Espirit de corps



Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark Thompson wrote:

> > > >In actual fact that is STILL illegal AFAIK.....
> > >
> > > Not so, as posted elsewhere.
> >
> > Do you have any reference to this then. i know some others have posted it is not illegal to
> > bypass a red light on the pavement with a bike but that doesn't make them right.
> >
> > I still believe it to be illegal.
> >
> > I hate to use a uk.tosspot tactic, but...
> >
> > Evidence please.
>
> Is there some confusion about how I do this? I stop at lights, get off bike and wheel it on path,
> then over road, back on path. Mount bike in the gutter and pedal off. If I'm turning left it's the
> same, but without crossing a road (this is normally the only time it's worthwhile doing as most
> lights seem to change every thirty seconds or so on my route). When people say illegal I take it
> we're dealing with the famous urc pedantry again?

I'm sure that some may call it pedantry. I don't. Personally I wouldn't do what you do because I
think it winds up motorists unnecessarily as they sit seething at having to wait a minute or less
at lights. And what do you save? Anything at all? IMO it gives motorists another reason to have a
go at cyclists.

However, when teaching cycle safety to young children, I often advise them to get off and walk *if*
they feel at all unsafe, and crossing large junctions with lights can worry younger riders.

As I say, its not pedantry, its wanting to know what the legal position really is.

John B
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:26:24 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Do you have any reference to this then.
>
> Crank v Brooks, 1980, is the usual reference. A bicycle being pushed is a burden, not a vehicle.
> Later clarified by the DfT in a letter written in 1994 in which they confirm "....that a cyclist
> pushing a bicycle on a pedestrian facility is regarded as a pedestrian". Laso, according to the
> CTC (and I haven't looked) the latest highway code illustrates a NO ENTRY sign with the words "no
> vehicles except cycles being pushed".

Thanks. I do vaguely remember a case of a cyclist being knocked down on a zebra crossing and ISTR a
hoo-har about whether he was a pedestrian or not. It was probably a typical cager attempt to avoid
any responsibility. I think it was around the early 90s which would tie in with a DfT letter (is
that available anywhere?).

However the sign in the HC which says "No vehicles except bicycles being pushed" is the white
roundel with red edge.

The No Entry sign is labelled quite clearly as no entry for *all* vehicular traffic.

Interestingly the former would allow a bike being pushed, but would stop me taking my trike through
- also cue Danny and his unicycle ;-)

John B
 
JohnB wrote:
> However the sign in the HC which says "No vehicles except bicycles being pushed" is the white
> roundel with red edge.
>
> The No Entry sign is labelled quite clearly as no entry for *all* vehicular traffic.

My HC (1999 edition, printed 2001) matches that. I'm not aware that it's been updated since then -
if I'd read about an update I'd have bought a new one.

> Interestingly the former would allow a bike being pushed, but would stop me taking my trike
> through - also cue Danny and his unicycle ;-)

I'd sling the yike over my shoulder and turn it into a package. I'd like to see you do that with
your trike ;-)

ISTR the rules on cycling on bridleways specify bicycles as well, which has caused some soul
searching when planning Muni rides. In the early days of Polaris people used to mount a small second
wheel under the saddle to get round the problem.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:58:46 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:26:24 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Do you have any reference to this then.
>
> Crank v Brooks, 1980, is the usual reference. A bicycle being pushed is a burden, not a vehicle.
> Later clarified by the DfT in a letter written in 1994 in which they confirm "....that a cyclist
> pushing a bicycle on a pedestrian facility is regarded as a pedestrian". Laso, according to the
> CTC (and I haven't looked) the latest highway code illustrates a NO ENTRY sign with the words "no
> vehicles except cycles being pushed".

Surely if a cyclist pushing a bicycle is actually a pedestrian, then no one pushing a bike can be a
cyclist, because they're all pedestrians, in which case we really need to know if a pedestrian
pushing a bike is legal? Or is it that a pedestrian pushing a bike is really a cyclist who is
actually a ped...

Sorry.

--
Trevor Barton
 
Trevor Barton wrote:
>
> Surely if a cyclist pushing a bicycle is actually a pedestrian, then no one pushing a bike can be
> a cyclist, because they're all pedestrians, in which case we really need to know if a pedestrian
> pushing a bike is legal? Or is it that a pedestrian pushing a bike is really a cyclist who is
> actually a ped...
>

A cyclist pushing a bicycle has been interpreted by the Courts to be a pedestrian (Crank v Brooks)
but OTOH (and there is no case law AFAIK) if a cyclist were to push their bike past a red light as
suggested here it may well be that the Courts would say that they did so solely for the purpose of
avoiding complying with the traffic sign and would therefore be guilty under Section 36 of the Road
Traffic Act 1988.

To understand you need to read the Court of Appeal conclusion in Crank v Brooks: "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."

