On the commute today

[Andyf]

Mr Cannondale and Mr Giant, thankyou for making my commute more interesting, your scalps will look great on my wall with the others  
Mr 'Cheap folding mountain bike with disc brakes' who never stops at any red lights even at Holborn interchange, apart from being totaly left behind you are giving us cyclists a bad name, your going to come a cropper one day, and I don't know any first aid  

[Riggers]

Crikey.  I rode hard this morning, and was a shade over that (48 minutes 10 seconds over, as it happens).  You must be very fast Riggers.  Chapeau!

Absolutely. And there's absolutely no need to discuss the actual distance!

[TimO]

... Mr 'Cheap folding mountain bike with disc brakes' who never stops at any red lights even at Holborn interchange, apart from being totaly left behind you are giving us cyclists a bad name, your going to come a cropper one day, and I don't know any first aid  

There's not a lot of first aid you can do to deal with cyclists squished underneath HGV.

[DrMekon]

New PB on the commute, I suspect due to the 300 I did at the weekend giving me the confidence to push harder without worrying I am going to run out of go.

28.16km in 54m42s, averaging 30.8kph. Never been below 57m before.

Chuffed with that.

[Christophe]

Witnessed a curious RLJ prosecution avoidance technique this morning that surely wouldn't stand up in court. This happened three times.

I pulled up at a red light shortly after the Brommy I overtook on each occasion pulled up beside me. He dismounts, walks across the junction/ pedestrian crossing bit about 5 yards, remounts and then carries on cycling. WTF was the point? Why not just RLJ if you are going to?

Would the ' I wasn't actually riding when I went throught the red light. officer' stand up as an argument in court? If so maybe we should all try it........

[clarion]

That'll be someone who sanctimoniously quotes Crank v Brookes IIRC.  It's still RLJing in my opinion.  I'm not interested in legal niceties, but respecting other road users.

[citoyen]

It's still RLJing in my opinion.  I'm not interested in legal niceties, but respecting other road users.

I think you're being a little presumptuous.

We have no crime of jaywalking in the UK, so a pedestrian is allowed to go through a red light - and if he's on foot, he's a pedestrian, even if he's pushing a bike. If he does inconvenience other road users in doing so, I would agree that's discourteous, but you have no grounds to assume that he's doing anything disrespectful to other road users in this instance.

d.

[clarion]

True.  No evidence for my assumption in this case.  I've seen it done barging through pedestrians who are, of course. trying to cross at right angles.  But it might be OK here. 

A few seconds shouldn't matter that much.

[Greenbank]

That'll be someone who sanctimoniously quotes Crank v Brookes IIRC.

Quoting Crank vs Brooks (adding the letter e to that name seems to be the next thing on from inserting random apostrophes) may not be much help as the it refers to a bicycle being pushed across a pedestrian crossing. A judge in a RLJ-ing by dismounting and pushing case may choose to rule differently, especially given the intent to circumvent the intention of the stop line and red light.

"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."

[clarion]

Thank's for the correction

I agree that Crank v Brooks may well not apply, but I do know a lot of people cite it.  My guess is that such a person may fail the attitude test.

[citoyen]

A few seconds shouldn't matter that much.

There I totally agree. Waiting at the lights is the most civilised thing to do.

d.

[Greenbank]

My guess is that such a person may fail the attitude test.

Indeed, and I'm guessing they'd be looking at something mentioned by the laws referenced in HWC rules 68 to 71 in the "Rules for Cyclists" section.

I don't have time to sift through them all to check.

The two ones that jump out at me are:-

"
71

You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]
"

There may be something in either of these laws/regs that may even prevent dismounting and remounting the other side of the line.

Then there's the catch-all of:-

"
68

You MUST NOT

    * carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
    * hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
    * ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
    * ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine

[Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991]
"

It could be argued that such behaviour is inconsiderate to the other vehicles/pedestrians at that junction although, again, it depends on the wording of the relevant law.

[TimO]

Yes, but if you're pushing the bicycle, you're not a cyclist, you're a pedestrian, and different rules apply.

(I also think you should stop at the lights and wait, but the law and what's reasonable don't always coincide).

[jogler]

... Mr 'Cheap folding mountain bike with disc brakes' who never stops at any red lights even at Holborn interchange, apart from being totaly left behind you are giving us cyclists a bad name, your going to come a cropper one day, and I don't know any first aid  

There's not a lot of first aid you can do to deal with cyclists squished underneath HGV.

