Why police don't nick pavement cyclists

[Danny Colyer]

T i m wrote:
> [T] Good chance that you are .. (I'm 46?)

29, so there you go.

> As you seem to know the law Danny, I think I remember someone suggesting that 'temp' lights as put
> up by contractors etc, don't have the same legal standing as fixed ones (not that I treat them any
> differently)?

That seems to have been the consensus whenever it's been discussed here, but I've never really
looked into it. I tend to look into legislation when I think I need to know - I particularly started
brushing up on the relevant road traffic legislation when I first started commuting by unicycle.

The law is gradually becoming easier to check as more legislation becomes available on www.

Anyway, the HC rules regarding traffic lights refer to the Road Traffic Act 1998 section 36:

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_2.htm #mdiv36

and Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19941519_en_1.htm

I've just had a a quick look at both, but neither seems to make a distinction between permanent and
temporary lights, or to make allowances for lights being stuck on red (TSRGD section 33 seems to be
the part most relevant here).

BTW, while searching for TSRGD 1994 I also came across TSRGD 2002:
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm

(My HC was published in 2001, and the online HC still refers to the 1994 regs, but I should imagine
they're pretty much irrelevant since there was a 2002 update).

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[Robert Goodman]

"j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:22:01 -0400, Robert Goodman scrawled:

> ) In some cases it's to avoid a 1-way street as another poster
suggested;
> ) I'll routinely bike a block or less of sidewalk to avoid crossing & ) re-crossing a street to
> get into the correctly-facing lane, or to
find a
> ) comfortable curb bevel.

> In what way is this not rationalized selfishness?

Did I say it wasn't? Yeah, I'm selfish and rational.

 

[Henry Braun]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Tony W wrote:

> The tyre is now condemned (actually booted and transferred to the front until a replacement is
> obtained.)

Sh-ld-n Br-wn's advice is that this is a serious mistake, on the grounds that while a front tyre
only wears slowly, a catastrophic failure of the front tyre is much more likely to cause a
severe crash.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire_rotation.html

 

[Dave Kahn]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> If you push your bike along pedestrian facilities and use pedestrian crossings and, to all intents
> and purposes, act like a pedestrian do you have pedestrian rights or cyclist rights?

Pedestrian rights. Every cyclist who pushes a cycle along a footpath should memorise the phrase,
"Yes, officer. Crank vs. Brooks 1980." This phrase of course is to be used in repsonse to, "So you
think you can wheel your bike along here, do you?" This applies to pushing the cycle with both feet
on the ground. Put a foot on the pedal and scoot and you're in deep doo-doo.

See http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/misc/misc.html .

--
Dave...

 

[Tony W]

"Henry Braun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> > The tyre is now condemned (actually booted and transferred to the front until a replacement is
> > obtained.)
>
> Sh-ld-n Br-wn's advice is that this is a serious mistake, on the grounds that while a front tyre
> only wears slowly, a catastrophic failure of the front tyre is much more likely to cause a
> severe crash.

Who am I to argue with the great Sheldon. You will notice the 'until a replacement is obtained' in
my comment. This will be soon -- probably this Saturday.

Until then I judge that, booted and patched, the tyre will be OK. Since I do not anticipate anything
more vigorous than a trip or two to the shops between now and the w/e -- I have a bruised set of
ribs so I'm not into hell riding this week -- I judge the chances of 'catastrophic failure' to be
vanishingly small.

My normal practice when buying a new tyre is to put it on the front and move the front one to the
back as it is always the back tyre that wears fastest.

Thanks for the warning.

T

 

[Danny Colyer]

Michael MacClancy wrote:
> If you push your bike along pedestrian facilities and use pedestrian crossings and, to all intents
> and purposes, act like a pedestrian do you have pedestrian rights or cyclist rights?

If you get onto the pavement to push your bike through the lights then you are not only committing
the offence of taking a carriage through a red light, but that of cycling on the pavement (even if
you're not riding, it's technically illegal to push a bike on the pavement).

Again, if you pick it up and carry it then there's no problem.

(And forgive me if I don't respond again in this thread, but I'm going away for a few days).

