This morning's commute and other commuting stories

Left the house, new chain but made the rookie error of not replacing the worn cassette (tried it with a chain whip and wrench last night, but it's gonna be a vice job). No power as skipping. Circled round, put the bike back in the kitchen and got the bus. I hate buses. 0/10.

Lips will be miming along to a Genesis track, hence the need for an additional thingy for the flies.

rotafix? unless you have a vice.

Ooh, now there's an idea. Would reverse rotafix work with a freewheel cassette too? would I need a wrench + cassette tool in the opposite direction?

Beat me to it

ahh - right. have never done it with a freewheel so this is just from a thought experiment, but i don't think rotafix would work to loosen a freewheel. it would work to get on back on again.

A question re new cycle lanes (that perhaps @Clockwise knows the answer to); Where cycle lanes come to signalled crossing points (as per E&C), what is their legal status, as far as being part of the highway, and therefore the rules? The other day, I was waiting at the lights to cross and, weirdly for E&C, there was no road traffic approaching, yet I was sat at a red light. Eventually I just went across, but was I breaking the law? As a cyclist at a crossing, is my status no different to a pedestrian who may similarly cross if they deem the road to be safe, despite the crossing signal saying 'no'?

CQB

As a cyclist at a crossing

[EDIT] I'm not sure what the crossing in question looks like, a google streeview pic or something similar would be useful if anyone can find one.

AIUI, you're propelling a vehicle (which includes cycling) which differentiates you from just being a pedestrian.

If you're propelling a vehicle then you must obey the relevant traffic signals with respect to stop lines. You can't just ignore them like you can as a pedestrian.

Whether getting off a bike and pushing it constitutes 'propelling a vehicle' is not clear, but the expectation is that it would. The only way to test this is if it went to court. And before anyone quotes Crank vs Brooks, that case isn't relevant here.

[EDIT] If this is crossing the road side-to-side on what would have been a toucan crossing (e.g. a green bike symbol), but it's a red signal, then I believe that's fine as you're not crossing a stop line on a red.

This is the crossing (and the direction) I'm referring to. What's your thoughts?

1 Attachment

If you're not crossing a stop line then I can't see a problem with it.

I don't know if there's a specific 'stop' line, but it's definitely controlled by cyclist-specific traffic lights, which were on red when I crossed.

@finger_jockey I wondered this when I used the same crossing this morning. I believe there is a stop line there though. (Not 100% sure - will have to check tomorrow)

If you dismount you are a pedestrian and can do what you like. If you are cycling it's the same, it's sometimes ambiguously marked for cyclists but if it has a clear stop line or kerb where a stop line could be then that's that I'd think as the law broken when jumping the lights is "ignoring a traffic signal" which all the lights could be taken as. Also I'd think it depends if it's a cycle track parallel to a pedestrian crossing or a shared use pavement toucan crossing or a tiger pegasus pelican or other crossing.

I noticed E+C going in from the south the cycle lane to the left that goes behind the bus stops fills from the ASL and has no stop line so you can just ride off the road into it.

Its days like this that quitting my job seems so easy. Ride in this morning 10/10 Lunch ride 15/10 I cant wait to get back out in this glorious sunshine at 5pm and take the loooooong way home.

If you dismount you are a pedestrian and can do what you like.

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.

If you are cycling it's the same, it's sometimes ambiguously marked for cyclists but if it has a clear stop line or kerb where a stop line could be then that's that I'd think as the law broken when jumping the lights is "ignoring a traffic signal" which all the lights could be taken as.

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.

I noticed E+C going in from the south the cycle lane to the left that goes behind the bus stops fills from the ASL and has no stop line so you can just ride off the road into it.

Yup- this is a really good feature, IMO. Not waiting for those lights can mean that using the cycle lane is quicker, even when slowing down a little to a safe speed around dozy peds.

Lovely morning to ride in this morning - except I'm stuck driving because of my smegged knee. Going to ride tomorrow anyway and bugger the consequences. On a waiting list for a knee op so it's not going to make a lot of difference. Grumble.

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.

Can you walk past this sign pushing a bicycle?

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.

Can you walk past this sign pushing a bicycle?

Of course, you're not cycling when pushing a bicycle. The offence here isn't "propelling a vehicle past this sign".

It's the same offence...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36

It's worded as exactly that.

Sorry, yes, it is the same offence then. But no-one is ever going to get charged for it so it's meaningless.

The "propelling the vehicle" argument is a contentious one and until it's actually tested in court then it's just conjecture.

My main point is that Crank vs Brooks doesn't make the bike disappear just because you're pushing it.

Martin Porter (The Cycling Lawyer) believes that it's against the law to dismount and push a bike across a stop line at a red light. He also believes that it would be OK to dismount and carry the bike across a stop line at a red light as that does not constitute 'propelling it across the line'.

So the solution would be to dismount the bike, lift it onto the pavement, walk round the red light, put the bike back on the road, remount it and continue. Alternatively, lift the bike 1 inch off the ground walk through the red light put it down again, remount it and continue.

My main point is that Crank vs Brooks doesn't make the bike disappear just because you're pushing it.

I don't know what you mean by this despite your repeating it. Of course the bike doesn't actually disappear but it does, arguably, change from being a vehicle to something else, "luggage" maybe. I'd go on the principle that until something is tested in court and found to be illegal then it remains legal (on the broad basis that everything is legal until specifically contraindicated by the law).

@Clockwise (sorry, forgot to reply to your specific post)

The law isn't perfectly clear cut, it takes case law to make specific points clearer as to what is allowed and what isn't and even then the result isn't always clear.

Pushing a bike past such a sign being illegal may seem silly, but where is the corresponding 'Cycling now allowed' sign? If you walked past that sign without a bike and then someone handed you a bicycle, are you allowed to cycle? It's easy to construct such absurdities and there are plenty of things we just take for granted without explicit guidance.

So, given that sign and the wording of the law, do you think it's legal to push your bike past that sign and then, once past the sign, remount and cycle on?