Quite so although some experience or qualification in LastAid might be usefull.That's be a priest then

[Access Legal Guy]

I think Crank can apply here.

Is the brommie rider dismounting his cycle and then mounting a footway on foot to cross at a pedestrian crossing? if so, he has always been on foot while on the footway and as such crosses the junction as a pedestrian, if he then only remounts the cycle once dismounting the footway.

That's not to say its a waste of time

[Greenbank]

Yes, but if you're pushing the bicycle, you're not a cyclist, you're a pedestrian, and different rules apply.

The reason there are so many lawyers in the world is that the law isn't always that simple.

A quick read of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 shows that the stop line applies to 'vehicular traffic' (s 43).

The point is that a judge may decide that a pedestrian pushing a bicycle across a stop line in order to purposely ignore it and continue along the carriageway remains 'vehicular traffic'.

Obviously I'm not a judge (or even a lawyer) but my point is that there's nothing in the law that says you're going to be guaranteed to get away with it. It's not that simple.

[Greenbank]

Is the brommie rider dismounting his cycle and then mounting a footway on foot to cross at a pedestrian crossing? if so, he has always been on foot while on the footway and as such crosses the junction as a pedestrian, if he then only remounts the cycle once dismounting the footway.

I'm not sure but I think he remained on the road at all times. He dismounts to push his bicycle over the stop line and then remounts to continue.

The Crank vs Brooks ruling was to prevent someone from being prosecuted for pushing their bicycle over a pedestrian crossing to cross the road from one side to the other (hence the 'having started from the pavement'). It wasn't someone pushing their bike over the crossing in the direction of the road.

[clarion]

Obviously I'm not a judge (or even a lawyer) but my point is that there's nothing in the law that says you're going to be guaranteed to get away with it. It's not that simple.

I think it's fairly safe to say that, if you wait for the lights to change, you can get on your way, and have a pretty much 100% chance of not being prosecuted.  With no need to dismount.

[Greenbank]

Another reason why I wouldn't rely on Crank vs Brooks:-

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

s36 (1) which is the bit that HWC Rule 71 refers to is worded as follows:-

"
a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.
"

It could easily be argued that pushing a bicycle is covered by the "driving or propelling a vehicle", especially as this is the piece of legislation that provides the definition of the offence.

(Before anyone points it out, for the purpose of that section the term 'sign' is defined to include the traffic lights.)

[onb]

It seems there are two types of cyclists:

Those who look at a lovely photo like that and think "I want to ride up that road"

Those who look at a lovely photo like that and think "I want to ride down that road"

Yebbut there is a similar down at the other side of that up .

[clarion]

I just think I want to ride along it

[Andyf]

Quite so although some experience or qualification in LastAid might be usefull.That's be a priest then

Looks like my employer will have to send me to the local Church as well as the Saint John ambulance for training, do you think Altura do a cycling jacket that you can put a priest's dog collar on and a pocket for a bible and rosary 

[Access Legal Guy]

Is the brommie rider dismounting his cycle and then mounting a footway on foot to cross at a pedestrian crossing? if so, he has always been on foot while on the footway and as such crosses the junction as a pedestrian, if he then only remounts the cycle once dismounting the footway.

I'm not sure but I think he remained on the road at all times. He dismounts to push his bicycle over the stop line and then remounts to continue.

The Crank vs Brooks ruling was to prevent someone from being prosecuted for pushing their bicycle over a pedestrian crossing to cross the road from one side to the other (hence the 'having started from the pavement'). It wasn't someone pushing their bike over the crossing in the direction of the road.

Then agreed - if he remains on the road, Crank can never apply.

[citoyen]

Then agreed - if he remains on the road, Crank can never apply.

If he's on foot, he's a pedestrian whether he's on the "road" or on the "footway" (cf my previous comment about jaywalking).

d.

[Greenbank]

Then agreed - if he remains on the road, Crank can never apply.

If he's on foot, he's a pedestrian whether he's on the "road" or on the "footway" (cf my previous comment about jaywalking).

See the wording of s36 (1) of the 1988 Road Traffic Act I posted above.

If he's pushing a bicycle he could be considered to be 'propelling a vehicle' and so ignoring the stop line and red light could still be an offence.

I agree that a pedestrian without a bicycle can freely walk across a stop line at a red light. But the wording of that specific law does draw a distinction between a pedestrian without a bicycle and one pushing a bicycle.

Crank vs Brooks can't be applied in this case because, in the case of crossing a road pushing a bicycle, there is no signal or stop line that the person is failing to comply with.