This morning's commute and other commuting stories

Does a shoulder carry (a-la CX) make the bike 'luggage' as it's being carried, not propelled?

That's the prevailing argument. Not tested in the courts so it could still be interpreted as propelled even though it is being carried.

If I were to dismantle the bike, carry its component parts past the sign, reassemble it, and cycle on, did I carry the bike past the sign?

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.

I'm not sure of this one. When it has come up elsewhere some people claim that the stop line should 'obviously' extend to include the pavement.

In doing the above, and getting nabbed by the police for it, I'm sure they'd just go with an inconsiderate cycling charge.

Alternatively, lift the bike 1 inch off the ground walk through the red light put it down again, remount it and continue.

That's what The Cycling Lawyer thinks would be legal. The subsequent ride through the junction might get you an caseless/reckless/dangerous/inconsiderate cycling charge though.

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'm saying the bike remains as 'a vehicle being propelled', which is then specifically worded for in other laws.

The whole 'propelling a vehicle' clause is there to combat the silly ways you think you could get away with RLJ-ing, even in cars. Does 'driving' include:-

• Having the engine running (e.g. get away with it by turning the ignition off and coasting through the red light)
  
• Having the keys in the ignition (e.g. getting out and pushing the car past the stop line)
  
• Even being in the vehicle (e.g. slowing down enough, engine off, jumping out and letting the car coast across the stop line and then jumping back in).
  
• etc
  

My point is more that if you uphold that pushing a bicycle while walking with it by your side is propelling in an illegal way then for many it's basically impossible to ever pass that sign. You are also inadvertently redefining what 'riding on the pavement' is as it's also going to be worded as 'propelling your bicycle along the pavement'.

A large part of why nobody goes to court over this is the expectation and promotion of the idea cyclist should "just pay the fine" when stopped and not stick up for themselves as much as others would.

Basically, if you're gonna go through a red, walking/side saddle/ jump off and walk, do it properly (as in keep on riding through) or don't do it at all, as it falls under the same ruling right?

From a completely non-lawyer viewpoint, I'd suggest that to propel a bike is to make it move in its normal way, ie with its wheels turning, along the ground.

If you were to pick it up, it's moving but it's not being propelled.

If you were to take it to bits, it's moving but it's not being propelled.

What if you were to leap off it before the line and let it ghosty across whilst you run behind it (not touching it) then jump back on at the other side?

PS: IANAL

The whole 'propelling a vehicle' clause is there to combat the silly ways you think you could get away with RLJ-ing, even in cars. Does 'driving' include:-

I think the problem with all those scenarios is the ability of a driver to instantaneously become a foot passenger. The fact that you have dispowered your car does not remove your responsibility for it and it clearly still is a vehicle. A bike is sufficiently small that it can be pushed or carried like an item of luggage/pram (which a car generally cannot), which renders its status as a vehicle questionable (and it's certainly not a vehicle being propelled in its normal way), even though you're still responsible for it.

IA(absolutely)NAL though so my ramblings here are of little value.

My point is more that if you uphold that pushing a bicycle while walking with it by your side is propelling in an illegal way then for many it's basically impossible to ever pass that sign.

True, but the alternative is that if you don't consider it propelling a vehicle then you open the door for lots of shenanigans (e.g. everyone dismounting at red lights and pushing their bikes through) and having to create more laws (or more amendments) to close all of those loopholes.

A lot of the law works by being vague about what is illegal and turning a blind eye to the things that are, by strict word of law illegal, but obviously not dangerous/stupid/etc.

Another example being the No Cycling sign and the absurdity that, by the way it's worded, it's only illegal to ride past the sign, but dismounting and pushing past before remounting and riding on after the sign seems to be fine.

It's one reason why there are too many lawyers in the world. The problem is that the alternative would require even more lawyers.

A large part of why nobody goes to court over this is the expectation and promotion of the idea cyclist should "just pay the fine" when stopped and not stick up for themselves as much as others would.

The original case for Crank vs Brooks (this wasn't the original case, this was the appeal) is a good example.

