My first! AND I've the paper to prove it.

Stopping at a red light is one of those. Opting in and out moment by moment as it suits isn’t on.

I agree.

Mr Woppit seems to have come around to this way of thinking, too.

Stopping at a red light is one of those. Opting in and out moment by moment as it suits isn’t on.

I agree.

Mr Woppit seems to have come around to this way of thinking, too.

I also agree. But you still can’t get fined or points for RLJing. Doesn’t mean you should RLJ though.

People, including those here, need to decide exactly what cyclists are.

If they share the *rights* to the road, they share the *responsibilities*. Stopping at a red light is one of those. Opting in and out moment by moment as it suits isn’t on.

I hear this a lot.

I’m against RLJing. I stop at every red. But I can understand why it happens, especially in situations where cyclists do it for their own safety (i.e to make themselves visible ahead of traffic where there isn’t an ASL).

The whole pious cyclists must obey the rules of the road is a bit rich when delivered by drivers 99% of whom, including me, will break the rules of the road on every single drive (RLJing and speeding for instance)

People drive because they must,

No they don’t. Most drive because they are lazy. Simple as.
A few need to drive. The majority don’t.

RTA 1988 S.28 Dangerous Cycling and 29 Careles, and inconsiderate cycling.

RLJ = offence under the RTA = points on your licence

Whoppit I thought you had a Brompton – hence the comment

I do. I’ve just been attempting a five-day-a-week 40 miles per day commute to avoid the train fares, hence the new machine. It’s going quite well, but I’ve developed an irritating tweak in my left knee so I’m going back to train/Brompton next week to give it a rest.

The only other problem has been getting knicked…

sugdenr – that fail is of such epic awesomeness I don’t even know how to begin with a response to it.

RLJ = offence under the RTA = points on your licence

Really? I don’t have a car, so why should someone who does own a car be penalised more than me, for the same offence?

Some interesting info here:

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/09/27/can-you-lose-your-driving-licence-for-a-cycling-offence/

That doesn’t mean that your driving licence is completely safe. A reader, John CB, has pointed out that the courts have a general power to disqualify you from driving a car for any offence, including offences committed on a bicycle. (PCCSA s. 146(1))

It’s up to the court whether to disqualify you, and it’s not necessary for the offence to be “connected with the use of a motor car”. The courts do need a “sufficient reason” for the disqualification, but if you commit a traffic offence, that’s probably enough. (R v Cliff [2004] EWCA Crim 3139 §15; cf R v Zain Cornell-Gallardo [2010] EWCA Crim 3151 §13)

For a disqualification to be possible under this provision, you don’t have to hold a driving licence – you can be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. But you do have to be convicted in court – so if the police give you a fixed penalty notice instead of prosecuting (and you don’t challenge it in court) the power to disqualify won’t apply.

So perhaps you can be disqualified from driving, but is there any actual prrof that you can get points on your licvence?

RTA 1988 S.28 Dangerous Cycling and 29 Careles, and inconsiderate cycling.

RLJ = offence under the RTA = points on your licence

This bit? Where does it say that results in points on your license?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/I/crossheading/cycling-offences-and-cycle-racing

It is also an RTA offence to allow your dog onto the road without a lead, but I’ve never heard of anyone getting points on their driving license for it.

mikeconnor – Member

And speaking of fines; a £60 fine for using a mobile phone whilst driving seems to have had very little effect indeed, judging by the numbers of people (including police!) I’ve seen

Police using mobile phones, or radios? 2 way radios have an exemption

Police using mobile phones, or radios?

Mobile phones. Not radios. unless Apple started making police radios (in one example I witnessed).

I’ve also seen police cycle through red lights, whilst not appearing to be attending an emergency call. i’m sure there are many ofther transgressions individual police officers are guilty of, but maybe that’s for another day.

a £60 fine for using a mobile phone whilst driving seems to have had very little effect indeed

Thing is the fine and the advent of handsfree really helped a lot here, but then smartphones came along and you can’t really check Facebook or play Angry Birds via handsfree.

jota180 – byelaw? I doubt it. I’m not aware of any byelaw that would have this effect. I stand by my analysis of the relevant legislation in my previous comments until someone can link to something proving me wrong. No fine and no points for RLJing on a bike.

I was replying to your post about a fine, you didn’t mention points.

Anyway, I don’t know of any bylaw either, just making the point that it is indeed possible for councils to introduce bylaws that carry fines as penalties

smartphones came along and you can’t really check Facebook or play Angry Birds via handsfree.

A woman my girlfriend knows fell off her bike whilst emailing/texting someone. Not badly hurt, but such activities aren’t in the same league as using a phne whilst driving.

If they share the *rights* to the road, they share the *responsibilities*. Stopping at a red light is one of those. Opting in and out moment by moment as it suits isn’t on.

I presume you advocate fining all motorists who exceed the speed limit by 1mph?

No they don’t. Most drive because they are lazy. Simple as.
A few need to drive. The majority don’t.

A family of four, 4 people to get between 2 jobs, 2 schools, one or two weekly shops, football for lad, taekwondo for lass, the odd errand, maybe even book club for mum and squash for dad… If all of those destinations are cyclable with regards to home and each other then sure, you’re right. Most likely they aren’t.