Now take the case where the cyclist started on the road astride the bike with a red traffic light
and ended up across the junction astride the bike with the light still red having walked across
pushing the bike and consider how the judge's thought process might go in that case.

I suspect you would have to do something in between getting off the bike and back on again that
would demonstrate you did what you did for purposes other than to avoid complying with the red
light, such as popping into the newsagents to buy a paper. OTOH there is precious little prosecution
of cycling through red lights and no case has ever been brought for doing as suggested so the risk
is miniscule even if it may not be legal.

Tony
 
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:04:16 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Now take the case where the cyclist started on the road astride the bike with a red traffic light
>and ended up across the junction astride the bike with the light still red having walked across
>pushing the bike and consider how the judge's thought process might go in that case.

No case law, as you say, but the motivation of [presumably] Brooks was not called into question. It
was not necessary for them to buy a paper in order to make use of the crossing, merely to be on foot
pushing the cycle immediately before and after the act of crossing.

If you are on the footway on foot with the bicycle at some point before the stopline and you re-
enter the carriageway from a position on the footway after the junction, then your motivation for
using the footway should be completely irrelevant. I can't see how any other interpretation would be
reasonable.

What a lovely case, though. Cranky Mr Crank, and Mr Brooks on his leather-saddled bike...

(prolly find out Brooks was a wizened old harridan on a Solid Rust Raleigh - if so please keep it
to yourself and don't destroy my wholly pleasing mental image of the CTC member and the finger-
wagging cager)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
JohnB wrote:
>
> Thanks. I do vaguely remember a case of a cyclist being knocked down on a zebra crossing and ISTR
> a hoo-har about whether he was a pedestrian or not. It was probably a typical cager attempt to
> avoid any responsibility.

a cyclist on his/her bike on a pedestrian crossing is not a pedestrian.

pk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:04:16 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Now take the case where the cyclist started on the road astride the bike with a red traffic light
>> and ended up across the junction astride the bike with the light still red having walked across
>> pushing the bike and consider how the judge's thought process might go in that case.
>
> No case law, as you say, but the motivation of [presumably] Brooks was not called into question.
> It was not necessary for them to buy a paper in order to make use of the crossing, merely to be on
> foot pushing the cycle immediately before and after the act of crossing.
>

Exactly and in the hypothetical case they are riding the bike before and after the act of crossing
hence it is possible they will be found to be crossing the junction as a cyclist, not a pedestrian.

Crank v Brooks is not a definitive for all time and all circumstances ruling, it is relevant but was
arrived at from a certain set of circumstances. Those circumstances were a motorist injured a person
who was pushing a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing. At issue was whether the motorist was at
fault for hitting a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing or was the cyclist at fault for crossing the
road as a cyclist (in which case the pedestrian crossing had no relevance) and failing to give way
to the motorist who had right of way. In that case the Court of Appeal seems quite reasonably to
have concluded that the motorist did not get off the hook that way although if the cyclist had been
scooting or cycling on the crossing the situation would have been reversed.

The Court has to interpret the law and the intention of the action is a factor the judge will use in
making that interpretation as is previous Case Law. No doubt the defence would raise Crank v Brook
which the Judge may consider but could dismiss as not relevant to this situation. If you read a few
Appeal Court transcripts you will see this working all the time. For a topical example read
http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2037/drinkall.htm and note how the Appeal Judge
considers in some detail whether Dietz is relevant and should apply (unfortunately he concluded it
was and did)

Tony
 
"PK" <[email protected]> writes:

> JohnB wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I do vaguely remember a case of a cyclist being knocked down on a zebra crossing and
> > ISTR a hoo-har about whether he was a pedestrian or not. It was probably a typical cager attempt
> > to avoid any responsibility.
>
> a cyclist on his/her bike on a pedestrian crossing is not a pedestrian.

In Scotland, for access cases anyway, a cyclist is always a pedestrian, as a result of a court case
which determined that a cycle was an aid to travel analogous to a walking stick.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]
 
PK wrote:

> JohnB wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I do vaguely remember a case of a cyclist being knocked down on a zebra crossing and
> > ISTR a hoo-har about whether he was a pedestrian or not. It was probably a typical cager attempt
> > to avoid any responsibility.
>
> a cyclist on his/her bike on a pedestrian crossing is not a pedestrian.

The case ISTR related to a cyclist pushing their bike, ie technically in charge of a vehicle and
thus arguably not a pedestrian as defined under the useage of a zebra crossing. I believe the driver
argued only pedestrians had right of way.

John B
 
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:26:31 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>in the hypothetical case they are riding the bike before and after the act of crossing hence it is
>possible they will be found to be crossing the junction as a cyclist, not a pedestrian.

