Catching Real Criminals

[Julian]

From p. 15 of the Yuba Mundo Owner's Manual:

"Children

The user of this product acknowledges both an understanding and an assumption of the risks involved in
cycling, cycling with cargo, and cycling with a passenger. Children incapable of riding a bike on their own or
under the age of 6 should not ride on the Mundo Cargo Bicycle as passengers, unless it's equipped with an
approved Child Seat accessory. Children should not ride as passengers without an adult operating the Mundo
Cargo Bicycle."

So since the children were aged 6 and 9, no problem, right?

[tonycollinet]

...constructed or adapted, Grub.

Not about modification at all.

modify
verb
1. change, reform, vary, convert, transform, alter, adjust, adapt, revise, remodel, rework, tweak (informal), reorganize, recast, reshape, redo, refashion They agreed to modify their recruitment policy.

 

I think Clarion was pointing out that modification is not REQUIRED, if the bike is CONSTRUCTED (from new) as suitable for carrying passengers.

[Rapples]

So since the children were aged 6 and 9, no problem, right?

Wouldn't that rather depend on whether they were carrying sufficient proof that they could ride a bicyle on their own.  The article doesn't mention whether they had passed their cycling proficiency test and carrying the certificates

Then of course the very next page apparently states:

And from p.16:

"Carrying passenger and children

Carrying passengers by bicycle is subject to limitations and regulations in most countries. Check local traffic and regulations to learn more and comply with the law.

Carrying children on a bicycle should only be done when using approved and certified child seat and equipment. Please call us or visit the nearest bicycle dealer for more information."

That is a very long way from stating that in it's standard form the bike is suitable and legally capable of carring any children without the appropriate modifications in the UK.

[Rapples]

I think Clarion was pointing out that modification is not REQUIRED, if the bike is CONSTRUCTED (from new) as suitable for carrying passengers.

That certainly seems to be his opinion, which doesn't seem to be influenced by facts.  Reg has provided the Yuba handbook which certainly gives no assurance the bike is legal in it's standard form to carry 2 children.

It was apparently fitted with a "wooden shelf seat" * which I understand to be the standard rack, and certainly not one of the approved child seats mentioned in the yuba literature.

Perhaps Clarion or those who think differently can provide some actual evidence that the Yuba is specifically constructed to carry passengers in this form and complies with the UK regulations Grub has provided



*Edit: From the article about cycling and the law written by Carlton Reid and linked in the article.

"Similarly, carrying passengers on a rear rack, not designed for the purpose (an Xtracycle rear rack with padded seat is an example of a designed for the purpose add-on), is also forbidden."

[clarion]

Perhaps someone can provdie some evidence that it doesn't?

Yuba certainly seem to think it is suitable for carrying passengers.  Therefore it is constructed with that purpose in mind.

Your dig about influence by facts ignores my links direct to Yuba, and my acknowledgement of the law, as cited correctly by Grub.  Regulator is using a lot of inference.

As I say, Carlton Reid is very reliable.

[Regulator]

...

Your dig about influence by facts ignores my links direct to Yuba, and my acknowledgement of the law, as cited correctly by Grub.  Regulator is using a lot of inference.

...

I hardly think quoting verbatim from the Yuba Owner's manual is "using a lot of inference"...


...but I am sure you will disagree 

[clarion]

Nothing in there says that it is illegal.  Only your inference.

I quoted verbatim from the website, but you felt free to disagree with that.

[EdinburghFixed]

(1)Not more than one person may be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person.

This is the only important thing, and it's resolvable only by the decision of a magistrate (or whoever) as to whether the bicycle in question is suitable for the carriage of the people thereon - it's not an objective standard, after all.

I doubt there is much or any case law to set a precedent. It's possible in my mind that a magistrate might say a bicycle is only constructed or adapted for the carrying of children if it is fitted with a child bike seat compliant to BS EN 14344.

Once your child is older/heavier than the limit on such a seat, though, it's anyone's guess what constitutes suitable for carriage. If I were a magistrate I'd look at whether there was something to sit on, put your feet on, and hold on to (not necessarily a stoker bar, since motorcycle passengers often have a thing behind their arse, if anything at all). It would seem to me that a Yuba complies with this for older kids out of the box, and a history of safe and successful daily use for several years would seem to support that.

Far too much weight is being given to Yuba's intentions as manufacturer as supported by various quotes. It's irrelevant, really. Suppose I built and sold flatbed trailers and advertised them as being designed for people carriage - they just sit on it. It would fool nobody and quoting me as the builder saying that it was intended for the carriage of people wouldn't change that. Ergo, what Yuba say is not actually relevant.

[phil d]

what Yuba say is not actually relevant.

Especially as it's said in the context of the US, not the UK.  Indeed they acknowledge that laws are different elsewhere, according to the extracts from their literature quoted above.

[phil d]

What a stupid police officer!!!  I struggle to think of a bike better suited to carrying children than a yuba.  The fact that she suggests riding on the pavement is a good idea tells all about this policewoman's lack of clue, IMO.

