Cyclist-pedestrian-cyclist



T

Timo

Guest
On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
red for eternity.

Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
again before the light has gone green.

Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
complain. So why do they complain when I do that?
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Timo wrote:
> On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
> red for eternity.
>
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
> it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
> junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
> complain. So why do they complain when I do that?


Ignore them. Be guided by your own conscience. It's similar to using
the right lane and going 450 degrees around a roundabout to turn left,
thus avoiding the queue in the left lane - in your car - nothing illegal
there either.

--
Matt B
 
M

Marz

Guest
Timo wrote:
> On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
> red for eternity.
>
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
> it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
> junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
> complain. So why do they complain when I do that?


Knickers to 'em. That's half the point of cycling to work in the first
place is to avoid traffic queues. They're just jealous. I bet if asked
they'd prefer you to stay on your bike than add another car to the
queue in front of them.

Anyway you're more polite than me, if it's a quiet corner (i.e. no
peds) I'd have hopped the curb, ridden across the pavement and manualed
back into traffic.

I remember a piece of road with about 4 sets of lights with a short
(<0.5 mile) distance between them. They'd always be a queue at each
light, I'd undertake up to the light, cross on green, the queue of cars
would overtake me, just in time for the next red light where we would
repeat the process again. You'd see drivers almost loose it after the
third time they would have to overtake me.

Laters,

Marcus
 

MichaelB

New Member
Feb 10, 2004
236
2
0
41
Timo said:
On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
red for eternity.

Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
again before the light has gone green.

Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
complain. So why do they complain when I do that?

Jealousy and frustration bourne from the fact that their mode of transport forces them to wait in huge queues all day. People just like whinging.
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"Timo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
> it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
> junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
> complain. So why do they complain when I do that?


Do you actually hear them complain? What do they say?
--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/Stuff
 
T

Timo

Guest
Yes, I've seen people actually taking the trouble to slow down and
lower the window just to shout
obscenities at me - on several occasions.
 
N

Naqerj

Guest
Timo wrote:
> On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
> red for eternity.
>
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal?


Strictly speaking, yes it is illegal. It's not the walking with it on
the pavement that breaks the law, it's going through a red light with it
even though you're walking and not riding.

> Is
> it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
> junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
> complain. So why do they complain when I do that?
>


Jealousy, I reckon. It may be technically illegal but I bet that most
of them don't know that.

--
Andrew
 
D

Danny Colyer

Guest
Timo wrote:
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal?


AIUI, yes it is. If you pick the bike up and carry it then it's OK.

Personally I've recently come around to thinking that cyclists ought to
be able to treat red lights as give way signs, but in this case
disagreeing with the law doesn't encourage me to break it.

> I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it?


Again, yes. Strictly speaking you should pick it up and carry it,
although case law means that you should be able to get away with pushing.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
R

Russell Fulker

Guest
Danny Colyer wrote:
> Timo wrote:
>
>> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
>> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
>> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
>> again before the light has gone green.
>>
>> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal?

>
>
> AIUI, yes it is. If you pick the bike up and carry it then it's OK.


Go on then, I'll bite :) So why is it illegal, and so why does the
highway code suggest doing it in similar circumstances?
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#62
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Thu, 01 Dec, Russell Fulker <[email protected]> wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
> >
> > AIUI, yes it is. If you pick the bike up and carry it then it's OK.

>
> Go on then, I'll bite :) So why is it illegal,


Because that's what the law says.
What do you mean by 'why'?
Why was the law passed? or Which law is it that is relevant?

> and so why does the highway code suggest doing it in similar
> circumstances?
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#62


Because that rule was apparently written by an imbecile (or possibly a
whole committee of them). You will also observe that it suggests that
'you may feel safer' doing something that is fairly obviously much
more dangerous. You will further note that having implied a
recommendation to adopt this crazy mode of negotiating the roundabout
the rule actually admits that it makes it more likely that you will
get driven over by a motor vehicle.

I can only assume that particular rule was an attempt to eliminate a
few more cyclists, in order to free up road space for motor vehicles.

It's a really dumb piece of advice. Ignore it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
D

dave

Guest
Timo wrote:
> On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
> red for eternity.
>
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
> it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
> junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
> complain. So why do they complain when I do that?
>


There is a corner on my commute where I er... bend the law in a similiar
manner. No one seems to be ****** off. But I think its that they just
can;t see me. Being a cyclist and therefore invisible :)

The reason your motorists are upset? Jealousy

Dave
 
D

Danny Colyer

Guest
The thread went:
>>>AIUI, yes it is. If you pick the bike up and carry it then it's OK.

>>
>> Go on then, I'll bite :) So why is it illegal,

>
> Because that's what the law says.
> What do you mean by 'why'?
> Why was the law passed? or Which law is it that is relevant?


<G>
Good answer, Ian. I don't think I need to add anything to it.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
R

Russell Fulker

Guest
Ian Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Dec, Russell Fulker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Danny Colyer wrote:
>>
>>>AIUI, yes it is. If you pick the bike up and carry it then it's OK.

>>
>> Go on then, I'll bite :) So why is it illegal,

>
>
> Because that's what the law says.
> What do you mean by 'why'?
> Why was the law passed? or Which law is it that is relevant?