I'm not unaware of the backgorund. Looking back I see that we are at disgruntled dolphins[1] because
I didn't read the PP properly. Hopping off, pushing across the junction and hopping on is Definitely
Naughty. Hopping off before the line, lifting the bike onto the pavement, crossing the junction as a
pedestrian with bike as burden, and rejoining the carriageway subsequent to the junction, would seem
to me to be Not Naughty as per Crank v Brooks. Is that how you would call it?

With regard to Drinkall, the phrase "filthy stinking weasel bastards" seems to sum up the insurance
company's actions just nicely.

[1] or possibly cross porpoises

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:47:47 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Hopping off before the line, lifting the bike onto the pavement, crossing the junction as a
>>pedestrian with bike as burden, and rejoining the carriageway subsequent to the junction, would
>>seem to me to be Not Naughty as per Crank v Brooks. Is that how you would call it?

>Not agreed. In practice it doesn't matter whether you are on the road or the pavement when you do
>the pushing and the going onto the pavement is a bit of a red herring (which may serve to keep your
>cross porpoises fed). You started on the road and ended on the road My speculation, and it is only
>speculation because there is no relevant case law, is that the judge would say that a cyclist
>riding up to the lights, getting off, pushing across (whether or not it involves a section of
>pavement), getting back on and riding away is not the same as the circumstances as Crank v Brook
>and would deem an offence to have been committed under the RTA88.

But what offence would have been committed? If one is pushing a bicycle on the pavement one is not
capable of committing the offence of crossing the stop line because (a) one is no longer a vehicle
but a pedestrian with a burden and (b) the stop line does not exist on the pavement.

Since pushing a bicycle on the pavement is not in itself an offence, it would be (IMO) quite hard to
make that stick.

But we'll have to wait for the test case :)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Hopping off, pushing across the junction and hopping on is Definitely Naughty.

Agreed

>Hopping off before the line, lifting the bike onto the pavement, crossing the junction as a
>pedestrian with bike as burden, and rejoining the carriageway subsequent to the junction, would
>seem to me to be Not Naughty as per Crank v Brooks. Is that how you would call it?
>

Not agreed. In practice it doesn't matter whether you are on the road or the pavement when you do
the pushing and the going onto the pavement is a bit of a red herring (which may serve to keep your
cross porpoises fed). You started on the road and ended on the road My speculation, and it is only
speculation because there is no relevant case law, is that the judge would say that a cyclist riding
up to the lights, getting off, pushing across (whether or not it involves a section of pavement),
getting back on and riding away is not the same as the circumstances as Crank v Brook and would deem
an offence to have been committed under the RTA88.

YMMV

Tony
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> But what offence would have been committed?

Failing to comply with a traffic sign

>If one is pushing a bicycle on the pavement one is not capable of committing the offence of
>crossing the stop line because
>(a) one is no longer a vehicle but a pedestrian with a burden and

Very arguable because that relies on Crank v Brooks and as I've said many times, that is not
necessarily applicable to this case.

>(b) the stop line does not exist on the pavement.

Again I think that is arguable. If you drove your car, Italian style, onto the pavement, past the
traffic light and back onto the road I suspect you could be prosecuted with, inter alia, failing to
comply with a traffic sign and not just an offence of driving on the pavement. The clues are in the
meaning of the stop line in the TSRGD where the stop line is not necessarily the physical line
painted on the road.

>
> Since pushing a bicycle on the pavement is not in itself an offence, it would be (IMO) quite hard
> to make that stick.
>

Is that an opinion based on experience of the legal process and Court system or just a lay opinion?

> But we'll have to wait for the test case :)
>

Indeed we will

Tony
 
"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> JohnB wrote:
> >
> > Thanks. I do vaguely remember a case of a cyclist being knocked down on a zebra crossing and
> > ISTR a hoo-har about whether he was a pedestrian or not. It was probably a typical cager attempt
> > to avoid any responsibility.
>
> a cyclist on his/her bike on a pedestrian crossing is not a pedestrian.

No, but a pedestrian pushing his/her bike is.

--
Dave...
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> > But what offence would have been committed?
>
> Failing to comply with a traffic sign

Where was the failure to comply with the traffic sign?

> >If one is pushing a bicycle on the pavement one is not capable of committing the offence of
> >crossing the stop line because
> >(a) one is no longer a vehicle but a pedestrian with a burden and
>
> Very arguable because that relies on Crank v Brooks and as I've said many times, that is not
> necessarily applicable to this case.
>
> >(b) the stop line does not exist on the pavement.
>
> Again I think that is arguable. If you drove your car, Italian style,
onto
> the pavement, past the traffic light and back onto the road I suspect you could be prosecuted
> with, inter alia, failing to comply with a traffic
sign
> and not just an offence of driving on the pavement. The clues are in the meaning of the stop line
> in the TSRGD where the stop line is not
necessarily
> the physical line painted on the road.
>
> >
> > Since pushing a bicycle on the pavement is not in itself an offence, it would be (IMO) quite
> > hard to make that stick.
> >
>
> Is that an opinion based on experience of the legal process and Court
system
> or just a lay opinion?