Maybe it's the law, rather than the police officer, that is stupid?  Though the suggestion to ride on the pavement does rather support your case!

[clarion]

Aye, phil, but the law states

Not more than one person may be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person.

My italics.

All you have to ask is whether it 'is constructed...for the carriage of more than one person'.

Self-evidently yes.  It is.  Not complicated.

[Rapples]

All you have to ask is whether it 'is constructed...for the carriage of more than one person'.

Self-evidently yes.  It is.  Not complicated.

It self evidently isn't designed as a child carrying bike out of the box, just in the same way a basic Ford Transit in not a minibus, and this

The test is whether it is built or adapted for carrying a person.  Yuba's site says it is.

In the absence of some comment such as 'WORNINGGG! HAZZARD!! Do not carry yor children on our bike without availing yourself of the opportunity for us to cross-sell an accessory product!' then it is legal.

Is quite clearly bollocks, as that argument would make carrying a child on any bike legal.  It is your quote from the Yuba website that you say IMPLIES it may not essential to fit the accssories they market specifically for the purpose of modifying the bike to carry up to 3 children, when the website actually states you SHOULD.

Your interpretation is questionable to say the least, and I'd suggest the term "depending on your families needs" refers more to the age and number of children and not whether the modifications are required at all, to make it safe and legal..

[clarion]

Isn't it?

Oh.  OK.  You must be right, then, since your evidence is so compelling.

[arabella]

Given there's no definition of acceptable modifications doesn't it all come down to opinion?  I followed the motorcycle pillion requirements:
-place to sit that's not the driver's seat (rack rated for up to 60kg)
-something to hold on to that can be the driver
-somewhere to put the feet (BMX pegs)
I got praised once and stopt twice

[Rapples]

Isn't it?

Oh.  OK.  You must be right, then, since your evidence is so compelling.

Happy to have been of assistance

[clarion]

Thank you.  The logic of your explication was of its usual standard.

[phil d]

Well, I'm glad that's sorted.

[mrcharly-YHT]

Unless the young mum in question has fitted something extra to her Mundo, there would be nothing for the kids to rest feet on, and nothing to hold onto (or hold them on). Fine for short journeys until Mum has to swerve suddenly around some muppet.

None of us were there: The conversation with police could have gone like this:

C1 "Excuse me, you can't ride on the road with that with children on the back."
Mum "Why not, it's meant for carrying children."
C2 "What's the problem?"
C1 "I don't think this bike is safe for carrying children, it doesn't have child seats."
C2 "erm, dunno if they have to have them."
C3 & 4 arrive
C3-4 "you having trouble with these dangerous felons." <winks at children>
C2 explains. All 4 coppers scratch heads, decide that although they aren't certain, the kids don't look safe without belts or seats.
C2 to mum "Look, we don't think you can carry kids on that without proper seats."
Mum "I have to get them to school"
C2 "Well, we'll let you go, best you stick to the pavement until you get some seats on that thing, make sure you do so or next time we see you we'll charge you."

[Wendy]

If there aren't any footrests, then said copper might have a point.  Seats and belts?  That's just stupid, who would want to be belted onto a bike?  The seat issue is covered by the plank.

[clarion]

The Mundo has rails as part of the frame structure which could serve as footrests.

Visible in this picture

And here

[Wendy]

The Mundo has rails as part of the frame structure which could serve as footrests.

Visible in this picture

And here

That's what I thought, but couldn't remember.  Nice one, Clarion.  The police are wrong in this instance, IMO.

p.s. could Rapples and Reg please keep the squabbling to P&L or somewhere equally horrible?

[mrcharly-YHT]

The Mundo has rails as part of the frame structure which could serve as footrests.

Visible in this picture

And here

They aren't reachable by little kids. I'm familiar with the mundo, I know a few people who have them and cart their kids around on them. Without additions, they rely on the kids sticking their legs in the panniers to avoid falling off.

[clarion]

It is true that young kids' legs might not reach the rail, which might be a limitation.  Doesn't make it illegal, by any means.  Maybe not advisable.

[Rapples]

The 2nd photo also has the "optional" stoker bars fitted, and one could therefore argue if the kids could reach the "footrests" was suitably modified. Dodgy though, and I wouldn't want to put a child on it for anything but the very shortest journeys though.  If however the bike was, as I assume, like the 1st (as there is no mention of anything other than a wooden seat) then it's no different from carrying a child on any standrd bike rack, and specifically against the law if Carlton Reid is to be believed.

I'm not surprised the Police stopped her, and Mr Charly's version of events seems highly likely.

[clarion]

Mrcharly's imagined dialogue is plausible. 

Carlton Reid is to be believed.

However, you are reading him wrong if you think that he is suggesting this is illegal.  It is massively different from carrying a child on a standard bike rack.  If you can't see the difference, I suggest you find a Mundo to borrow (there are several owners on this forum), have a look at it, ride it, and then comment.

By then, of course, you will have noticed the extra strength of the welded frame providing support and rigidity, the size and clearance available, and the handling of the bike.