Catching Real Criminals

[Rapples]

Have a look at this close-up of the Yuba rack.  The diagonal struts of the rack are close enough together that I don't think a child would be able to manipulate its leg into the gap, and certainly not while the bike was in motion.  The rack is very wide and so stands well clear of the wheel. 

But what you are doing is making a subjective decision based on your opinion.  It may or may not reflect mine or an individual Police Officer.  you are not recognised as competent to do that in the eyes of the law.

With motor vehicles they undergo a design process that is critically evaluated against the legisltion in each country they are sold, they then have to pass an annual test to confirm they still comply.  In this way a Police Officer merely needs to check the relevant documents to satisfy himself of it's legality.

Of course the obvious solution is to put bicycles into that category, with all the bureaucracy and costs to the public that would involve, compusory insurance MOT's and bike registration.

I for one am happy with the way thing are, and if the Police see something that in their opinion seems may be infringing the regulations, simply carry the relevant documentation from Yuba stating its is legal in the form you are using it and the Police will leave you alone.

I'm confident in this case the Police decided the modification this woman made was not adequate in the case of her children.  If handle bars, and proper seats* were fitted and the 6y.o was 48" or taller (unlikely but possible) then we would all agree the Police were unjustified.  Strapping a plank of wood to a rack only makes it a rack with a plank of wood on it even if you choose to call it a seat.

*It may be that the wooden seat was adequate, but without any of the other criteria being met in some form then I'd suspect it wasn't

[Phil]

Have a look at this close-up of the Yuba rack.  The diagonal struts of the rack are close enough together that I don't think a child would be able to manipulate its leg into the gap, and certainly not while the bike was in motion.  The rack is very wide and so stands well clear of the wheel. 

But what you are doing is making a subjective decision based on your opinion.  It may or may not reflect mine or an individual Police Officer.  you are not recognised as competent to do that in the eyes of the law.

What you've quoted there is my response to Grub's question here, which was not to do with the legality or otherwise of the machine.  Hence my response was not an attempt at legal justification. 

The machine is legal for carrying passengers because it has been constructed to carry passengers, which is what is required by the law.  I really don't see what's not straightforward about that. 

As an aside, I'm interested to learn that I'm not adjudged competent to decide whether I'm acting lawfully or not in the eyes of the law.  Surely by that logic it would be wrong to prosecute me for any crime?

[Greenbank]

The machine is legal for carrying passengers because it has been constructed to carry passengers, which is what is required by the law.  I really don't see what's not straightforward about that. 

To paraphrase yourself, "because there's construction and there's construction".

Constructing a bike to carry passengers isn't the whole story as in my example with a child on a modified bike with a rack. That may satisfy the definition of the law that has been quoted, but is still illegal (according to Chris Juden).

Even then, compliance with one specific law (s 24 of the 1988 RTA) doesn't guarantee legality, it just passes one test that could have ruled it illegal.

[clarion]

Your example of a modified bike is not one of construction, but of, er, modification.

Muddies the water, rather, on what is, in fact, a fairly straightforward decision in this case.

[Rapples]

The machine is legal for carrying passengers because it has been constructed to carry passengers, which is what is required by the law.  I really don't see what's not straightforward about that. 

Because so far no one has produced any documentation to say that in it's standard form

All we have are pictures from their website and the wording of the manual, all state that it is suitable for carrying children, but they at the same time either show or say you should fit the specific modifications to do so.

As I've said upthread, I'd cheerfully transport children on a Yuba, I am confident that they are safe and legal for that purpose. 

You may well be but that is only your opinion, as you nor Clarion have put forward anything definate that states it is, other than "it's bleeding obvious"

I'd suggest if it came to court the judge/magistrate would look as to what was available from the manufacturer for the purpose of carrying children, what they recommend, and be guided by that.  I'd expect to be found guilty YMMV.


ps. I'll ignore you aside in the spirit of being excellent to each other, and keeping the thread on topic

[Greenbank]

Your example of a modified bike is not one of construction, but of, er, modification.

So, why does a subjective view apply only to modification and not the initial construction? The law, as worded, does not distinguish between the two.

[Phil]

The machine is legal for carrying passengers because it has been constructed to carry passengers, which is what is required by the law.  I really don't see what's not straightforward about that.  

To paraphrase yourself, "because there's construction and there's construction".

Constructing a bike to carry passengers isn't the whole story as in my example with a child on a modified bike with a rack. That may satisfy the definition of the law that has been quoted, but is still illegal (according to Chris Juden).