Which law suggests wheeling a bike on the pavement is illegal?

>> and so why does the highway code suggest doing it in similar
>> circumstances?
>> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm#62

>
> Because that rule was apparently written by an imbecile... <snip>
>
> It's a really dumb piece of advice. Ignore it.


I'm not interested in the logic behind it; I'm questioning why the HC
would recommend doing something illegal. If it is genuinely illegal,
then your response explains it.
 
R

Russell Fulker

Guest
Danny Colyer wrote:

> The thread went:
>
>>>> AIUI, yes it is. If you pick the bike up and carry it then it's OK.
>>>
>>>
>>> Go on then, I'll bite :) So why is it illegal,

>>
>>
>> Because that's what the law says.
>> What do you mean by 'why'? Why was the law passed? or Which law is
>> it that is relevant?

>
>
> <G>
> Good answer, Ian. I don't think I need to add anything to it.
>


Feel free to answer either of the last two questions. I'd like to know
which law is relevant, but the reason for its existence would be
interesting to learn. My guess is that it's an unintended consequence
of legislation to solve a completely different problem. Am I close?
 
D

Danny Colyer

Guest
Russell Fulker wrote:
> Feel free to answer either of the last two questions. I'd like to know
> which law is relevant, but the reason for its existence would be
> interesting to learn. My guess is that it's an unintended consequence
> of legislation to solve a completely different problem. Am I close?


Note the "AIUI" in my original statement.

I believe it's a consequence of the 1835 Highway Act, which makes it
illegal to drive a carriage along the footway. Of course, as the act
predates the bicycle, we have to assume that making the pushing of
bicycles along the pavement illegal was not an intentional consequence
of the act.

And I still haven't managed to get my mitts on a copy of the act, so I
can't really say much more about it. I think I once managed to find
online the bit that makes it illegal to drive a carriage along the
footway, but I've never managed to find the bit that defines a carriage.
Which is important to me, because it would confirm the legality or
otherwise of unicycling on the pavement.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
J

Judith

Guest
On 1 Dec 2005 08:49:12 -0800, "Timo" <[email protected]il.com> wrote:

>
>Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
>off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
>road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
>again before the light has gone green.
>
>Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
>it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
>pavement, is it?



I was taught, whilst doing my Cycling Proficiency 25 years ago, that,
if necessary, I should wheel my bike on the road and not the pavement.
This was because my bike was a vehicle and the pavements are for
pedestrians.

I still think that way now really.

Judith
 
A

Adrian Boliston

Guest
"Timo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> On my daily commute there's an annoying junction where the lights stays
> red for eternity.
>
> Since I'm turning left, instead of waiting for the green light, I get
> off the bike, walk the bike around the bend on the pavement, and if the
> road I'm crossing into is fairly clear, I manage to set off on the bike
> again before the light has gone green.
>
> Really seems to **** of some motorists. Why is that? Is it illegal? Is
> it inconsiderate? I mean, it's not illegal to walk you bike on the
> pavement, is it? If I had my bike parked on the pavement next to that
> junction, and then joined the traffic on the other road, nobody would
> complain. So why do they complain when I do that?


What's the point in using the *pavement* to make a left turn? It seems far
more long winded than either waiting for the light to go green, or doing the
"american thing" and making a turn (although technically illegal) when it's
clear. Anything that involves dismounting seems more hassle than it's
worth to me.
 
D

David Martin

Guest
Russell Fulker wrote:

> Feel free to answer either of the last two questions. I'd like to know
> which law is relevant, but the reason for its existence would be
> interesting to learn. My guess is that it's an unintended consequence
> of legislation to solve a completely different problem. Am I close?


AIUI it is illegal to pass a red light when in charge of a vehicle.
This makes it illegal (in terms of the legislation) to get onto the
pavement and walk the bike past the light. The only times you may pass
a red light are when instructed to do so by a police officer, or if the
lights are not working. (failing to detect a bike is counted as not
working but you have to give them a reasonable chance to work. One
complete cycle would be enough, or having to wait for an exceptional
period of time..)

...d
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
Danny Colyer wrote:
>I believe it's a consequence of the 1835 Highway Act, which makes it
>illegal to drive a carriage along the footway. Of course, as the act
>predates the bicycle, we have to assume that making the pushing of
>bicycles along the pavement illegal was not an intentional consequence
>of the act.


On the other hand, isn't it decided case law that someone pushing a
bicycle across a pedestrian crossing while walking beside it is a
pedestrian?
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> On the other hand, isn't it decided case law that someone pushing a
> bicycle across a pedestrian crossing while walking beside it is a
> pedestrian?


Yes it is but that is only in relation to a pedestrian crossing. It has
not been tested on the manoeuver in question and I have my doubts that
the Court would agree that it was legal.

The Brooks v Crank case was about a motorist who hit a person pushing a
bike across a pedestrian crossing. The motorist argued he was a cyclist
not a pedestrian and therefore the pedestrian crossing gave him no
special right of way. The Court found otherwise. In this case the
Court would be considering if the manoeuver was tantamount to passing a
red light and I think they might conclude it was. OTOH if the OP had
been pushing his bike through town and as part of that act he pushed it
through a red light I suspect they would agree it was OK

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham