log in
register

Stopped by the Police, did I break the law?

  • This topic has 90 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by Anonymous.
  • Creator
    Topic
  • May 29, 2015 at 2:24 pm #24113
    untakenname

    Rode my commuting bike into work today and came up on some red traffic lights at Dulwich so dismounted and walked it across the junction (green man was showing) as it sometimes takes upto 3 minutes for the lights to change again then hopped back on and carried on my way.

    A little while later some dick in an undercover bmw 1 series sounds his sirens and lights at me making me stop and then starts berating me saying how it’s illegal to go through a red light, I said that I was walking across so there was no issue as I was a pedestrian at the time and then he has the audacity to tell me that I’m still wrong and that “this is a one way conversation” even though imo I wasn’t breaking any laws.

    Video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvPMXq3XoI

    Just wondering if what I did was illegal and if so what laws I’ve broken?

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 90 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Replies
  • June 3, 2015 at 9:18 am #848103
    0
    Anonymous

    Northernbike wrote:anyone who

    Northernbike wrote:
    anyone who arrives at a red light and gets off and runs through it it is definitely guilty of the crime of taking the piss

    Hear, hear.

    Fundamentally I refer the honourable gentleman to Rule One: Don’t be a dick.

    June 2, 2015 at 9:46 pm #848101
    0
    Curto80

    “Legal professionals” might
    “Legal professionals” might be a bit generous mate 😉

    June 2, 2015 at 6:01 pm #848099
    0
    surly_by_name

    The law is largely irrelevant
    The law is largely irrelevant to the police in almost every interaction you will have with them – it’s complicated and messy (and often lengthy), which is why it tends to get left to lawyers. Knowing it – the law – doesn’t help them perform their (difficult) day to day job. The police are given what are essentially rules of conduct that are for the most part designed to prevent them breaching the law in a manner that would prejudice subsequent prosecutions but (as Sanderville’s example shows) they retain a massive discretion as to its application as they are primarily responsible for enforcement. There is no practical use in knowing the answer to the question originally posed by the OP. And it stopped being an interesting theoretical discussion a while ago. (Who knew there were so many frustrated legal professionals using this site?)

    June 2, 2015 at 5:24 pm #848097
    0
    mike the bike

    Sanderville wrote:…..
    I

    Sanderville wrote:
    …..

    I don’t think that each cop has the same understanding of the law as the next one.

    Is this a surprise? When sane people can spend hours arguing over such tiny points of law it surely indicates we are snowed under with the things. Apparently the last parliament succeeded in putting over 2000 pieces of legislation on the books but repealed only a small handful. What a woeful situation we have.

    Perhaps there should be just one motoring law that makes it illegal to “act to the detriment of other road users.” This would cover everything from collisions to paying vehicle tax. Any argument could be decided by a professional jury and this would automatically allow for the gradual change in attitudes over time.

    And the lawyers would be deprived of the opportunity to bend words to fit their clients’ circumstances. It’s a win-win.

    June 2, 2015 at 12:13 pm #848095
    0
    sanderville

    On the commute one morning
    On the commute one morning there was a big jam at the traffic lights at the junction of Victoria Embankment and Horse Guards Avenue. I was heading towards Parliament Square and there were cops in the road holding up traffic for whatever reason, so I just waited at the front of the queue of traffic. One of the cops pointed at me and shouted “you can always just push it across!” so I did, while the lights were red, in front of half a dozen other cops, got back on my bike at the other side of the junction and carried on.

    I don’t think that each cop has the same understanding of the law as the next one.

    June 2, 2015 at 12:06 pm #848093
    0
    Leodis

    Can this end? The cyclist is
    Can this end? The cyclist is a nobber.

    June 2, 2015 at 10:51 am #848091
    0
    BikeBud

    Interested to know what does
    Interested to know what does the OP make of the responses…

    June 1, 2015 at 6:26 pm #848089
    0
    Ush

    Yorkshie Whippet wrote:To all

    Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
    To all those whose defence is that he is pushing the bike therefore a pedestrian, please explain at what point does either the bike or the rider/pusher enter, traverse along a pedestrian area i.e. the footpath/pavement call it what you like.

    Honestly, I couldn’t give a flying fuck. What he did was not dangerous. It looked a bit weird, but all you tight-assed, how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-my-road-pin types need to wind your skinny necks back into your wool jerseys.

    June 1, 2015 at 6:23 pm #848087
    0
    Ush

    Quince wrote:
    The vitriol to

    Quince wrote:

    The vitriol to be getting for ‘walking across a green man’ reads a bit like a Daily Mail comment section on ‘riding a bicycle’ in general. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal, it’s not ‘normal’ and thus you deserve to die for it. “Out of the gene pool for you, buddy”..

    Agreed. I don’t see much wrong with the OP’s actions. But I see a lot wrong with most of the responses he’s been getting.

    June 1, 2015 at 3:04 pm #848085
    0
    Yorkshie Whippet

    To all those whose defence is
    To all those whose defence is that he is pushing the bike therefore a pedestrian, please explain at what point does either the bike or the rider/pusher enter, traverse along a pedestrian area i.e. the footpath/pavement call it what you like.