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:41:15 +0100, Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> If you get onto the pavement to push your bike through the lights then you are not only committing
> the offence of taking a carriage through a red light, but that of cycling on the pavement (even if
> you're not riding, it's technically illegal to push a bike on the pavement).
>
> Again, if you pick it up and carry it then there's no problem.
>
This is wrong. Crank v Brooks 1980 "... the fact that the injured party had a bicycle in her hand
did not mean that she was no longer a pedestrian."

This has been confirmed by the DoT in a letter written in 1994 "... that a cyclist pushing a bicycle
on a pedestrian facility is regarded as a pedestrian."

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/offroad/offroadlaw.html

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Paul Rudin]

>>>>> "DC" == Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes:

DC> ...it's technically illegal to push a bike on the pavement....

I think not. Do you have a pointer to legislation making such an offence?

--
Now I understand the meaning of ``THE MOD SQUAD''!

 

[T I M]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:55:28 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Danny Colyer <[email protected]> writes
>>Michael MacClancy wrote:
>>> If you push your bike along pedestrian facilities and use pedestrian crossings and, to all
>>> intents and purposes, act like a pedestrian do you have pedestrian rights or cyclist rights?
>>
>>If you get onto the pavement to push your bike through the lights then you are not only committing
>>the offence of taking a carriage through a red light, but that of cycling on the pavement (even if
>>you're not riding, it's technically illegal to push a bike on the pavement).
>>
>>Again, if you pick it up and carry it then there's no problem.
>>
>>(And forgive me if I don't respond again in this thread, but I'm going away for a few days).
>>
>>--
>>Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
>>http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
>>Thomas Paine
>>
>>
>
>Your interpretation is completely at odds with the helpful advice given by Dave Kahn. His
>explanation (and that of John Franklin) seems considerably more plausible than yours.
>
>So, Spaced-Out-Tim, it looks as if your bit of mirth of j-p.s's expense may have been a little
>premature.

[T] Sorry Michael, I've lost track a bit here. You wouldn't be refering to the same j-p.s that
responded ..

[****] Hilarious. Excuse me if I don't smiley.

Would it?

I am happy to 'debate' a topic, give my opinion, even defend my position (be it illegal or
otherwise) with a tiny bit or sarcasm (if any is put my way), but I've never called anyone a name or
deemed to bhave been (intentionally) insulting have I?

Cheers ..

T i m

 

[David Damerell]

T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>empty bit of rural pavement? I'm sure you have 'crossed' a red light as you will have deemed that
>>>it might be faulty? It's the same thing as 'jumping' the light in the eyes of the law
>>As I understand it, the law permits you to proceed with caution through a faulty traffic light,
>>and hence these are not the same.
>[T] Indeed. I *was* trying to make a point though along the lines of 'we can sometimes do things
> that are strictly illegal but would not be considered a major threat to society or even any
> concern of the Police'

But it would be useful to have examples that _are_ strictly illegal.

> (like finding a company pencil in you work bag when you get
> home ..is strictly 'theft' if you don't return it or whatever?)

I'm not sure what the effect of intent is there.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[David Damerell]

T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>I'm not disputing your assertion about the police, but I think in fact electric scooters are
>>covered by existing law like any electric-assist vehicle not capable of more then 15mph
>>under power.
>True, but possibly more that they are 'not covered' by the same rule.

What's with all these quotes? Do you mean "not covered", "issue", "believe", "assist", or
"pavement", or don't you?

In fact, I am mistaken; only electrically assisted vehicles (ie, with pedals) can squeeze under the
15mph rule (and associated weight and power restrictions). In general electric vehicles are
vehciles, requiring licensing, etc. What your daughter does is illegal, albeit unlikely to attract
the attention of the police.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[T I M]

On 08 Apr 2003 16:01:52 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:38:56 +0100, Michael MacClancy
>>>Why do you write 'Tim' like this? 'T i m'
>>[T] Well, there are some other 'Tim's' and I though I can either change my name (Mum didn't like
>> the idea), or space the letters out to distinguish me from other 'non spaced out' Tim's?
>
>Don't you have a surname, then?

[T] Yes ;-)

TimS

 

[Anonymous]

"T i m" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:57:08 +0100, "Danny Colyer"

> As you seem to know the law Danny, I think I remember someone suggesting that 'temp' lights as put
> up by contractors etc, don't have the same legal standing as fixed ones (not that I treat them any
> differently)? Or was it that temp speed limints (other than on mortorways) didn't carry penalty
> points ..?