Text of original judgement quoted from here: http://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=58598/

"
The witness while pushing her bicycle on the pedestrian crossing was knocked down by a motor car being driven by the defendant. The intention of the witness was to remount the bicycle on the other side of the road to continue her journey home.
The justices accepted a submission that there was no case to answer and they ask this court's opinion whether they were right in law in dismissing the information on the submission that a person pushing a bicycle was not a ‘foot passenger’.
"

So the original decision was that it was OK for the motorist to knock down the person crossing a zebra crossing because they were pushing a bike and that made them not a 'foot passenger'.

How did a judge let that go?

You are also inadvertently redefining what 'riding on the pavement' is as it's also going to be worded as 'propelling your bicycle along the pavement'.

No, see the first few lines of this: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/pushing.html

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he :

"shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers … or shall wilfully lead or drive any … carriage of any description … upon any such footpath or causeway ".

Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extends the definition of "carriage" to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines".

"Leading or driving" clearly does not apply to a bicycle. It would apply only to other types of carriage drawn by animals, or to a horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, cattle, truck or sledge (which are also referred to specifically in Section 72). The only basis of the offence would therefore be if someone pushing a bicycle were deemed to be "riding" it.

So for pavements there is already distinction between pushing it (if this reduces to propelling a vehicle) and actually riding it as the offence seems to be 'riding' the bicycle, not just propelling it.

So the original decision was that it was OK for the motorist to knock down the person crossing a zebra crossing because they were pushing a bike and that made them not a 'foot passenger'.

How did a judge let that go?

What's your point here, given that it was exactly this judgement which was overturned on appeal with the following?

"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'."

i think this is definitely falling into the "and other stories" part of the thread. epic #csb all round

I don't see anything wrong with having to create laws that are less ambiguous. For offences by other roadusers it's very clear what is/isn't illegal and then even if it is illegal it's very clear the limited way the law can be enforced, the minimum amount of evidence and the way the authorities interact.

To be honest we should be treating it like speeding so unless a qualified person was recording them with a correctly calibrated device then who is really to say if they did or didn't?

#getalifedorks

It's the fact it had to go to appeal because it was dismissed in the first place.

"So, driving your car you knocked someone over who was walking over a pedestrian crossing."
"Yes."
"Were there any mitigating circumstances?"
"Yes, they were pushing a bicycle at the time."
"Oh, that's ok then. No case to answer for. Dismissed."

If you were to take it to bits, it's moving but it's not being propelled.

Ah yes, but is it still a bicycle?

If I go through a red light with one foot on the ground but I'm Strava-ing my commute, am I exempt?

Only if wearing a minimum of three Rapha items (note a pair of something counts as one item not two)

Does team sky count as Rapha?

Don't even get me started on my Grandfather's bicycle.

#firstyearphilosophy

Got told by a fellow cyclist tonight that having overtaken him four times - he counted his fingers to help me - if I did it again he would be coming after me.

I haven't even realised I had overtaken him more than once, when he veered into me, shouted and then followed up with the threats at the next junction, but now that I think about it I think he was running reds so that probably explains the leap frogging.

Disconcerting. Otherwise a lovely commute both ways, if a little warm. 7/10

Glorious day to be a messenger. The east west lane makes life better big time, and even got a cooling river splash at high tide. Fun job delivering keys to Dulwich pedalling my tiny gear at 130rpm all the way. Delivered a thousand pounds cash! Also saw a peloton of children using the north south lane, like we're in Holland or something. Last job took me a street over from my house (more keys), and got my vote in whilst waiting.

Lol, sounds like a challenge. Although you could say he'd been coming after you 4 times already..

Was a glorious journey home until I got to Heygate Street and had to stop two cyclists knocking seven bells out of each other.

Both had laid their bikes down, one was very shouty and red and the other was in a defensive stance getting ready for shouty man to kick the crap out of him. Queue me shouting at them to calm the fuck down like a mum separating two squabbling children.

Shouty man then started shouting about how we should tell the lady about the other guy jumping a crossing. He was incredibly disproportionately incensed by this situation. I don't condone jumping crossings but I also don't condone screaming into someone's face and threatening them with violence.

I told him Mate you made your point but there's no need to be this aggressive about it.

They then got on their bikes and went their separate ways with me shouting faaaahking'ell no need after them.