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

But…

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 😉

Depends what else you’ve done.

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…

so, adding further hypothetical nonsense to this…

A page or so back the distinction between mechanically 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 leave the road.

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.

https://goo.gl/maps/sCyuqk9uc6A2

Shocking stuff.

I haven’t seen a Wimpy in years. 🙂

Shitty infrastructure, but you are breaking the law by crossing the white line whilst still on your bike. As discussed above getting off your bike and pushing it is a grey area which I’m not sure we’re going to come to any conclusion on (I very much doubt there will ever be any case law though). Clearly it would be legal to join the shared use path before the white line (whether getting off, or bunnyhopping) and riding along the path past the white line though. But on such intricacies of law are cases won and lost.

As for trailers/caravans, there may be statute or case law defining their legal status – though I’d think that they wouldn’t be defined as vehicles, hence S36 wouldn’t apply. I CBA doing any research on that though, so you’re on your own, sorry!

Yup, you would be, but I can’t say I’m that bothered, it’s safer (and better for the cars behind ) to join the path on a red light there, than it is to sit and wait with them revving behind for the green. They perhaps should have put a dropped kerb in before the line to make it easier to join.

As always 😉

I’m sure the intention is that you’d be on the shared path already, the problem is they neglected to make that an easy task* so I often find myself approaching there on the road.

* it depends on traffic and pedestrian levels a few hundred yards earlier and your direction of approach. at 5am in the morning it’s a doddle to join, at 5pm in the evening it’s a differnt story…

bah!

is this blocked (slower alternative hosting)?

I thought about that, but then I don’t think that many jobsworths go patrolling STW looking for retrospective infringements to get in a froth about, not to mention having no idea when historical infringements might or might not have happened.

If any of them are patrolling and want to double/multi froth then I also once rode a bike on a footway, exceeded a speed limit and also may have lingered for a while near a ‘no loitering’ sign. Oh, I’ve also camped somewhere I shouldn’t have. Straight to hell for me!

You’re being kind to it, you’re forgetting the door zone leading up to it.

There’s a similar one near me, not a tram stop but a very short section of cycle/shared path, that seems designed specifically to get cyclists past a red light.

The only problems being it makes you join a very busy bit of shared path with many pedestrians (near a school) routing you right across the exit of a pedestrian crossing (which will be being used because the lights are red), and then abruptly stops with a cyclists give way line, on the junction of a side road and the road you’ve just left and by the time you’re reached it the lights will have probably changed, meaning you now have to give way to rejoin the road you were on in literally the worst place possible! It’s bonkers, saves no time for the cyclist, in fact makes it worse, and creates conflict with pedestrians and the drivers you jsut went past but now have to stop for, it is most definitely better to stay on the road there.
And yet I’ve been yelled at for NOT using it and stopping at the red lights instead. Driver told me to ‘Get on f’in cycle path!” and when I pointed out that

a> I shouldn;t becasue the lights were red
b> Said cycle path ends about 10m later

just got told to “just **** off then” 🙁

You’re correct – RTRA 1984 which is the relevant legislation specifically uses the words “motor vehicles” in the relevant clauses (81, 86, 89) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/part/VI

Sorry I ignored you before, it’s real:
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/September2007.htm

Or at least it was – I’ve had a scan on streetview around the suggested location and can’t find it. Found a possible location, but it seems to have changed a bit since – I also think that pic was taken with a long lens which foreshortens it a bit.

See comments at https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/11500/ – same streetview location I found independently.

Ta very much (both)