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 - 46 through 60 (of 90 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Replies
  • May 30, 2015 at 7:38 pm #848013
    0
    mrmo

    WiznaeMe wrote:
    How did ‘on a

    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?

    May 30, 2015 at 7:29 pm #848011
    0
    WiznaeMe

    HalfWheeler wrote:WiznaeMe

    HalfWheeler wrote:
    WiznaeMe wrote:
    It’s not that hard to say that the OP went through a red light. He tells us he did at the start of his post. Also that the green man was on.

    Section 36 uses the word propel because it is easy to apply a general definition to that word. A cyclist on a road pushing a bike through a red light is breaking the law.

    So if I walk along the pavement with my bike it’s the same as cycling and therefore illegal? How should I get to the road from my frontdoor then?

    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.

    May 30, 2015 at 6:08 pm #848009
    0
    HalfWheeler

    andyp wrote:HalfWheeler

    andyp wrote:
    HalfWheeler wrote:
    WiznaeMe wrote:
    It’s not that hard to say that the OP went through a red light. He tells us he did at the start of his post. Also that the green man was on.

    Section 36 uses the word propel because it is easy to apply a general definition to that word. A cyclist on a road pushing a bike through a red light is breaking the law.

    So if I walk along the pavement with my bike it’s the same as cycling and therefore illegal? How should I get to the road from my frontdoor then?

    Carry it.

    Ah…I take it this is what you do? Are you never tempted to roll it along?

    May 30, 2015 at 5:54 pm #848007
    0
    andyp

    HalfWheeler wrote:WiznaeMe

    HalfWheeler wrote:
    WiznaeMe wrote:
    It’s not that hard to say that the OP went through a red light. He tells us he did at the start of his post. Also that the green man was on.

    Section 36 uses the word propel because it is easy to apply a general definition to that word. A cyclist on a road pushing a bike through a red light is breaking the law.

    So if I walk along the pavement with my bike it’s the same as cycling and therefore illegal? How should I get to the road from my frontdoor then?

    Carry it.

    May 30, 2015 at 5:11 pm #848005
    0
    HalfWheeler

    WiznaeMe wrote:It’s not that

    WiznaeMe wrote:
    It’s not that hard to say that the OP went through a red light. He tells us he did at the start of his post. Also that the green man was on.

    Section 36 uses the word propel because it is easy to apply a general definition to that word. A cyclist on a road pushing a bike through a red light is breaking the law.

    So if I walk along the pavement with my bike it’s the same as cycling and therefore illegal? How should I get to the road from my frontdoor then?

    May 30, 2015 at 5:08 pm #848003
    0
    bikebot

    Delete, duplicate post.
    Delete, duplicate post.

    May 30, 2015 at 5:06 pm #848001
    0
    bikebot

    WiznaeMe wrote:It’s not that

    WiznaeMe wrote:
    It’s not that hard to say that the OP went through a red light. He tells us he did at the start of his post. Also that the green man was on.

    Section 36 uses the word propel because it is easy to apply a general definition to that word. A cyclist on a road pushing a bike through a red light is breaking the law.

    That’s not how the law works. When the law uses an imprecise definition, it’s left to the judicial system to establish the meaning through individual cases. That’s commonly known as “case law”.

    See Crank v Brooks, McKerrell v Robertson above.

    With new circumstance, a new case might lead to new case law, but for now it’s legal because that’s how it’s been judged before in court. The Police themselves make mistakes all the time, for the simple reason that frontline officers are not lawyers.

    May 30, 2015 at 4:41 pm #847999
    0
    FluffyKittenofTindalos

    Chez_worldwide wrote:I’ll

    Chez_worldwide wrote:
    I’ll wager that the other road users/ pedestrians at that set of lights thought “what a bell-end”. I did on watching it. Unfortunately, some of them will also have thought “all cyclists are bell-ends”, and this is the crux of the matter in my opinion, regardless of the law. Next time they see a cyclist, they don’t see a father/ mother/ friend/ colleague, just a bell-end.

    I see motorists parked illegally blocking pavements, in mandatory cycle lanes, and on zig-zags outside schools, umpteen times a day. I frequently see them driving half on the pavement and half in a cycle lane in order to avoid stationary traffic, I see them speeding, I have them stop me crossing the road on a green man when they habitually jump the red after failing to catch the amber (itself illegal, but absolutely normal driver behaviour).

