A Copper Says..

[lemmy]

I cycled along Parliament Square and Whitehall today on my way to some classes. Lovely atmosphere, even for someone like me who wouldn't turn my head to see a royal.

I was chatting to a cop who was interested in my Brompton, keen cyclist himself. I told him about the pedelec and he was very interested in how they operated. Naturally enough, chat got round to jumping red lights when I pointed out to him a group of riders all going through one, one after another.

He said that you could avoid any problem with the law by simply dismounting and walking across, since when being pushed beside the rider the bike legally become a personal possession, like a suitcase and not a vehicle subject to traffic law.

So, you can ride up to the lights, jump off, push the machine across the junction, mount and ride on. Provided the junction is crossed fully on foot, you have done nothing illegal.

Of course, on a fast, light and manoeuvrable machine like the Brommy, designed for town riding, that's one thing. A bit more clunky on my Tasman.

On the other hand, it'd be nice to avoid the possibility of getting nicked, remote as it might be.

 

[flecc]

Yes, here's the legal ruling which I've published in here previously Lemmy:

Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."
.

 

[eddieo]

Doh! diden't u know dat!... The wifes step through makes this very easy

 

[Scottyf]

Get to red light at speed... Jump off, Run, Jump back on.

You'd look like a nob head though.


Or have some heely's trainers...

Cycle at speed, Jump off, Glide with your wheels in your shoes, jump back on.

 

[lemmy]

You'd look like a nob head though.

I don't have to jump off a bike to look like one of those

 

[Scottyf]

No way I'm sure you look cool!

I have split my jeans so when I stand up to pedal everyone behind can see my balls (But I do this on purpose)

 

[tangent]

I frequently do this. Advantage of owning a girly bike.

 

[james@justebikes.co.uk]

Yes, here's the legal ruling which I've published in here previously Lemmy:

Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."
.

Flecc how so you know so much? A big essex comercial law firm took an equity stake in my co 2yrs ago in exchange for free legal advice.... if i had known you were so well versed ii'd have saved 5%!

 

[flecc]

Just gradual accumulation over time James, filing away for future use. For example, it's widely believed that cycling on pavements is always illegal, but that is not so as this shows:

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. At the time 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)

While adults are not allowed to cycle on 'footpaths' (see definitions above), children up to the age of 16 cannot be prosecuted for doing so, see text above for clarification.

When using segregated cycle-paths ie signed footways shared with pedestrians, cyclists ought to keep to the side intended for cyclists.
.

 

[PennyFarthing]

Flecc - thanks for claryfying this!

 

[Mussels]

He said that you could avoid any problem with the law by simply dismounting and walking across, since when being pushed beside the rider the bike legally become a personal possession, like a suitcase and not a vehicle subject to traffic law.

So, you can ride up to the lights, jump off, push the machine across the junction, mount and ride on. Provided the junction is crossed fully on foot, you have done nothing illegal.

Why do you have to push it all the way across? As long as it's pushed over the stop line that should do.

 

[lemmy]

Why do you have to push it all the way across? As long as it's pushed over the stop line that should do.

I don't think it's a matter of what should do, it's a matter of what does.

As I understand it, if you mount the cycle anywhere in the area controlled by the light, which is obviously from the stop line to the junction exit to which the light prohibits you from proceeding, your cycle becomes a vehicle and you are nicked, sunshine (to put it in legalese )

On the other hand, if, when you are halfway across the junction, the lights change you would presumably be legally reverting to vehicle mode and have vehiclomatic immunity.

It would probably have been quicker to wait for the light to change in that case, though.