- This topic has 90 replies, 54 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
Anonymous.
-
CreatorTopic
-
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?
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
racyrich
This vehicle that may not be
This vehicle that may not be propelled. Is this the same type of vehicle for which speed limits apply? So not a bike. Or does vehicle change its meaning as and when desired.severs1966
The law is an ass.
It seems
The law is an ass.It seems to hinge on an exact definition of “propelling”, despite being on foot at the time.
If he had picked the bike up and carried it on a shoulder, he probably would not be committing this offence. But in reality, would not have actually behaved in a substantially different manner.
WiznaeMe
mrmo wrote:WiznaeMe
mrmo wrote:WiznaeMe wrote:
How did ‘on a road’ in respect of a red light story move to a pavement. Different rules apply when cyclists are not on a road.A person on a bike is a cyclist, a person pushing a bike is a pedestrian, there are no laws about jaywalking etc. a person is allowed to walk on the road or on the pavement. The OP by pushing the bike is simply a pedestrian pushing a bike, traffic regs do not apply, is that so hard to understand?
Section 36 makes it an offence for “a person” (it doesn’t matter if they are a pedestrian pushing a bike or a cyclist riding a bike, these are also obviously persons) to propel a vehicle otherwise than in compliance with a traffic signal.
Being a pedestrian is a difference without a distinction. The OP is a person; that is all that is required in these circumstances to complete the offence.
The 1971 case, from what I read of it, refers to a pedestrian propelling a vehicle across a crossing. If that person had then walked through a stop sign whilst continuing to propel their vehicle then that would be an offence and the logic of the appeal court does not contradict this in any way.
Please remember that the Road Traffic Act which applied at the time of this stated case was 1960 and that was amended the year after the zebra crossing decision, i.e 1972. It has since been updated in 1988, 1991, 1998, 2004, and now appears to be changed annually now to cope with all the new offences, however in all these iterations the legislators have remained content to leave this wording as ‘person/propel/vehicle’, for the simple reason that they believe the statute to be properly worded. I merely agree with the legislators.
giff77
My take on the whole thing is
My take on the whole thing is that you’ve been operating a vehicle/carriage on the road. You’ve then dismounted to cross the road making use of the ‘green man’ then remounted and gone on your way whilst never leaving the road. Now while there is no jay walking law in Great Britain and pedestrians can use the roads wherever. Everything hinges on the fact that you were operating a vehicle on the road. NOW. If you had dismounted. Stepped on the pavement. As far as the law is concerned you are a pedestrian pushing a bicycle as has been mentioned in other posts and the police would have had no grounds to challenge.The peeler has been bang to rights to challenge you on the error of your ways if not issue you with a FPN.
Can you imagine our indignation if motorcyclists, motorists and, horse and cart operators did the same thing?
Quince
Curto80 wrote:Quince wrote:If
Curto80 wrote:Quince wrote:If the green man was showing, then you didn’t ‘run a red light’, you ‘walked a green man’. Which I believe is the entire point of having a ‘green man’ to begin with.The main gripe people seem to have with you is that you stuck out a bit; you did something abnormal. I think the largest risk you can pose in walking across a green man is walking into another pedestrian also walking across a green man. So it wasn’t illegal, and it wasn’t dangerous. It was just unusual. And now people seem to hate you for it.
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”.
To my mind you’ve got as much right to be ‘removed from the gene pool’ as any other poor sod who gets down whilst crossing a green man.
Nah. It’s just not really within the spirit of safe and responsible road use. And it’s not hate, it’s disapproval.
The timing did seem a little sketchy, and perhaps if you have to run, it would be better not to go at all, but I feel the OP has come under harsher fire than warranted by disapproval alone.
More generally, I’m just uncomfortable with the principle that ‘I just need to act like a car, and everything will be alright’. In an actual car, I don’t get ignored, punishment-passed, pulled out in front of, or generally marginalised in anywhere like the same way as on a bike. I can sympathise with the OP for not wanting to sit in front of a row of growling engines, ready for the Amber-Light-Drag-Race to start, hoping the person who’s been staring at his back for the last minute has enough self-control not to send their machine roaring past, centimetres from their shoulder.
As you can probably guess by my impassioned defence, I have done similar things myself on an unused Green Men – albeit at smaller junctions – and have relished the chance just to put a space between me and the constant stream of noise and metal I’ve been focusing on for most of the ride. It’s been kind of liberating to go, “no, y’know what, I’m not like you, I CAN become a pedestrian at will (and be no more dangerous than someone pushing a pram or trolley), and I’m bloody well going to make the most of it”.
I just wish it weren’t necessary… I’ve been watching Dutch cycling videos and reading angry cycle blogs (thanks, Bez) and gotten all indignant that this sort of scenario is so common place, and have also become progressively more bitter in the belief that, no matter how perfectly I adhere to the law, the law will neither protect me from an accident happening, nor defend me if it does.
I probably just shouldn’t go on forums when I’m already a bit peed off. For one thing my sentences get all stupid and long.
Aimless rant over. Sorry.
Colin Peyresourde
I think you would need to
I think you would need to test the rule on what propel a vehicle is, and pushing a vehicle with you hand or feet seems to satisfy that.The point about being a pedestrian would perhaps make his action one of crossing the road, and so that rule would not be in point, but I think that a judge would look to see if the cyclist made an effort to become a pedestrian I.e. Walk on a pavement and join with other pedestrians and in this case he just runs across the junction to avoid stopping to walk on the pavement. At no point does he enjoin with other pedestrians. If he wanted the rules to apply to him as a pedestrian he wouldn’t be using the main carriageway and would be on the pavement – therefore he is a vehicle, and acting as a vehicle and so therefore breaking the rules, if not in law, then also in spirit.
