I’d cover that with the ‘don’t be a dick rule’

Some examples of non-plural hoot-giving inflexbile bastardry:

– many specialist lawyers claim up to 95% success rates in avoiding bans for clients with 12 or more points
– ACPO guidelines allow for 10%+2mph over the speed limit before ticketing or a course, and 15-26mph over the limit before prosecution (eg you won’t normally be prosecuted for doing 49mph in a 30 limit)
– a number of police forces refuse to prosecute based on video evidence or refuse to even look at it
– Home Office guidance includes leniency regarding careful pavement cycling

I mean, that’s just some really basic stuff, it’s not going to the point of fishing around in specific cases at the excuses made for manifestly crap driving and suchlike. The law is remarkably flexible; the only real question is where the two hoots are directed through use of it.

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?

Might not be being entirely serious before anyone else points out whichever rule no. “not being a dick” is.

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.

I haz a sceptics. Can you cite the legislation?

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

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 😉

* 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?

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)?

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

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

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.

I haz a sceptics. Can you cite the legislation?
Blimey! I’ve learned something new today:
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
Rule 49

(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.

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.

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.

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?

£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!

Yes – in relation to the specific circumstance you describe.

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…

That it’s not an offence to cross a road with a red man/bicycle symbol showing…?
Yes. I had read somewehere that it was an offence if the red bike was showing. Presumably a confusion with bicycle only lights (of which there are very few in the UK)

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

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.

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 not 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.

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?