Even then, compliance with one specific law (s 24 of the 1988 RTA) doesn't guarantee legality, it just passes one test that could have ruled it illegal.

Yes indeed, and I am not trying to say that a bike automatically becomes legal for the carriage of passengers as soon as somebody says so.  Your example of adding a luggage rack to a bike is an example of a bike that has been modified, but not of a bicycle that has been modified to carry a passenger.  

However, a bicycle constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers passes the test in s24 of the 1988 RTA, the only relevant law quoted so far in this thread.  And, as I may have mentioned once or twice before, the Yuba does.  

Which is pretty straightforward.  

[Greenbank]

So you agree with me that conforming to that law alone doesn't guarantee legality?

[Regulator]

Yes indeed, and I am not trying to say that a bike automatically becomes legal for the carriage of passengers as soon as somebody says so.  Your example of adding a luggage rack to a bike is an example of a bike that has been modified, but not of a bicycle that has been modified to carry a passenger.  

However, a bicycle constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers passes the test in s24 of the 1988 RTA, the only relevant law quoted so far in this thread.  And, as I may have mentioned once or twice before, the Yuba does.  

Which is pretty straightforward.  

You mean besides the Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations referred to several times above, which are in fact what need to be complied with?

And Yuba are very careful not to explicitly say that their bike is constructed to carry passengers without modification.  Indeed, in their literature they specifically make reference to the differing rules in the various jurisdictions and the requirement for modifications when carrying children.

[Phil]

So you agree with me that conforming to that law alone doesn't guarantee legality?

Absolutely.  Mum X may have been in breach of a slew of laws when she was stopped.  But not that one. 

[Phil]

Yes indeed, and I am not trying to say that a bike automatically becomes legal for the carriage of passengers as soon as somebody says so.  Your example of adding a luggage rack to a bike is an example of a bike that has been modified, but not of a bicycle that has been modified to carry a passenger.  

However, a bicycle constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers passes the test in s24 of the 1988 RTA, the only relevant law quoted so far in this thread.  And, as I may have mentioned once or twice before, the Yuba does.  

Which is pretty straightforward.  

You mean besides the Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations referred to several times above, which are in fact what need to be complied with?

Could you just link me to where they were quoted in this thread? I must have missed it. 

[GruB]

Phil,
Back up thread a way Fuzzy gave an example of how he thought use of this bike in the way alleged could cause a tragic accident. 
I was not thinking of it in that way - but more so for the possible injury caused to the children sat on the back from their feet going into the spokes of the rear wheel.

As a user I would be interested to hear your views please.

In the picture posted up thread of the children on the green Yuba I see they are sufficiently old enough to reach the foot rests.  On the earlier Yuba picture the smaller children had their legs resting on panniers.  Neither of these cause me any great concern.  However, if it was a small child and there were not any panniers, would that change the access to the spokes ?

Sure (although I don't actually own one, I have borrowed Charlotte's occasionally)

Have a look at this close-up of the Yuba rack.  The diagonal struts of the rack are close enough together that I don't think a child would be able to manipulate its leg into the gap, and certainly not while the bike was in motion.  The rack is very wide and so stands well clear of the wheel. 

Thanks Phil.  From that pic I can also see how close the spokes are spaced and now knowing that believe it would also be difficult to get actually into them.

[GruB]

I'm wary of someone who automatically assumes that every part of a report by a reliable, diligent and trustworthy journalist is incorrect.

CLP have had a chance to respond.  It appears they have not done so.

Clarion,
When I quoted the law earlier, you will see that the act specified contstructed or adapted.
Modified is therefore a play on the word adapted.  It implies it possible to adapt something that was not originally in the agreed format - to now comply within the description.
So in this case, sold without any form of seat or plank or side foot rests, and then adapted or modified after the point of sale by having those items installed.

I would be interested to see if the more recent law that Reg refers to has the qualifier or adapted or modified as well.

[Jules]

Dunno if this helps:

Families swap 4x4s for wheelbarrows in Richmond | News

Probably not. It's equally useless to know that it's the one on the right that I'm riding in my avatar pic.

[spindrift]

Dunno if this helps:

Families swap 4x4s for wheelbarrows in Richmond | News

Probably not. It's equally useless to know that it's the one on the right that I'm riding in my avatar pic.

Apologies for the useless post!

I don't have a dog in this fight, I thought the cargo bikes (the bikes used by bakers and cheese shops in The Netherlands) debate would be illustrated by the photo I tried and failed to post. It probably didn't, sorry!

