Please report dangerous drivers to the police - Roadsafe. Report to plod, not just whinge here.

Couldn't you just push it onto the pavement, thereby circumventing the white line and becoming a pedestrian again?

The "fails to comply with the indication" probably deals with that.

Had a black cab give me a very close punishment pass and horn honk when going southbound over Blackfriars Bridge. I think my 'crime' was to be in the bus lane, not the shoddy bike lane. There was another empty lane to his right that he could have used, but hey. I gave him a big cheery sarky wave but did not swear, gesticulate or question his mothers' morals as I am giving zen cycling a go.

.

[ Ah, seems the Cycling Silk has got most of it covered. ]

Other's seem to disagree with him on carrying the bike over the line not being "propelling".

I also doubt the legality of dismounting, lifting the bike onto the pavement and wheeling (or carrying) it past the red line whilst on the pavement, then putting it back on the road and cycling on. Again I'd guess that the Police would start down the inconsiderate cycling route with that.

As he says, test cases required. I'd rather wait at the lights and catch my breath rather than looking like a knob pushing my bike across a road.

CyclingSilk approved. Kinda.

My take (IANAL etc...) is that the CvB sets a precedent, in a certain situations, that a person wheeling a bike is a de facto pedestrian, as part of the ruling states that it is irrelevant whether the person walking has a bike with them or not. The question is whether the precedent can be extended to cases like these, especially as the full ruling also states something about the person starting from one footpath and proceeding to another footpath. I would guess that, if it can be demonstrated that the cyclist dismounted specifically to circumvent the signs/markings etc. and remained on the carriageway, then a judge would probably not feel the CvB precedent applied.

But there is no circumvention of any sign. The red light means you can't ride through them. Not that you can't walk through them - provided you apply the normal usage of the word propelled. Anyway, circumventing a law is, by definition, not itself illegal.

See the Cycling Silk link above. Specifically: https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/606042459424972801

The question doesn't come down to whether it's a pedestrian or not but whether a vehicle was propelled or not.

Crank vs Brooks was an appeal case concerning a motorist who knocked someone down on a zebra crossing and the defence team argued that because the person was pushing a bicycle they were not a 'foot passenger' and therefore there was no requirement for the motorist to accord precedence to them at the crossing. Rather shockingly, this argument was successful in the original case and the case against the motorist was thrown out with no case to answer. It was the appeal (which is the Crank vs Brooks case) that overturned this.

The point of all of this is that the wording of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations refers simply to "foot passenger" and there was no reason why this should not have covered someone who just happened to be wheeling a bicycle by their side.

Quoth the judge: "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."

This is where most people misunderstand CvB. The ruling doesn't make the bicycle disappear, it just means that someone can be classed as "foot passenger" whilst wheeling a bicycle along side them. The bicycle is still there being wheeled.

The wording in the RTA 1998 specifically points to "a person driving or propelling a vehicle". With Crank vs Brooks in mind the person pushing a bike over a stop line at a red light can be similarly classed as a "foot passenger" but the vehicle (bicycle) is still there, and if the vehicle is propelled over the stop line at a red light then an offence has been committed.

S'interestin innit.

I recently rode past a temporary red light that was stopping traffic on the road. I was on a shared use off-road cycleway on the other side of the road, so assumed the light didn't apply. The cycleway came to an end in the middle of the roadworks.

Was I allowed to just join the carriageway and ride on? Cos I fucken did. #ftp #1312 etc

Fuck knows. If the cycleway ended half way through the roadworks I would have expected it to be closed off ("Cycle lane closed ahead" sign) to prevent that situation ever happening. Sounds like piss poor planning.

The only red light I ever regularly jump is one without a white line, which looks like it's never had a white line. I think it's an extension of a pelican crossing, rather than part of a junction.

Is it true that it's the line which is sacred, rather than the red light? I think this is the only one I've ever seen without one.

If the line isn't well marked then it's open to challenge in court or something. The wording on my fpn was similar to ''crossing a stop line under a red light''.

No. The page I can't find right now (maybe it's in the history of a browser at home) made it clear that if the white line is missing and it's obvious it should be there then you've got no excuse for not complying with the red light. Probably not explaining it well enough, the web page I read put forth a much more compelling argument.

Yeah, I often wonder whether it was dug up and never put back, or if it's actually just part of the crossing masquerading as a full red light. There'll be a TRO in Camden council somewhere with the truth.

It's the little feeder cycle path crossing High Holborn opposite the Princess Louise.

It's the little feeder cycle path crossing High Holborn opposite the Princess Louise.

google streetview and enhance

Given the way the traffic lights are pointing (only visible/relevant to cyclists using that feeder cycle path) I'd guess you'd be hard pushed to claim that you thought it/they didn't apply to you.

On streetview the manhole cover just before the second traffic light (at the start of the cycling contraflow) seems to have the remains of a white line on it, but that may have just been originally part of the 'give way' dashed lines from a time when the cycling contraflow didn't exist and the whole width of Newton St was one way.

Many, many ^

Enveloper received today, by Royal Mail, (now that the trial in outer north west London with Whistl has collapsed), with an innocuous Leicester return address.

It contains the business card of the EuropCar HR Ms.
and a Halfords giftcard, loaded with £30.
Factoring in the typical Halfords surcharge, this means Europcar
have priced the abuse mespilus junior received at around £20.

Does the hivemind think this is an equable outcome?

Maybe they want you to buy him some hi viz and a helmet with it.

His ultra-hi-viz Proviz bike helmet was one of the topics that the van occupants abused him over

got a call back from a DCI regarding my run in with the phone using plod in brixton a couple of weeks back. he seemed more concerned about the fact that i was able to google the plates of the car which came up as an 'AUTHORITIES' (read plod) vehicle. seems this car and its driver are part of the london anti-terrorism squad.

So the person who shouted at you saying they're the law is actually the law?

#pigslife

i know! who knew!

That's what happens when you have a car custom modded into a model only police can buy/have.

A car made forceful contact with my back wheel at lunch today at the beginning of coldharbour lane... the driver said she was sorry but because me and my bike appeared to be OK, she refused to give me her details, I had to put myself in front of her car to reason with her, but she still managed to drive off before i could take her name etc, i took pics of her car though. now I have already been to 2 of the near police stations and the potential waiting time killed me, so I still haven't reported it. Can I do this online or over the phone now? Or do I have to queue up at a station to get a form and fill it out, and queue up again to give it back?