Pedestrians can walk on pavements. People /pushing/ bikes are pedestrians. Cranks v Brooks is surely
applicable here? Walking on the pavement pushing a bicycle is legal, yes?

If so the only grey area is the bit between being on bike and being a pedestrian (i.e. getting off).

AFAIK it's not against the law to dismount from the bike at the kerbside, then wheel it onto
the pavement.

Nor is it an offence to wheel the bike onto a road and cycle.

I'm assuming the grey area can be narrowed down to whether you become a pedestrian when you start to
wheel the bike onto the pavement, or when you have finished (or halfway through, or when the wheels
have left the road, or th feet have, or whatever).

But whatever, dismounting from the bicycle and pushing it onto the pavement is perfectly ok, ok?

BUT

Are we saying that doing this, then the opposite the other side of the lights is illegal?

Despite not having done anything illegal?

So this would need to be a particular offense, yes?

Which is failing to comply with a traffic sign (as mentioned in a previous post, see above).

But going down a sidestreet would also be a failure to comply with a traffic sign, yet
perfectly legal.

So can moving in this way be perfectly legal unless it is specifically made illegal?

Or have I just misinterpreted you?

Mark.

(split everything up into lines to make it easier to read - kept losing track when it was one
big splodge).
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
>
> Where was the failure to comply with the traffic sign?
>

Failing to comply with a red traffic light which requires you to not pass beyond the stop line (the
stop line not necessarily needing to be a line painted on the road)

>
> Pedestrians can walk on pavements. People /pushing/ bikes are pedestrians. Cranks v Brooks is
> surely applicable here? Walking on the pavement pushing a bicycle is legal, yes?

Whether you are a pedestrian here is arguable. Crank v Brooks is an interpretation related to
starting on the pavement pushing a bike onto a pedestrian crossing. It can be used to try to argue
that it should by extension qualify you as a pedestrian in other circumstances but it does not mean
that you definitely are a pedestrian in other circumstances. It would be possible to construct a
very strong argument that dismounting a bike and pushing it across a red traffic light before
remounting and cycling away does not render you a pedestrian. If you sat in Court through a few
cases you would find that lawyers from both sides are raising various historical verdicts which they
then try to argue apply to their particular case. Sometimes the Court accepts it as a valid
extrapolation, sometimes it doesn't. I personally think that the extrapolation of Crank v Brooks to
this situation would be rather iffy and may very likely fail, in which case you are guilty of
propelling a vehicle beyond the stop line.

>
> If so the only grey area is the bit between being on bike and being a pedestrian (i.e.
> getting off).
>

No, as above whether you are a pedestrian in those circumstances is very questionable despite
Crank v Brooks

>
> Despite not having done anything illegal?
>

If the Court decision is that Crank v Brooks is not effective in rendering you a pedestrian then
what you have done is every bit as illegal as if you rode a motorbike onto the pavement and past the
red light to cross the junction.

But in the end only the Court, ultimately the House of Lords, can decide. You may well find the
following exchange in the House of Lords interesting though it still leaves the question hanging and
I am not aware that the written reply was ever sent or Baroness Hilton of Eggardon corrected. It
raises some other untested scenarios as well.

It may well decide in your favour but what I am trying to say is there is a reasonably good chance
it won't. So until there is a test case, bear that in mind.

Tony
 
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:58:46 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>according to the CTC (and I haven't looked) the latest highway code illustrates a NO ENTRY sign
>with the words "no vehicles except cycles being pushed".

That's a pity for people whose vehicle is a scooter, or a handcart (including prams).

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
David Hansen wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:58:46 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >according to the CTC (and I haven't looked) the latest highway code illustrates a NO ENTRY sign
> >with the words "no vehicles except cycles being pushed".
>
> That's a pity for people whose vehicle is a scooter, or a handcart (including prams).

But that isn't what the HC says.

John B
 
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:55:34 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Since pushing a bicycle on the pavement is not in itself an offence, it would be (IMO) quite hard
>> to make that stick.

>Is that an opinion based on experience of the legal process and Court system or just a lay opinion?

IANAL, obviously, and I defer to your greater knowledge. I have looked at Crank v VBrooks and Selby
v DPP, and I have some knowledge from discussions with a friend who is a CPS barrister but that was
A Long Time Ago.

I found http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/pushing.html of course, and the CTC's advice thus
far implies that pushing a bikeon the pavement is not cycling, nor is it "leading" under the meaning
of the act, as that applies to animal-drawn carriages.

But as I said before, I think the test case will be interesting.

The porpoises are now quite sanguine, by the way ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back