[Closed] £30 fine for crossing traffic lights on bike

Probably a slightly grey area but I suspect it's strictly illegal since you are moving your vehicle over a solid white line with a red signal showing.

Devil's advocate time: how about if I pick the bike up and carry it over the line - it's not a vehicle any more, surely it's now luggage?

[i]Might not be being entirely serious before anyone else points out whichever rule no. "not being a dick" is.[/i]

Probably a slightly grey area but I suspect it's strictly illegal since you are moving your vehicle over a solid white line with a red signal showing.

AIUI you're considered to be a pedestrian if you're wheeling your bike.

There is nothing to stop you pushing a bike anywhere you like. Don't really see a problem with what you propose, unless as you say, there is a crowd of pedestrians to push through.

Interesting little known bit of pedantry: It is illegal to cycle over a toucan with the red bike showing. If, however, the toucan is of the red man/green man but only a green bike type display, you can perfectly legally cycle over the red man. (Bez may well be referring to this, above)
Carry on as you were.

AIUI you're considered to be a pedestrian if you're wheeling your bike.

That's not the point. The point is one of whether the pedal cycle ceases to be a vehicle when not being ridden. (Consider getting out of a motor vehicle and pushing it through red lights.)

The wording in the RTA says "a person driving or propelling a vehicle* who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", and to push a vehicle is to propel it.

* a pedal cycle is a vehicle

Interesting little known bit of pedantry: It is illegal to cycle over a toucan with the red bike showing.

I haz a sceptics. Can you cite the legislation?

That's not the point. The point is one of whether the pedal cycle ceases to be a vehicle when not being ridden. (Consider getting out of a motor vehicle and pushing it through red lights.)

Of course it's the point, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to dismount and push your bike across a pelican crossing.

[quote=greyspoke ]Riding across a crossing is pretty good evidence that you had just, and were just about to, ride on the pavement.

In the same way that leaving your car parked on the pavement is pretty good evidence that you drove on the pavement? £30 fines all round 😆

Yet another example of the multi-hootitude of the law. It works both ways guys - I'll stop breaking the law when cycling for my own convenience and safety just as soon as the laws I'm breaking are enforced for those driving motor vehicles. I'll just leave this one here for deviant to ponder: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-39356514

Of course it's the point, otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to dismount and push your bike across a pelican crossing.

We weren't talking about pushing across a pelican crossing, we were talking about pushing across a solid white line with a red light. The legislation which pertains to the latter does not pertain to the former.

[quote=Bez ]The wording in the RTA says "a person driving or propelling a vehicle* who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", and to push a vehicle is to propel it.
* a pedal cycle is a vehicle

I thought there was case law which suggested otherwise for pushing a bicycle - I think the critical bit is the meaning of "propelling" and that pushing doesn't in fact count. In any case, as edlong suggests carrying your bicycle certainly doesn't count - I presume you could legally get out of your car and carry it through a red light 😉

Crank vs Brooks 1980
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_traffic_laws#Bicycles

The wording in the RTA says "a person driving or propelling a vehicle* who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence", and to push a vehicle is to propel it.

* a pedal cycle is a vehicle

I'm guessing (cos I know Bez will know this and give us the true position) that somewhere in the RTA or other legislation that definition of a vehicle must be detailed - it can't be as simple as "a thing on wheels that can convey a person" as then you'd have skateboards, roller skates and those trainers with rollers in the soles that were all the rage with the kids a few years back falling under the RTA and kids in trainers being busted for rolling along the pavement (or forced to join traffic on the road).

So at what point does my assembled collection of aluminium, steel and rubber become a vehicle, in law?

Are Running cyclecross style dismounts and shoulder at ped crossings legal if you get a red light?

They should put hurdles across the road in cross season..

Asking for an undertrained friend

We weren't talking about pushing across a pelican crossing, we were talking about pushing across a solid white line with a red light. So it's not the point.

What about arriving at the crossing, dismounting and crossing to the other pavement? There's a few cycle paths like that round here (i.e. on the wrong side of the road) and the easiest way to get to them at rush hour is just cross at a red light pedestrian crossing (may or may not be toucan).

If it's a Toucan, I'd say illegal (crossing the line whilst light is red), but probably not dickish (bikes are allowed to be on the other side of the line, bit like a non light controlled stop line)?