[Honest John]

Bloody hell, is this still going on? I thought after a ride over to see my mate (Nice tea, no food, a bit of fettling but very relaxing) to discuss next week's trip to the Alps this would have ended.

It's quite simple. If someone is threatening someone else's safety by obviously flouting the law, they should be nicked.

If they're not threatening someone else's safety and not obviously flouting the law, they should be left alone.

I don't see a problem with that.

Now about the daft old bint illegally lurching about in a car at the end of Priory Grove while I and a lady with two kids on bikes were trying to make legal manoeuvres...

Oh, and when daft old bint stopped so far across the ASL at the end of Lansdowne Way (and then went even further into the junction, past the ASL while the lights were still red) I was just praying for a 196 bus to come along and total her pratmobile.

Errr... could have done with a nice policeman to come along and nick her right then. After all the local yoof spend half their time knifing or shooting each other, so there must be some Plod about

[GruB]

Bloody hell, is this still going on? I thought after a ride over to see my mate (Nice tea, no food, a bit of fettling but very relaxing) to discuss next week's trip to the Alps this would have ended.

It's quite simple. If someone is threatening someone else's safety by obviously flouting the law, they should be nicked.

If they're not threatening someone else's safety and not obviously flouting the law, they should be left alone.

I don't see a problem with that.

Now about the daft old bint illegally lurching about in a car at the end of Priory Grove while I and a lady with two kids on bikes were trying to make legal manoeuvres...

Oh, and when daft old bint stopped so far across the ASL at the end of Lansdowne Way (and then went even further into the junction, past the ASL while the lights were still red) I was just praying for a 196 bus to come along and total her pratmobile.

Errr... could have done with a nice policeman to come along and nick her right then. After all the local yoof spend half their time knifing or shooting each other, so there must be some Plod about

If a nice old plod had taken your suggestion then that would have been an unlawful arrest.  Reporting for summons maybe, but the plod can't just arrest everyone.

[Honest John]

Bloody hell, is this still going on? I thought after a ride over to see my mate (Nice tea, no food, a bit of fettling but very relaxing) to discuss next week's trip to the Alps this would have ended.

It's quite simple. If someone is threatening someone else's safety by obviously flouting the law, they should be nicked.

If they're not threatening someone else's safety and not obviously flouting the law, they should be left alone.

I don't see a problem with that.

Now about the daft old bint illegally lurching about in a car at the end of Priory Grove while I and a lady with two kids on bikes were trying to make legal manoeuvres...

Oh, and when daft old bint stopped so far across the ASL at the end of Lansdowne Way (and then went even further into the junction, past the ASL while the lights were still red) I was just praying for a 196 bus to come along and total her pratmobile.

Errr... could have done with a nice policeman to come along and nick her right then. After all the local yoof spend half their time knifing or shooting each other, so there must be some Plod about

If a nice old plod had taken your suggestion then that would have been an unlawful arrest.  Reporting for summons maybe, but the plod can't just arrest everyone.

Reversing into a one-way street putting two adults and two children at risk?

[GruB]

No, I stand corrected, you are right.  It wouldn't even be a summons, more a driver improvement course.

[Doosh]

I think what is obvious is that Yuba sell this bike as being capable of carrying passengers, the onus is then on the buyer to modify it to comply with local laws so it is suitable to use in such a way.

Expecting Yuba to build a bike to comply with every law in every country regarding carrying passengers would be madness. I'm sure people see the pictures, buy one and carry passengers on them without even checking that it complies with the law, which might very well be the case here.

[Rapples]

From the horses mouth so to speak

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Keith Rapley wrote:

From: Keith Rapley
Subject: Mundo

Message Body:
Hi

What accessories are necessary to safely carry children on the Mundo in the UK, and if so what are the minimum requirements, assuming the childrens are over 48" tall?


From: Yuba
Hello Keith,


Are you talking about 1 or 2 kids?
My recommendations would be:
Hold On Kit
Wheelskirts
Rumble Strap
and eventually Running Boards


All accessories are available in Europe.


Thanks,
Ben

HTH

[hatler]

Note that the chap from Yuba includes the word 'recommendation' in his reply.

Also, I imagine he has some interest in flogging more gear.

[Rapples]

You argue against it court then, I asked for the "minimum necessary"

It seems this lady had none of these things

[clarion]

Doesn't fly.  That's not what he was replying to.  Do look up the word 'recommendation' in a dictionary, dear boy.

FAIL.

[Riggers]

Couldn't find it.  

And don't go changing it you bum.