-
Not quite. You're a pedestrian propelling a vehicle. The bike doesn't disappear when you dismount it. This is the common misinterpretion of the Crank vs Brooks ruling.
Really? This quotation is from the Judgement (my bold)
"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing *443 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. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger.
-
As I said, a person pushing a bicycle can be classed as a foot passenger (which is relevant to the original Crank vs Brooks case).
This ruling does not make the bicycle does disappear. The person is now a foot passenger pushing a bicycle. The judge's ruling even refers to this distinction. The point of the ruling is that presence of the bicycle is not relevant to the case in question.
Propelling a vehicle across a stop line at a red light is the offence. This can be true even if you are a foot passenger, it just hasn't been tested in the courts yet. But you can't assume that you can do it just because of Crank vs Brooks, it doesn't work that way.
Not quite. You're a pedestrian propelling a vehicle. The bike doesn't disappear when you dismount it. This is the common misinterpretion of the Crank vs Brooks ruling.
The RLJ offence is (paraphrased) "propelling a vehicle across the stop line on a red signal". Hence my question about whether there is a stop line or not. Which is why crossing a toucan crossing (or even a puffin/pelican crossing) from side to side (so not crossing a stop line) can be done regardless of the crossing signal.