So at what point does my assembled collection of aluminium, steel and rubber become a vehicle, in law?

Interesting, because in Scotland off-road it's a mechanical aid to walking (but still specifically banned from pavements).

Only potentially pertinent, since this case relates to a different offence, but pushing a bicycle is considered to be "in charge of" it:

http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/drunk-cyclist-locked-up-and-prosecuted-under-140-year-old-law-1-8729870

Good old Crank v Brooks is only potentially pertinent, as well: it says that if you're pushing a bicycle then you're not driving/riding it. But, again, that's not the same as "propelling".

Haven't yet found a specific bit of case law regarding "propelling" when pushing…

We weren't talking about pushing across a pelican crossing, we were talking about pushing across a solid white line with a red light. The legislation which pertains to the latter does not pertain to the former.

That's not what you said though, is it? You said:

. The point is one of whether the pedal cycle ceases to be a vehicle when not being ridden.

The answer seems to be "it depends". There's a 9-page debate on this on the CTC forum, with no definitive answer. I can see nothing in law to stop you from dismounting before a red light, walking your bike along the pavement, then remounting on the other side.

it can't be as simple as "a thing on wheels that can convey a person" as then you'd have skateboards, roller skates and those trainers with rollers in the soles that were all the rage with the kids a few years back falling under the RTA and kids in trainers being busted for rolling along the pavement (or forced to join traffic on the road)

Skateboards are vehicles (see also scooters, pedal karts etc). Not sure about shoes with wheels.

So at what point does my assembled collection of aluminium, steel and rubber become a vehicle, in law?

Essentially if it's a mechanical device that enables you to move without walking, it's a vehicle. If it has a means of propulsion which is neither human nor animal then it's also a mechanically-propelled vehicle, which is subject to a lot more legislation.

Interesting little known bit of pedantry: It is illegal to cycle over a toucan with the red bike showing.

I haz a sceptics. Can you cite the legislation?

(a)the red figures in the signs shown in diagrams 4003.5 and 4003.7 and the red cycle symbol in diagram 4003.7 (“the red signal”) can be internally illuminated by a steady light;

............

(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.

[quote=edlong ]I'm guessing (cos I know Bez will know this and give us the true position) that somewhere in the RTA or other legislation that definition of a vehicle must be detailed

Bicycles are legally carriages from 19th century acts and case law. Which I think means they count as vehicles when that is mentioned in later law - though I note that the offence of cycling (or driving) on the footway is still covered under 19th century law (1835 Highways Act IIRC). Bez may have slightly more detailed info, though in general I agree with him that a bicycle counts as a vehicle (though not a mechanically propelled vehicle, which is an important distinction).

Though as already mentioned, Crank vs Brooks makes it clear that they only count as a vehicle when they're being ridden.

That's not what you said though, is it? You said:

Yup, but what I meant was that it's totally irrelevant whether or not you're a pedestrian and it's totally irrelevant to talk about pelican crossings. What's relevant is whether, in accordance with the wording of S36 of RTA1988 (which is what covers violating a red light), pushing a vehicle amounts to propelling it.

I can see nothing in law to stop you from dismounting before a red light, walking your bike along the pavement, then remounting on the other side.

Ah, but that's a completely different thing to what was proposed earlier, which was pushing a pedal cycle across a solid white line under a red light. If you lift the bike onto the pavement and walk past the line that way then you don't traverse that line, and you need to discuss completely different legislation.

Blimey! I've learned something new today:

That it's not an offence to cross a road with a red man/bicycle symbol showing…?

Essentially if it's a mechanical device that enables you to move without walking, it's a vehicle.

Wheelchair users are worse lawbreakers than cyclists then! They're generally on the pavement rather than chancing it in the traffic in my experience.

should have registration plates and insurance, compulsory testing.... would now be the right moment to mention road tax?

EDIT: Serious question - does this mean that in law, wheelchairs are vehicles and their users should be using them as such in line with the RTA etc?

Well, you may have noticed the media increasing the pressure for those things in regard to mobility scooters…

£30 pales into insignificance compared to the 160€, the 125€ and the 86€ fines I've received in Germany for going against the red light... All of them on bike paths!

OK, the 160€ might be because I insulted the police woman by asking her if she thought it was a good use of her time and whether she was proud of what she was doing.