I think people that do it are frankly dicks. I think people that sit their cars in bike boxes are dicks too.
Stumps
bikebot. The section I read
bikebot. The section I read this on and cut and pasted it does not have any case law with it. Generally when there is its usually listed as ??? v ???.I agree though, just don’t do it and you wont get in the clarts.
atgni
Not a law, but breach of
Not a law, but breach of Highway code for a pedestrian.
Rule 18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should….always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.Curto80
Quince wrote:If the green man
Quince wrote:If the green man was showing, then you didn’t ‘run a red light’, you ‘walked a green man’. Which I believe is the entire point of having a ‘green man’ to begin with.The main gripe people seem to have with you is that you stuck out a bit; you did something abnormal. I think the largest risk you can pose in walking across a green man is walking into another pedestrian also walking across a green man. So it wasn’t illegal, and it wasn’t dangerous. It was just unusual. And now people seem to hate you for it.
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”.
To my mind you’ve got as much right to be ‘removed from the gene pool’ as any other poor sod who gets down whilst crossing a green man.
Nah. It’s just not really within the spirit of safe and responsible road use. And it’s not hate, it’s disapproval.
bikebot
stumps wrote:Basically you
stumps wrote:Basically you have broken the law because propelling a bike is also pushing it. As someone earlier pointed out it would take case law decision as to whether pushing it is included in “propelling it”. At the moment it does.Contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulation 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
I know there’s a case that does establish that for a motorcycle, but for bicycles whenever it’s been tested in court the verdict has always been that someone pushing a bike is a pedestrian.
However, the cases have been whilst using crossings. Yes, you can legally push a bike on any pedestrian surface, pavements, zebra crossings the lot, no need to carry, and that’s all established in past rulings.
For what the OP did, which was running along the road, I’m not aware of any case that tests this for a bicycle. But given that it has been tested for a motorcycle I suspect it would follow that precedent. Push a bike on a pedestrian surface, you’re a pedestrian pushing a bike. Push a bike on the road, you’re propelling it.
A simpler suggestion, could the OP just not do it, because it’s a bit of a dick thing to do. You can walk around a junction using the pedestrians crossings, and I’ve done that many times including in front of the Police. Running through the middle of the junction may not be illegal for a pedestrian, but it isn’t something we want pedestrians to do and there’s no reason why you should do it just because you’re now a pedestrian with a bike.
There’s also a very good chance that if a lot of cyclists did do it, it would quickly lead to a test case.
andyp
HalfWheeler wrote:andyp
HalfWheeler wrote:andyp wrote:’Ah…I take it this is what you do? Are you never tempted to roll it along?’This is not what I do. There is no pavement between my house and the road, so I ride.
Hmm…
No front step, path or pavement? Front door then road?
Has a car ever crashed into your front wall? The noise of the traffic must be terrible, what with cars passing 18 inches from your front door.
I have a very long drive, opening straight onto a country lane. Couple of cars a day. No traffic noise. It’s really very nice.
If the green man was showing,
If the green man was showing, then you didn’t ‘run a red light’, you ‘walked a green man’. Which I believe is the entire point of having a ‘green man’ to begin with.The main gripe people seem to have with you is that you stuck out a bit; you did something abnormal. I think the largest risk you can pose in walking across a green man is walking into another pedestrian also walking across a green man. So it wasn’t illegal, and it wasn’t dangerous. It was just unusual. And now people seem to hate you for it.
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”.
To my mind you’ve got as much right to be ‘removed from the gene pool’ as any other poor sod who gets down whilst crossing a green man.
HalfWheeler
andyp wrote:’Ah…I take it
andyp wrote:’Ah…I take it this is what you do? Are you never tempted to roll it along?’This is not what I do. There is no pavement between my house and the road, so I ride.
Hmm…
No front step, path or pavement? Front door then road?
Has a car ever crashed into your front wall? The noise of the traffic must be terrible, what with cars passing 18 inches from your front door.
Stumps
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at
On **(..SPECIFY DATE..) at **(..SPECIFY TOWNSHIP..), being a person propelling a pedal cycle, failed to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign, namely(A)_[a directional arrow sign,]_
(B)_[a roundabout sign,]_
(C)_[a vehicle priority sign,]_
(D)_[a bus or tram route sign,]_
(E)_[a manually operated stop sign,]_
(F)_[a convoy escort with no overtaking sign,]_
(G)_[a stop road works sign,]_
(H)_[a mobile road works directional sign,]_
(I)_[give way road markings,]_
(J)_[bus stop road markings,]_
(K)_[road hatchings with solid lines,]_
(L)_[box junction road markings,]_
(M)_[a tramcar light signal,]_
(N)_[a stop sign,]_
(O)_[a no entry sign,]_
(P)_[road markings delineating a toucan crossing,]_
(Q)_[road markings delineating an equestrian crossing,]_
(R)_[double white line road markings,]_
(S)_[a red light traffic sign,]_
(T)_[a green arrow traffic light sign,]_
(U)_[an intermittent red light traffic signal]_lawfully placed on or near a road, namely **(..SPECIFY ROAD AND LOCATION..)
Basically you have broken the law because propelling a bike is also pushing it. As someone earlier pointed out it would take case law decision as to whether pushing it is included in “propelling it”. At the moment it does.
Contrary to section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulation 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
‘Ah…I take it this is what
‘Ah…I take it this is what you do? Are you never tempted to roll it along?’This is not what I do. There is no pavement between my house and the road, so I ride.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.