-
Yes, but the key point was that a person pushing a bike was deemed to be a pedestrian. It's not that people pushing bikes are allowed to use zebra crossings, the ruling means people pushing bikes should be treated as pedestrians in the context of the Road Traffic Act.
Crank vs Brooks is irrelevant as there wasn't a sign at a zebra crossing. As I understand it the sect 36 of the RTA would take precedence:-
Road Traffic Act 1988 36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs (1) Where a traffic sign, being a sign— (a) of the prescribed size, colour and type, or (b) of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.The definition of "sign" includes traffic lights, and the "propelling a vehicle" is there to prevent people trying to work around it by pushing things past the signs. Note it says "vehicle" rather than "motor vehicle" so it applies to bikes too. In most sections of the RTA (including this one) "drivers " is used to refer to the vehicle operator whether the vehicle has a motor or not, so it continues to applies to cyclists. There are some sections (not this one) of the RTA where things only apply to motor vehicles, but this ain't one of them.
It [dismounting and pushing bikes across junctions through a red light] ain't legal.
You are reading a single comment by @middleofnowhere and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Greenbank
@middleofnowhere
Yes, but the key point was that a person pushing a bike was deemed to be a pedestrian. It's not that people pushing bikes are allowed to use zebra crossings, the ruling means people pushing bikes should be treated as pedestrians in the context of the Road Traffic Act.