The 120€ was because I was wheeling the bike whilst going over red... He said I was out of control.

Yay! Germany!

I was thinking more of the traditional, manually propelled ones.. If wheelchair users decided to take that one on and do a "critical mass" type thing through city traffic it would be a sight to behold.

Yup, but what I meant was that it's totally irrelevant whether or not you're a pedestrian and it's totally irrelevant to talk about pelican crossings. What's relevant is whether, in accordance with the wording of S36 of RTA1988 (which is what covers violating a red light), pushing a vehicle amounts to propelling it.

Yes - in relation to the specific circumstance you describe.

Ah, but that's a completely different thing to what was proposed earlier, which was pushing a pedal cycle across a solid white line under a red light. If you lift the bike onto the pavement and walk past the line that way then you don't traverse that line, and you need to discuss completely different legislation.

That's why I said "it depends"! We're talking about cyclists performing some very similar actions, but falling within the remit of different pieces of legislation, which impose different requirements.

Anyway, I must go. On my cycle home, I will cross the road using a toucan crossing, which has a segregated cycle path either side of it. Apparently, that's illegal unless I push across...

[quote=Bez ]Only potentially pertinent, since this case relates to a different offence, but pushing a bicycle is considered to be "in charge of" it:
> http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/news/drunk-cyclist-locked-up-and-prosecuted-under-140-year-old-law-1-8729870
Good old Crank v Brooks is only potentially pertinent, as well: it says that if you're pushing a bicycle then you're not driving/riding it. But, again, that's not the same as "propelling".
Haven't yet found a specific bit of case law regarding "propelling" when pushing…

This is really nitpicking stuff 😉 I agree with the interpretation there, clearly you're still in charge of a bicycle when pushing it (in the same way you're in charge of a car when sitting in the driver's seat with the keys). However that says nothing at all about the situation regarding other laws. For those Crank vs Brooks is still the definitive judgement - the lack of any more recent judgements on the issue or similar issues coming up in searches suggests quite strongly that no other similar cases have made it to appeal. Hence until there is a case taken to appeal it would take a brave magistrate (and indeed a brave prosecutor) to rule in a way which would appear to contradict Crank vs Brooks even in a case where the details aren't exactly the same.

I'd suggest that in the absence of any specific case law regarding pushing a bicycle over a stop line (and there doesn't appear to be any), that the wording of Crank vs Brooks certainly does apply.

BTW this is a handy resource for general cycling legal stuff http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ (though I wouldn't use it as a specific reference)

Blimey! I've learned something new today:

That it's not an offence to cross a road with a red man/bicycle symbol showing…?

Yes - in relation to the specific circumstance you describe. That's why I said "it depends"!

Well, I was replying to a very specific question, hence the specific response 😉

[quote=Bez ]b) people who think they can design infrastructure but can't.

I've found such people put up handy signs to indicate this:

[img] [/img]

Well, I was replying to a very specific question, hence the specific response

I always thought of specificity as a binary thing... 😉

in the same way you're in charge of a car when sitting in the driver's seat with the keys

To go off yet further on a tangent I was recently informed by a copper that the received wisdom that you can be done just for sitting in the driving seat of a car, with the keys, pissed, is a bit of a "QI Klaxon" fallacy.

"To prove drunk in charge contrary to s4 you have to be able to prove an intention to drive." apparently.

Is that multiple "cyclists dismount" photo actually real? I always assumed it was photoshopped..

However that says nothing at all about the situation regarding other laws. For those Crank vs Brooks is still the definitive judgement

Hmm. We have three concepts in statute: "being in control of", "driving" (or riding; the two are equivalent), and "propelling".

It is established that pushing a pedal cycle constitutes one of these and does [i]not[/i] constitute one other. We have not yet established as to the third, and that's the one which relates to the original question. (Note that S36 specifically does not use the verbs "drive" or "ride", even though both are used extensively in the same act.)

In terms of mechanics, to push something is certainly to propel it, and I would personally expect the law to agree.

Street view of the crime scene:

https://goo.gl/maps/sCyuqk9uc6A2

In terms of mechanics, to push something is certainly to propel it, and I would personally expect the law to agree.