    They creep into ASLs on red, and twice in the last couple of years, while cycling, had to get off the road to make room for a van driving the wrong way down a narrow one way road.

    Rule-breaking by drivers is essentially universal. Do they stop doing it out of fear of being thought ‘bell ends’? No. They worry about their own safety and being caught, or getting into trouble if they injure someone else, very little else.

    The main reason not to do what the OP did is much as it is for motorists – their own safety – followed by the risk of being nabbed by a cop, and then the risk of causing an injury to a cyclist coming the other way on green. Motorists and their hypocritical judgements aren’t really the point.

    Dammit, I sound a bit petulant there, I know! I just find myself, as a pedestrian much more than as a cyclist, constantly grinding my teeth at the obliviousness of drivers to their own misbehaviour, even as they whinge about what cyclists do.

    May 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm #847997
    0
    WiznaeMe

    It’s not that hard to say
    It’s not that hard to say that the OP went through a red light. He tells us he did at the start of his post. Also that the green man was on.

    Section 36 uses the word propel because it is easy to apply a general definition to that word. A cyclist on a road pushing a bike through a red light is breaking the law.

    May 30, 2015 at 4:05 pm #847995
    0
    bikebot

    More important, why haven’t
    More important, why haven’t you blocked JSR from your youtube channel? Priorities please!

    May 30, 2015 at 2:28 pm #847993
    0
    Chez_worldwide

    I’ll wager that the other
    I’ll wager that the other road users/ pedestrians at that set of lights thought “what a bell-end”. I did on watching it. Unfortunately, some of them will also have thought “all cyclists are bell-ends”, and this is the crux of the matter in my opinion, regardless of the law. Next time they see a cyclist, they don’t see a father/ mother/ friend/ colleague, just a bell-end.

    Your argument that 10/15 minutes waiting at lights is too long is the same selfish thought process that sees cars overtaking cyclists and other road users at innapropriate and dangerous places.

    Having said that, if I slowed my cement wagon every time a bloody lollipop lady tries to help kids cross the road I’d never get to the building site in time. And who puts pelican crossings outside old-peoples’ homes? Fuck-em! I’ve got to get home or I’ll miss the first 5 minutes of BGT.

    May 30, 2015 at 1:25 pm #847991
    0
    mrmo

    WiznaeMe wrote:The OP

    WiznaeMe wrote:
    The OP contravened section 36 when he passed (or propelled his vehicle!) over the stop line.

    Hard to say with a rear facing camera, but i don’t think the OP was propelling his bike, he pushed it, therefore he is a pedestrian pushing a bike.

    May 30, 2015 at 1:08 pm #847989
    0
    WiznaeMe

    The OP contravened section 36
    The OP contravened section 36 when he passed (or propelled his vehicle!) over the stop line. Clearly not everyone knows that this is an offence, but not everyone studies the Road Traffic Acts. Strangely, as someone wrote above, if he had been carrying the bike on his shoulder (which would be slower and probably therefore safer; although bizarre), he would not be propelling it.

    A road user who has committed an offence can be required by a police officer to identify himself in terms of section 172 of the RTA. Failure to identify yourself is an offence.

    As far as the police officers actions are concerned he should have had a chat with the OP on the pavement and given a courteous explanation of his own actions, then this whole event may have been clearer to everyone.

    May 30, 2015 at 1:06 pm #847987
    0
    Chuck

    untakenname wrote:if I was to

    untakenname wrote:
    if I was to wait at every set of lights then I’d be quicker on a motorbike, it must add at least 10-15 minutes to my commute in rush hour.

    Yes, it’s totally unreasonable to expect you to have to take 10 minutes longer by stopping at the lights. I hope you explained that to the copper…?
    Obviously you’d be fine too with everybody else just nipping through the lights, if it’ll save them 10 minutes.. right?

    May 30, 2015 at 12:29 pm #847985
    0
    gazza_d

    Hmm. I often use a light
    Hmm. I often use a light controlled junct with a phase where all ped lights are green & I cut diagonally across. Pretty sure it would take a really arsey copper to actually pull me over for something which is common sense & safe & legal for a pedestrian.

    If the whole junction had all ped segments lit green simultaneously, then I think the plod in that case was being extremely picky.

    Have you received a fixed penalty or a summons to court? If a FP then swallow pride and pay or find a very skilful lawyer as a magistrates court full of drivers will have you for this.

    If not and he just told you not to do it again, then just be more careful in future.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 46 through 60 (of 90 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.