completely unnecessary. His own fault. He'd only had four pints of ale, but he was taking the pi ss.

Way back - circa 1971 I got away with riding a motorcycle with an expired mOT purely by being polite and plausible. I was stopped in Newcastle - no issue found, but was told to present my documents within a few days and given a piece of paper requiring that documents be presented within a certain period.

I went straight to an mot station and tried to get an mot. It failed on some minor thing. I put it right, but the MOT guy would not retest the bike until the next day and wouldn't date it one day earlier. I had a stop on one day and an mot starting the next. I presented the MOT down in London a couple of days later having ridden the C15 down the AI to uni.

The policeman noticed the discrepancy and stood up straight from leaning on the desk and he pointed it out. I just said that when stopped I was on my way to the mot test centre. I am sure he could have phoned up and asked the test centre whether I had an appointment, but he didn't bother, because I was polite and plausible.

I never rode without an mot again. Lesson learned by me. Everyone was satisfied.

This offence I just admitted to was 54 years ago. I doubt anyone would consider it worth taking action now.

 

[AndyBike]

first thing i did when i got my bike is try get plod to chase me, they never bothered.

i have had plod in my house told them my bike was de restricted as rode past them going through the gate then masked up back then came in my house and took of there masks so sparked up a spliff

Sorry bud(pun) but sparking a spliff in front of the cops is never going to go well, though I've done it myself in different circumstances. In uniform they are bound to the law, and you can't hold your head up in the cop canteen if you shy away from an arrest, no matter where or to whatever that leads.

Ghost rider is pretty cool as it goes. Bet he's had more close shaves than Gillette.

Much like this guy. I'll wager that fair warmed his legs up
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ppOEVftL7v0

 

[saneagle]

This one volunteered himself for a check, but not in a comfortable way.

 

[Baz the balloon man]

I've been thinking about this. The police have the right to stop any motor vehicle and check it and your I.D., but a pedelec is not a vehicle, as determined by the European Court of Justice. In that case, in order to stop and check you or your bike, they need reasonable grounds to suspect that you've committed a crime. The way I see it, when they stop you, you can say, "No thanks" and carry on. If they arrest you, you have justification for a civil claim against them for false arrest. You get about £500 for that or £1000+ if they take you back to the station.

Are there any lawyers, who can confirm this?

Would this then apply to so called cycle safety checks that are being carried out by The City of London Police .
IE grounds to stop and in the process identify illegal e bikes .

Does any authority have the legal power to stop and check a cyclist if they are not doing any thing to warrant being stopped ?

And say once stopped they claim to be able to smell say cannabis for instance could they then ask you do do a drug test ?

Is it illegal to ride a cycle whilst stoned or if you had say 3 or 4 pint’s , I like to ride to the pub have a few beers and something to eat and ride home not intoxicated but certainly over the drink drive limit.

 

[Baz the balloon man]

Riding a paved area is illegal unless sign posted.

If they suspect an over powered motor or see a throttle then it is a motoring offence on the road with no licenece and bang to rights on the pavement .
Also their is saftey where any bike may be concerned.

If I am on what I think is a particularly dangerous road or traffic is blocking me and it’s safe to do so I will ride the pavement but only at around 4MPH taking care not to run into anyone .

If that’s against the law I would rather get nicked than end up in hospital or worse .

 

[flecc]

If I am on what I think is a particularly dangerous road or traffic is blocking me and it’s safe to do so I will ride the pavement but only at around 4MPH taking care not to run into anyone .

That is permitted.

Cyclists can ride on the pavement in some circumstances, details quoted below. Read right through to the end, showing this still applies:

"On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. The then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

“The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by ‘Community Support Officers’ and wardens.

“CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)

In a January 2014 letter to Donnachadh McCarthy of the pressure group Stop Killing Cyclists, roads minister Robert Goodwill said Boeteng’s advice was still valid.

Goodwill said: “Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions…to my attention. I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng’s original guidance.”

The Association of Chief Police Officers then circulated this reiteration of the 1999 advice to all local police forces. ACPO’s National Policing Lead for Cycling Assistant Chief Constable Mark Milsom said: “We welcome the re-issued guidance from the Minister for Cycling in respect of cycling on the pavement and have re-circulated this to all local forces.”

So in summary, your can take to the pavements where traffic makes that necessary for your safety, so long as you have care and consideration for pedestrians, ride slowly in their presence and give way to them where that is advisable.
.

 

[Sparksandbangs]

Road Traffic Act 1988
30 Cycling when under influence of drink or drugs.
(1)A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence.

...and police can stop a cyclist without reason on any highway as discussed above. Highway has a very broad definition.

 

[Tony1951]

In so many ways, considerate riding would have prevented a rise in unnecessary and unpleasant interactions with police and the public in regard to shared paths and resources. The same is true of checks on electric bikes. Common sense would have left us much freer from intervention by law officers.

The first priority of police is always the preservation of life, so Boateng and the others are quite right to allow considerate and careful use of the pavement by cyclists in some circumstances - especially by children.

Mind - it could be argued that if a cyclist felt in danger, they could come off the road and push the bike to a safer riding space, but the onus on a cyclist - even with Boateng's waiver of the rule about not cycling on the pavement. It is firmly obligatory on the rider to ride considerately so that pedestrians are not intimidated.

This is often ignored by pavement riders in towns that I walk in. I have been frequently passed too close on pavements at ten miles an hour plus by men in their twenties and thirties. I really don't fancy being hit or clipped by a 75 kilo man and his bike at 10 miles an hour.

 

[Sparksandbangs]

Of course if you were riding an illegal ebike while drunk then you would come under motor vehicle rules. You could then be breathalysed, no tax, no insurance, no helmet. Far more serious.

There is no legal intoxication limit for someone on a cycle. It is officers discretion. So it is down to how you behave. If you are steaming drunk then you are more likely to be stopped. As always you will probably be fine and unlikely to be stopped, until you aren't.

 

[saneagle]

I don't like the idea of a law that only applies with discression and consideration because those are down to individuals' opinions and attitudes. There is then no border of what's allowed and what's not. IMHO, they could make it much simpler by making it legal to ride on any footpath, but make it a crime to injure anyone or do damage while doing it.