    He arrives at the red light on the main carriageway, proceeds along the same carriageway on foot and remounts on the said carriageway the other side of the junction. Ergo he failled to stop at a red light, jumped/ran or otherwise did not obay the red light. You stop at a red light regardless of if you are on foot, cycle, car or lorry.

    It is totally irrelivent as to if the “green man” was on for pedestrians to cross on the pedestrian crossing as he didn’t use the actual crossing he remained on the main carrigeway.

    And this parrot is dead, ceased to be……….

    June 1, 2015 at 2:51 pm #848083
    0
    Anonymous

    If you are pushing a
    If you are pushing a hand-cart in the public road and you come to a traffic signal on red then you are legally obliged to stop at the stop-line. You are deemed to be a vehicle for the purposes of the legislation even though you are on foot.

    If you extrapolate from this then – If you arrive at the junction as a vehicle then you will remain a vehicle for your transit of and exiting from the junction.

    Conclusion:
    OP is in the wrong.
    Police Officer is right.

    June 1, 2015 at 2:40 pm #848081
    0
    bikebot

    adamthekiwi wrote:Where I’m

    adamthekiwi wrote:
    Where I’m not clear is when you’re riding on a shared-use path – if you come across a red man at a toucan crossing, are you legally bound to observe it as a cyclist? As a pedestrian you aren’t, I don’t think…

    Very good question, the answer appears to be that it’s legal.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/49/made

    49 (4) The red signal, whilst it is illuminated, shall indicate the period during which, in the interests of safety, pedestrians and pedal cyclists should not use the crossing and the green signal, whilst it is illuminated, shall indicate the period during which pedestrians and pedal cyclists may use the crossing.

    That’s the language of an advisory signal, rather than an order. Also good to know, there’s at least one crossing where I’ve been doing that for years!

    Also check the language of highway code rules #80 & #81. 81 (cycle only crossings) gets a MUST NOT cross and a law reference, 80 (Toucan) does not.

    June 1, 2015 at 1:54 pm #848079
    0
    Pete Spork

    tao24 wrote:Therefore you

    tao24 wrote:
    Therefore you need to move onto the pavement to make running a bike across a road legal.
    If you pick the bike up however you are definitely a pedestrian, and therefore by carrying your bike you ensure what you did is definitely not illegal.

    Agree that you should be fine legally [*] if you dismount before the stop line then carry on via pavement/crossing, but if you stay in the road and carry your bike past the red light then the question is still whether you are deemed to be ‘propelling’ it – you’d need to go to court to establish a precedent in this case.

    Side note – Crank vs Brooks determined that someone pushing a bike was a ‘foot passenger’ for the purpose of deciding precedence on zebra crossings – sensibly cars have to give way to people crossing even if they are pushing a cycle. It isn’t widely applicable – so doesn’t mean e.g. ‘anyone pushing a cycle is a pedestrian’ for the purposes of other road traffic laws as some others have assumed.

    [*] Probably – it seems a bit unclear whether pushing a cycle on the pavement is definitively allowed, but think it’s safe to assume that if it was ever ruled unlawful that would be changed and/or the police would be told to ignore it.

    June 1, 2015 at 1:40 pm #848077
    0
    adamthekiwi

    I understood that if you
    I understood that if you crossed the traffic light line, having arrived at the junction as a vehicle, either on foot or by cycle, you were breaking the law. As others have pointed out, case precedent establishes that pushing your bike on the footway makes you a pedestrian from the point of view of the Road Traffic Act. So, I interpret that set of rules like this:
    – If you pedaled up to the lights, then got off and pushed through, you’d be breaking the law by going through a red light;
    – If you pedaled up the lights, then stopped, got off the bike and took to the pavement without crossing the line, you’d have become a pedestrian and, from that point, you’re free to walk your bike across the junction, even if this was against a red light.

    Where I’m not clear is when you’re riding on a shared-use path – if you come across a red man at a toucan crossing, are you legally bound to observe it as a cyclist? As a pedestrian you aren’t, I don’t think…

    For what it’s worth, I pull this manoeuvre regularly when westbound at the eastern end of Shandwick Place in Edinburgh, to go through Charlotte Square to George Street, rather than face the rubbish that is the Princes Street/Lothian Road junction.

    June 1, 2015 at 1:14 pm #848075
    0
    arfa

    Interesting and vaired
    Interesting and vaired points of view here. I head north daily through Southwark bridge and up Queen Street and won’t hesitate to get off my bike and use the pedestrian crossing to walk across the junction because it is a horrible design with two lanes of traffic that can turn right from the left lane (usually without indicating) and it is often chock full of tipper trucks/industrial traffic and the lights go green for a very short cycle, making drivers more aggressive and jumpy. So perhaps it makes me “a bit of a dick” in the eyes of some but I’d rather that than a dead compliant person.
    Rules are for the guidance of men and the obeisance of fools (sometimes)
    For the record, I have contacted TfL about the dangerous design of this junction several times (and sweet fa changes) and have testified as a witness in a hit and run case arising at this junction

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 90 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.