Okay.... so how about a bike that was propelled, but then proceeds under no control, or propulsion. Picture the scene:

You are very near the top of a hill on a road. The road continues over the summit and then down a very long hill. You push the bike with just enough force to get it over the summit, and release it. It proceeds over the summit (just) and then gathers more and more speed as it descends the other side.

The propulsion you provided was only enough to get it just over the summit - the rest of the force acting on it was gravity.

Ignoring other offences that might arise in this scenario (such as manslaughter by gross negligence!), would the vehicle be considered legally to have been propelled by you as it accelerated down the hill?

Right, so the shared pavement at south side of the road is legal to cycle on, and the carriageway is legal to cycle on although the Highway Code advises you to dismount to use the crossing. The pavement at the north side is not legal to cycle on. So if you had started on the shared pavement and ridden across to join the eastbound lane of the carriageway then you were quite legal, but going against Highway Code guidance. No £30 fine for you.

BTW personally I'm not sure I'd call that crossing "wide" 😉

Okay.... so how about a bike that was propelled, but then proceeds under no control, or propulsion.

I started wondering about that before you posted it and decided I had better things to think about 😉

But…

Ignoring other offences that might arise in this scenario (such as manslaughter by gross negligence!), would the vehicle be considered legally to have been propelled by you as it accelerated down the hill?

I would expect the law to deem the cycle to have been propelled by the person in charge of it and for the person in charge of it to have subsequently failed to control it. (Much as I would expect driving to be treated similarly: eg when considering the Bath tipper case, the questions regarding dangerous driving would have been around whether the driver's actions leading up to the loss of control contributed to that loss of control, and not to his inevitable inability to arrest a runaway truck with faulty brakes on a steep hill.)

I think it may be a little futile to push our legal pontification quite this far into the realms of physical improbability, though 😉

I just want to know if I am going to jail.

Depends what else you've done.

What if I'm stood next to a conveyor belt across a toucan, holding a bike stationary yet moving on the conveyor belt, would I [s]take off[/s] be breaking the law?

[quote=Bez ]Hmm. We have three concepts in statute: "being in control of", "driving" (or riding; the two are equivalent), and "propelling".

Pedantically the first is "being in charge of" - but pedantry is crucial here. Because clearly "propelling" has far more in common with "driving" than with "being in charge of".

There doesn't appear to be any specific case law on this, and as so often seems to be the case, nor is there any proper definition of the terminology. I've done a bit of research and thought I'd found sufficient evidence to support my position, but now I'm not sure (mainly because having found the full text of Crank vs Brooks it seems it may not apply). I'll have a think...

Pedantically the first is "being in charge of"

Sorry, yes, flitting between tasks and got distracted, meant "charge".

Because clearly "propelling" has far more in common with "driving" than with "being in charge of".

There's overlap between all three, and I wouldn't necessarily agree with the above. Either way, I suspect neither of us are really qualified to infer the true legal interpretation of "propelling" 😉

so, adding further hypothetical nonsense to this...

A page or so back the distinction between [i]mechanically[/i] propelled vehicles was made, what about trailers/caravans etc where occasionally it is necessary to 'walk' them to perform tight manoeuvres etc.

What offence am I guilty of by unhitching a trailer and pulling/pushing it a few feet down the road if I were to then cross the lines of a crossing with a red light?

It's not a vehicle (I think) but it's also not covered by the 'normal thing to walk with' style clauses.
Similarly, a car with no engine being pushed from one place to another is almost undoubtedly still a vehicle.

I have been shouted at on a number of occasions by irate car drivers for pulling onto a shared path (from the road) at a red light, its a natural continuation of my journey as that point is where I would join the shared path even if the light was green, but they do seem to get grumpy about it, and I imagine in the strictest sense I am probably 'jumping the red light' to do so. But it seems stupid to sit waiting at the red light in order for it to turn green so I can [i]leave[/i] the road.

Matt ...I think the Toucan would probably fly off before any successful attempt to pin it down and put a conveyor belt across it.
A Pelican on the other hand is a sight more ungainly and cumbersome and you may have more success with that ..
Could you please video any subsequent activity as I wouldn't mind watching that ..

I imagine in the strictest sense I am probably 'jumping the red light' to do so.

No, in the strict sense you're really not, assuming the transition to the shared path occurs before the solid white line. Totally legal, totally as designed, not even any Highway Code nonsense about it. The shouty people are ignorant and wrong. But that's shouty people for you.