I think temp traffic lights didn't, but do now. Having written this no doubt somebody will be along
to correct me...

cheers, clive

 

[T I M]

On 09 Apr 2003 13:26:03 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>I'm not disputing your assertion about the police, but I think in fact electric scooters are
>>>covered by existing law like any electric-assist vehicle not capable of more then 15mph
>>>under power.
>>True, but possibly more that they are 'not covered' by the same rule.
>
>What's with all these quotes? Do you mean "not covered", "issue", "believe", "assist", or
>"pavement", or don't you?

[T] Hi David,

I thought quotes were double and I was only using single to try but obviously failing to empart
some emphasis?
>
>In fact, I am mistaken; only electrically assisted vehicles (ie, with pedals) can squeeze under the
>15mph rule (and associated weight and power restrictions). In general electric vehicles are
>vehciles, requiring licensing, etc.

I run a 4 seater electric car. In the UK it has to be road legal but needs no MOT test, has to
carry a Tax disk but it costs nothing and has to be insured.

What your daughter does is illegal, albeit unlikely to
>attract the attention of the police.

[V] So far ..;-)

T i m

 

[Robert Goodman]

Cousin Lee tells me that in Pittsburgh as well the sidewalk is called the pavement.

 

[David Damerell]

T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>T i m <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>True, but possibly more that they are 'not covered' by the same rule.
>>What's with all these quotes? Do you mean "not covered", "issue", "believe", "assist", or
>>"pavement", or don't you?
>I thought quotes were double and I was only using single to try but obviously failing to empart
>some emphasis?

Single quotes used in that fashion are just wrong. The most reasonable explanation seemed to be that
you meant (admittedly also incorrect) double "scare" quotes.

Words are conventionally emphasised on Usenet like _this_ or *this*, but one should use such
techniques in moderation if at all.

>>In fact, I am mistaken; only electrically assisted vehicles (ie, with pedals) can squeeze under
>>the 15mph rule (and associated weight and power restrictions). In general electric vehicles are
>>vehciles, requiring licensing, etc.
>[T] I run a 4 seater electric car. In the UK it has to be road legal but needs no MOT test, has to
> carry a Tax disk but it costs nothing and has to be insured.

Yes, I believe that fits with what I am saying.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

[Danny Colyer]

I wrote:
> > ...it's technically illegal to push a bike on the pavement....

Prompting Paul Rudin to challenge:
> I think not. Do you have a pointer to legislation making such an offence?

From memory the relevant legislation is the 1835 Carriageways Act, but I think memory is wrong and
the legislation is actually the 1835 Highway Act. I don't have a link - they didn't put legislation
online in those days! I have also never read the act, though I should be interested to do so. It
supposedly also made it illegal to push a pram or pushchair along the footway - I imagine the
definition of a "carriage" would be an important part of the act.

Dave Kahn has already mentioned a case in 1980 where someone pushing a bike was deemed to be a
pedestrian (the link provided by Tim Woodall,
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/offroad/offroadlaw .html, and I believe there
have been other similar cases since. Although awareness of such cases is invaluable and will make a
successful prosecution less likely in future, I doubt that a judge's decision actually changes the
law where there is already specific legislation. I don't know, IANAL.

The case law may not matter too much now, anyway. I wrote a few days ago that I didn't believe the
1835 act had ever been updated, but even as I typed that there was a nagging feeling of uncertainty
at the back of my mind. When the fixed penalty was introduced for pavement cycling a couple of years
ago, ISTR reading in either C+ or the CTC magazine that the legislation allowing the fines had been
preceded by legislation specifically updating the act to allow bikes to be pushed on the pavement.

(A quick look at the HC also reveals that there was a new Highway Act in 1980, but from what I've
read in the past it seems unlikely that the relevant legislation was updated here. Also, in the
current HC rule 54 still refers to the 1835 act).

From what I know, I would say that what I wrote on Wednesday was probably wrong, but has only been
wrong for 2 or 3 years and wasn't wrong when I was taught it (when I took my Cycling Proficiency).

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine