RLJ (Red Light Jumping). (The definitive bikeradar thread)

not just blasting down a path full of kids

Then what's the point?

When is this post officially a decade old?

Should there be a party.

12th April 2017

If walking over a stop line with a bike constitutes 'propelling' it across the stop line, then I don't think it's stretching the usual use of language to describe walking a bike down the pavement as leading it on the footpath. But as you say, until there's a decision on the point (which there probably never will be) it's all a matter of opinion. And as, we all know, opinions are like arseholes.

Marvin. Marvin doesn't even have an opinion.

My old man, now dead, told me many years ago that pushing a bike the wrong way up a one way street was illegal. I think he was talking specifically about during the war to avoid obstructing the pavement during air-raid running away drills. IF that was in fact true, bearing in mind he did have dementia, then it is feasible that at some stage "avoiding" a red by walking around it could also have been an offence. I can't see any cop bothering his/her arse to do anyone for it as long as no inconvenience is caused to anyone else.

http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

Don’t fall for the piffle that you have to wheel your bicycle in the gutter if walking on a footway with your machine, or that you have to carry a bicycle when on a footway or pedestrian crossing. Anyone pushing a bicycle is a “foot-passenger” (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not riding it or driving it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: “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.”

.

Surely it's just an opportunity to show off your sweet 'cross dismounts / remounts.

I'm a serial offender on my new commute, on the basis of greater safety.

Because of rush hour/peak here, the roads are very busy and in a few places congested.

Going through at least two known spots on red gives me maybe 50 yards without cars queuing behind me.

zero guilt

Just wait for the green light. There aren't a finite amount of them, they're not going to run out any time soon. Any way that you don't wait makes you look like an impatient, selfish cunt. Whether it's getting off and pushing through or just blatantly RLJ-ing.

If you don't feel safe at a particular junction, change your route or get involved in any number of campaigns to make them safer.

they're not going to run out any time soon

Brexit tho, so, you know

So from this bit

In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: “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’.

With my emphasis added.

Is the middle of a junction considered a pedestrian crossing? Just curious.

Are pedestrians (without bikes) prohibited from crossing junctions (or otherwise) on foot?

IMO unless & until we have jaywalking regulations it is irrelevant.

No. But it was more a question about whether there was a generally accepted definition of pedestrian crossing that might apply. It seems an interesting choice of specific words by the judge if there is not.

I might be wrong, but thought the significance of that case is that pushing =/= riding.

The pedestrian crossing was where the incident took place, i.e. pedestrian pushing bike (so not a rider) had presedence over the vehicle (which struck her). Sounds like the defence argued the bike meant she wasnt a pedestrian thus the car had presedence. Had she been riding or scooting across, or not been using a marked crossing the outcome of the case may have differed, or rather the original case not decided on this point triggering the appeal.

Had this not been at a crossing there'd have still been a duty of care on the driver (and case to answer possibly), however the presence of the crossing made the driver automatically in the wrong for the collision with the pedestrian - which is why they argued it was a rider not ped, and why the judge used those specific words.

The pushing =/= riding case hasn't been tested away from a crossing afaik, would need a collision & subsequent prosecution in that circumstance to take place, not ideal really.

All that said, it doesn't actually help answer the original question I guess.

Pretty sure the reason this has never been tested in court despite people having been riding bikes on our streets for like 150 years or something, is because no copper would ever bother stopping someone and charging them for doing so.

So arguing over its legality is fairly moot.

So arguing over its legality is fairly moot.

Do you even internet bro?

It is a art.

I think the point is that a bike is a vehicle; establishing that in law in the late/ early 19 century was an important point in terms of our right to us the roads..

So perversely , moving a vehicle the wrong way up a one way street would be an offence.

Had this not been at a crossing there'd have still been a duty of care on the driver (and case to answer possibly), however the presence of the crossing made the driver automatically in the wrong for the collision with the pedestrian - which is why they argued it was a rider not ped, and why the judge used those specific words.

Note that Crank vs Brooks was the appeal case. In the original case the defendant (car driver) was found to have no case to answer (even though it occurred on a crossing).

I might be wrong, but thought the significance of that case is that pushing =/= riding.

Yes, but people read too much into it, specifically that pushing a bike is the same as walking without a bicycle. It's not, it (pushing a bike) was just adjudged not to have any relevance when using a pedestrian crossing by foot. It (pushing a bike) may still have relevance when pushing it across a junction.

It (pushing a bike) may still have relevance when pushing it across a junction.

Tempted to push all the junctions until it gets tested in court.

^ pavement to pavement of course.

Pushed across Portland Street this morning, saved ages, no regrets.

Ok, so I get some riders RLJ. But when it interferes with the flow or safety for anyone else, its just a selfish move.

This morning I saw my fair share of idiots on CS3, testing darwins law out, but when I got to a red for bikes/Green for peds just under Waterloo bridge where 2 elderly people with luggage were trying to cross, at least 8 riders in a row jumped the red - its clear as fijian water that they should have stopped, the lights were shining brightly on this grey day.

If it was cars I would be reporting them to the police right now, but how do you do this for cyclists?