Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: mattc on 29 April, 2018, 07:35:15 pm
-
Asking for a friend, who might be heading for local May-day knees-up ... (https://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/mayday)
(Of course the answer is almost certainly- yes, The Man can do what the f**k he wants (and try arguing with a burly security guy if you think you are in the right). But I'd love to hear otherwise! )
-
Now, where did I put my train company protest bicycle shaped piece of cardboard ...... ;D
-
At least the ban on bikes being pushed isn't where and when cars will be driven.......
-
Probably, if you've got a TRO.
Otherwise Crank vs Brooks presumably applies?
-
IANAL, but AIUI UK case law (Crank v Brooks) is that a person pushing a bike on foot is a pedestrian (well, technically a 'foot-passenger', but they're not considered to be driving or riding it.)
Edit: Kim beat me to it.
-
IGIMB but IHTLIUTMS, TRO =Traffic Regulation Order.
-
Please note that bicycles - ridden and pushed - will not be allowed to cross the bridge during the event.
What about carried?
-
Or pulled?
-
I've had a quick look around, but can't find a list of TROs on the Oxford council website; I'd be interested to see how they've worded them.
-
Is it just me or does Crank vs Brooks sound more like a cycling accident than a court case? :D
-
We have a similar getting lots of people over a bridge at once with marshals and lanes thing in Lewes once a year.
A load of people with bikes would probably create a hazard, certainly take more space than the people without bikes, but particularly in the case of needing them all to turn around and go the other way for some reason. (That often happens in Lewes, when a bunch of people with fire show. Singed tyres might also be an issue.)
It doesn't strike me as the worst restriction in the world.
-
So a ban on push chairs and large luggage as well?
-
If bikes are banned I'd hope so, otherwise the reasons for banning bikes start to look spurious.
-
I've had a quick look around, but can't find a list of TROs on the Oxford council website; I'd be interested to see how they've worded them.
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/announcements/public_notices/notice/71258.OXFORD_CITY_VARIOUS_TEMPORARY_TRAFFIC_MANAGEMENT/
-
Given the sheer volume of people in the area the fastest way for someone with a bike to get from one side of Magdalen Bridge to the other on Tuesday morning would be long way, down Iffley Road, Weir Road and up Abingdon Road. Two years ago it took us over an hour to get from the tower to the other side of the bridge.
-
I've had a quick look around, but can't find a list of TROs on the Oxford council website; I'd be interested to see how they've worded them.
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/announcements/public_notices/notice/71258.OXFORD_CITY_VARIOUS_TEMPORARY_TRAFFIC_MANAGEMENT/
Good find iddu. relevant text is:
This Order is being introduced on public safety grounds during May Day celebrations between 2am & 9am on Tuesday 1st May, because of the likelihood of danger to the public due to the congestion of vehicles and pedestrians on Magdalen Bridge. The effect of the Order is to prohibit motor vehicles and bicycles in part of High Street from ...
I do not own a cardboard cutout bike, so will leave that experiment to others. :)
-
Given the sheer volume of people in the area the fastest way for someone with a bike to get from one side of Magdalen Bridge to the other on Tuesday morning would be long way, down Iffley Road, Weir Road and up Abingdon Road. Two years ago it took us over an hour to get from the tower to the other side of the bridge.
???
Go to the corner of South Park Rd / St Cross Rd and take the Marston Cyclepath across to Ferry Rd - much shorter...
-
Given the sheer volume of people in the area the fastest way for someone with a bike to get from one side of Magdalen Bridge to the other on Tuesday morning would be long way, down Iffley Road, Weir Road and up Abingdon Road. Two years ago it took us over an hour to get from the tower to the other side of the bridge.
???
Go to the corner of South Park Rd / St Cross Rd and take the Marston Cyclepath across to Ferry Rd - much shorter...
Makes more sense! In my defence it was early :-D and I don't know Oxford that well. But my point was that tomorrow morning any route will be quicker than the direct one!
-
So a ban on push chairs and large luggage as well?
There appear to be restrictions as well
There will also be designated viewing areas for wheelchair users, families with young children and those with buggies in the car park of Magdalen College School and in Rose Lane.
I think a wheelchair ban would be a lot more difficult to enforce than a cycle ban, legally or morally
-
I agree re banning wheelchairs would be legally dodgy and they're expected to make great efforts to provide an alternative whereas for buggies and cycles they don't legally have to.
Also for many wheelchair users, banning the wheelchair is tantamount to cutting their legs off. Cyclists can go a different route or in many cases manage without cycle for a while. Cases of disabled person using cycle as a mobility aid have not been well tested and do not go down well in court.
-
Asking for a friend, who might be heading for local May-day knees-up ... (https://www.dailyinfo.co.uk/mayday)
(Of course the answer is almost certainly- yes, The Man can do what the f**k he wants (and try arguing with a burly security guy if you think you are in the right). But I'd love to hear otherwise! )
Someone should turn up on a trike.
-
IANAL, but AIUI UK case law (Crank v Brooks) is that a person pushing a bike on foot is a pedestrian (well, technically a 'foot-passenger', but they're not considered to be driving or riding it.)
But that ruling refers to the status of the person not the presence or absence of a bicycle.
The original decision was that a person pushing a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing was not a foot-passenger and therefore did not need to be accorded precedence at the crossing, i.e. the presence of the bike changed their status.
