I am not into SUVs, but there are days where I could go all Heckler&Koch about the idiot in front of me...

You mean optimized by computers? Thanks for the warning.

It's O.K.! Skynet hasn't gone self aware yet.

Nonsense! Good police officers in any country understand that good, safe driving is about mature judgement calls not about following the rules. That's why, whatever your age, your insurance will never be more expensive than the day after you successfully pass you driving test (after successfully remembering all the rules). If you're watching a child walk down the street, stop near a crossing to do up their shoe laces, you can continue driving, being reasonably certain that it's a tough ask for a child to get up and dart into the road. Conversely, if children are playing with a ball no where near a crossing, the proper thing to do is to slow to a crawl, knowing that if the ball shoots into the road, a child may unthinkingly follow it.

It seems that these police were filling a quota or unthinkingly reacting to a complaint.

Let's stick to the facts at hand as given by the OP. The child was clearly not doing up his shoelaces or kicking a ball. It is quite reasonable to assume that the child in question could not/could have started to walk without warning. The legality of the fine is clear. I would rather not enter into a discussion about discretion around children crossing roads. My argument favored absolutes, which I will still argue , should be applied when it comes to young pedestrians at crossings. As someone pointed out earlier, what's the logical follow through ? You stop, no one gets hurt, you only slow down, you increase the risk someone gets hurt. Familiarity with a crossing will breed contempt for pedestrians and yourself as a driver will slowly train yourself into a dangerous pattern of thought.

I agree with UTH.

I re-quoted the OP, together with bolding the pertinent parts for ease of understanding.

The child in question was not tying his shoes, he was (apparently) daydreaming. I've seen plenty of children doing that, wherever they are and whatever they're supposed to be doing, particularly if they're waiting for something that isn't happening - such as cars stopping for them.

I have no idea whether the Swiss driving laws are strict, reasonable, too highly fined, whatever... what I do know is that when it comes to children, you can't simply assume you know what they're going to do. Child at crosswalk, no matter what you THINK they're going to do, you simply stop.

This is something that is always important to keep in mind BUT I feel pretty confident that it likely is a police exercise (whether the child was involved or whether the police were simply observing that crossing in general) to help make drivers more aware prior to the upcoming school break. (Hubby says here in Basel, we can expect the kids to have a week off for Easter... I'm sure there will be plenty out and about, particularly if the weather is as nice as it is right now.)

__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

I don't fear the cars at the crossing, nope. They are enough big to be seen. I fear those stupid cyclists and scooters who believe the law doesn't apply to them.

Those are the one that should be heavily punished. A scooter or motorbike have to respect the road code too. They are not allowed to pass cars on the right or the left when stuck in the traffic. They come out of nowhere and pass at full speed. They believe to be upper the law and too often I see them coming very close to hit a pedestrian at a crossing.

The rules need to be in place for the 50% of drivers who are unable to make mature judgement calls.

I am still no clearer as to whether the police should be using a child in such a scenario?

It is clear that not to stop is wrong in the letter of the law, but wouldn't the police also be in a world of trouble if the kid they were using as a "stooge" got hit by a car?

Was the child actually being used by the Police or was he merely in the street and the Police were monitoring road usage anyway?

I have seen the Police monitoring traffic in our street whilst children have been playing.

When I taught we had police come to the school to teach children to cross the road. They were very clear with the children that they should wait at the crossing until the cars have stopped for them. I don't remember any instruction of not loitering at the crossing, etc.
I think this comes from the parents, who know themselves how difficult it can be to judge what someone is doing, and don't want their children to get hurt by accidentally giving out mixed signals to drivers.
I do think it was 'set up' by the police as I've yet to find a child who randomly waits at crossings without ever actually crossing. To be honest, I'd have a few tickets myself from not being able to figure out what someone is doing at the crossing, and doing just what the OP did.
This is completely different from people who just blow through the crossing with no regard for it. Those people do deserve a ticket. When I wait with the buggy for five cars to drive by before one stops to let me cross, I know it's not because I look unsure of what I need to do. They just don't want to stop.

If a policeman asked his own kid to stand there, how would anyone find out? Who will take this case to court? What crime did the policeman commit in any case if he asked a random kid to stand there?

Take it as lesson learned and just let it go.

Just wondered what I would do if it happened to me. Providing I had the time, I'd park up after getting caught, walk back to near the stop and just observe. If your suspicions prove to be correct, call the Head of Police and make an appointment to discuss, or phone the local newspaper reporter. Not much point complaining to us here or make accusations, as there is no way of knowing what really happened.

I feel you are being very generous with that 50% - I'd put it closer to 90% just from watching the numbers of folk driving around preoccupied by things other than the task in hand (kids, mobile phones, music, make-up, smoking/eating/drinking) not to mention the limited mental capacity of many to focus on a single task let alone multi-task.

Thankfully at least people here are infinitely more spatially aware behind a wheel than they are in a pair of shoes.

The hell they're not. In Zurich, everyone just saunters out into traffic, often without looking. Hell, on more than one occasion I've seen parents push the baby carriage into traffic first. They just assume traffic will stop.

The kid was put there by the police.

This was organized, and they made no secret of this when we were pulled over. The were actually surprisingly blunt, saying something like: "We have a kid standing by the cross walk down there, and you failed to stop".

Unfortunately the kid did not preform his part of the masquerade properly in the sense that he was supposed to look like he, as the rules state, "intended to cross the road", hence the result was a failure to stop on our side (due to application of common sense, a mistake which will not be repeated in the future thanks to this experience), and promptly being stopped and issued a pretty orange Fr. 140 pay in slip as a reward.

So, are you saying, the Police and/or child forced/made/coerced you into breaking the law ?

I couldn't agree more. At the Zurich Opernhaus tram stop (important: it's closed to all vehicular traffic except public trans vehicles), I witnessed a girl from my school get hit by a motorcycle. I still remember seeing the veggies from the sandwich she'd just bought at the Gourmessa flying through the air.

So this motorcyclist not only drove through a road he should never have been on, he was going too fast to see the pedestrians. He hit one, skidded out on the bike trying to stop, with him and the bike lying right in the path of the moving tram the pedestrian was heading for. So yeah, the tram also had to emergency brake. Hopefully no passengers were hurt.

Le sigh...

But the law says to stop for pedestrians who appear to intend to cross. As best I can interpret said law, a person standing near a crosswalk, showing no intent to cross, does not trigger the "you must stop for pedestrians" rule.

The presence is a trigger to stop. Standing is a sign of intent. Presence is a sign of intent. Pedestrians tend to walk. The majority of pedestrians are walking. The majority of people standing near a crossing are going to cross. Trying to argue that a pedestrian didn't look like he was going to cross is at best weak and at worst dangerous.

Intent cannot accurately be interpreted and guesswork invites risk. It all depends on your attitude to risk and respect. What will happen if you do stop and what will happen if you don't stop.

Save yourself guesswork. Avoid risk. Save lives. Stop.