The appeal (which is Crank vs Brooks) reversed this and said that a person pushing a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing should be considered a foot-passenger, but they're still a foot-passenger pushing a bicycle.
The point is the Crank vs Brooks ruling doesn't make the bicycle disappear, it reinforces the status of the person irrespective of whether a bicycle is present.
If bikes (even pushed) are restricted somehow (e.g. a TRO) then that's what is going to apply. The question in the restriction is not the status of the person but the presence of a bicycle. Crank vs Brooks doesn't change anything or help in this case.
You can't try and take a bicycle into a cinema with you and just claim Crank vs Brooks. (I know it's not quite the same thing as a cinema isn't a public place, but you get the idea.)
-
Many years ago, I got into a discussion with a couple of security guards disputing whether I could push my bike through a pedestrian mall. Once I put my bike on my shoulder and declared it to be my luggage, I had a two man escort through the mall ensuring that the wheels didn't touch the ground till I got to the other end. Honour satisfied all round.
-
Many years ago, I got into a discussion with a couple of security guards disputing whether I could push my bike through a pedestrian mall. Once I put my bike on my shoulder and declared it to be my luggage, I had a two man escort through the mall ensuring that the wheels didn't touch the ground till I got to the other end. Honour satisfied all round.
A folded Brompton rolling on the EZ-wheels is an interesting edge case for this sort of thing. One day I'm hoping for a jobsworth to halt and catch fire in the classic science fiction robot style as they try to rationalise why *those* wheels are bad but *these* wheels aren't.
Someone (was it here or u.r.c?) once managed to wheel their bike through a mall using the "It's faulty. I'm taking it back to Argos for a refund." defence.
-
Many years ago, I got into a discussion with a couple of security guards disputing whether I could push my bike through a pedestrian mall. Once I put my bike on my shoulder and declared it to be my luggage, I had a two man escort through the mall ensuring that the wheels didn't touch the ground till I got to the other end. Honour satisfied all round.
A folded Brompton rolling on the EZ-wheels is an interesting edge case for this sort of thing. One day I'm hoping for a jobsworth to halt and catch fire in the classic science fiction robot style as they try to rationalise why *those* wheels are bad but *these* wheels aren't.
Someone (was it here or u.r.c?) once managed to wheel their bike through a mall using the "It's faulty. I'm taking it back to Argos for a refund." defence.
How many parts do you need to remove before it stops being a bicycle and starts being a collection of bike parts?
Maybe you need 2 people to carry bits of bikes?
-
If bikes (even pushed) are restricted somehow (e.g. a TRO) then that's what is going to apply. The question in the restriction is not the status of the person but the presence of a bicycle. Crank vs Brooks doesn't change anything or help in this case.
You can't try and take a bicycle into a cinema with you and just claim Crank vs Brooks. (I know it's not quite the same thing as a cinema isn't a public place, but you get the idea.)
From my reading, whether a pushed bicycle is permitted on a footway or footpath is a legal grey area. The older test was whether something was a 'natural accoutrement'; prams and shopping trolleys are considered to be these, but bicycles haven't ever been tested in court. The modern test seems to be one of 'reasonableness' (in DPP v Jones); as long it does not interfere with the primary right to pass and release, a reasonable activity is legal. I suppose in the context of a TRO like this, for purposes of public safety, wheeling a bicycle might no longer be considered reasonable.
-
How many parts do you need to remove before it stops being a bicycle and starts being a collection of bike parts?
Maybe you need 2 people to carry bits of bikes?
A tandem with S&S couplings, each person takes half?
-
If bikes (even pushed) are restricted somehow (e.g. a TRO) then that's what is going to apply. The question in the restriction is not the status of the person but the presence of a bicycle. Crank vs Brooks doesn't change anything or help in this case.
You can't try and take a bicycle into a cinema with you and just claim Crank vs Brooks. (I know it's not quite the same thing as a cinema isn't a public place, but you get the idea.)
From my reading, whether a pushed bicycle is permitted on a footway or footpath is a legal grey area. The older test was whether something was a 'natural accoutrement'; prams and shopping trolleys are considered to be these, but bicycles haven't ever been tested in court. The modern test seems to be one of 'reasonableness' (in DPP v Jones); as long it does not interfere with the primary right to pass and release, a reasonable activity is legal. I suppose in the context of a TRO like this, for purposes of public safety, wheeling a bicycle might no longer be considered reasonable.
Indeed. The Home Office Guidance on pavement cycling is still relevant: http://road.cc/content/news/108119-transport-minister-responsible-cyclists-can-ride-pavement
But this is a specific TRO to prevent even pushing a bike for the duration of this event. That's going to make for a much higher bar for pushing for 'reasonableness' and, during the event itself, it's just going to land people who try and flout it in trouble (except if the enforcement at the time applies common sense) especially if the bridge is rammed with people.
-
Your last phrase is the key. This is a very short term temporary arrangement for a specific dated activity. A bicycle, buggy, wheelchair or shopping trolley in a seething throng of people is less than ideal.
I’d imagine that there’d very few buggies around at that time and no shopping trollies. I’d have sympathy for the wheelchair user, but practical safety of a mass may trump individual rights. Bicycles? Well, sadly, you get on it and go across a different bridge.