A family of four, 4 people to get between 2 jobs, 2 schools, one or two weekly shops, football for lad, taekwondo for lass, the odd errand, maybe even book club for mum and squash for dad… If all of those destinations are cyclable with regards to home and each other then sure, you’re right. Most likely they aren’t.

The thing is, a lot of people arrange their lives so it’s difficult to avoid journeys by car. I did the reverse – move closer to my work and the local shops I could commute & shop by bike. We chose a nursery that I can take the little one to in the trailer. We’re thinking of moving closer to a secondary school when the time comes.

People make choices for all sorts of very understandable reasons, but that’s what they are – choices.

klumpy: yep, some destinations, some journeys may well require a car.

But take any given road in a city, stop drivers and ask where they are going and I’ll happily bet that the vast majority are making short journeys that could be done by bike, bus or train.

The National Travel Survey 2010[/url] says the average miles driven per person, per year is just 3,416. So around 8.6 miles a day – that’s not very far. Most able-bodied people could do at least some of that by bike if they were so inclined.

Looking at Nirvana Copenhagen, a THIRD of all commuter journeys are by bike. Are they really so different from us? They have families and taekwondo, squash and book clubs too.

I cannot see that bicycles are “vehicles” for the purpose of road traffic legislation.

Well they are – they are not motor vehicles – see definition S191 – like mowers etc which are excluded from being motor vehicles by S`189, however the law relating to red lights does not restrictitself to motor vehicles and therefore a penalty can be given under S56 etc to any vehicle including a bike or a lawnmower.

the biggest issue with RLJers for me is not them breaking the law, it’s not them endangering pedestrians and other road users, it’s not the threat to their own safety, it’s the fact that other road users see it as a problem because RLJers are breaking the law, and it therefore instils a HUGELY negative attitude towards cyclists using the road which simply puts all cyclists using the road at increased risk.
whether it makes sense to jump lights or not, it is utterly selfish.

brakes: absolutely, that is exactly why I don’t do it. I actively want motorists to see me waiting at the lights if only just so a little doubt creeps in when they start to say “All cyclists jump red lights..”

Unlucky in getting caught, however jumping 3 sets of red lights is stupid.

Great moment the other day when 5 or so cyclists were stopped a red light, one sails through not seeing the police motorbike waiting at the red also. Rider goes through and the police motorbike sets off and pulls him over, cue laughing from all the cyclists stopping. What a muppet.

I wouldn’t jump a red in a car so why would I in a bike if I expect to be treated with respect on the road.

I wouldn’t jump a red in a car…

I’ve nearly been taken out twice this year by cars being driven straight through red lights at pedestrian/cycle crossings as if they weren’t even there.

I’m not denying it happens, just would never do it personally.

mefty – you are wrong on every point you make.

1) s191 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 says that motor vehicles are within the meaning of the word “carriages”, it does NOT say that bicycles are within the meaning of the word “vehicle”

2) s189 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 EXCLUDES electrically-assisted pedal cycles from being a “vehicle” (so, if electric cycles are not vehicles, neither are pushbikes)

3) s56 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with conditions of (and cancellation or suspension of) type approval certificates. It has nothing to do with anything involved in this thread

Close, but no cigar.

Looking at Copenhagen, a THIRD of all commuter journeys are by bike. Are they really so different from us?

Check out how much tax you pay on a car in Denmark

S189(1)

For the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts—
(a)a mechanically propelled vehicle being an implement for cutting grass which is controlled by a pedestrian and is not capable of being used or adapted for any other purpose,
(b)any other mechanically propelled vehicle controlled by a pedestrian which may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and section 140 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(c)an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such a class as may be prescribed by regulations so made,is to be treated as not being a motor vehicle.

S191

“cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle, or a cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case a motor vehicle,

s36 (typo previously)

Where a traffic sign, being a sign—
(a)of the prescribed size, colour and type, or
(b)of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

You should learn to read.

From the Highway Code: Rules for Cyclists

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

I stop at all red lights because I wish to be treated as a vehicle so I have decided to act like one and also because I try to be a good ambassador for cycling.

Mefty, unfortunately the text you pasted for s191 is either wrong or fabricated.

Here is s191 of the Road Traffic Act 1998.

That s191 (from the Government’s legislation website) is completely different to the unsourced text you have just typed in.

You could do with a few reading lessons yourself – check out your own text of s189 – cycles to be treated as NOT BEING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

You still haven’t pointed to anything which defines a bicycle as a ‘vehicle’ for the purposes of road traffic legislation. Go on, try again. I dare you.

Has TJ possessed everyone posting on this thread?

Check out how much tax you pay on a car in Denmark

Carrot and stick – the way it should be.

Has TJ possessed everyone posting on this thread?

I actually laughed when I read this! A fair point and well made.

Its S192 not 191, the point being there are some rules that apply to all vehicles and some that apply to only motor vehicles, failing to observe road signs applies to all vehicles not just motor vehicles (or mechanically propelled vehicle which is most commonly used in the Act).

As far as I can see vehicle is not defined so in accordance with normal rules of statutory interpretation you follow its plain meaning and that would cover a bicycle based on the OED definition.

I am somewhat comforted in this analysis because fixed penalty notices has been handed out for years and they do not appear to have successfully been challenged.

Was resisting the urge to respond…

As far as I can see vehicle is not defined

My point exactly.

in accordance with normal rules of statutory construction you follow its plain meaning and that would cover a bicycle based on the OED definition

That’s an argument to be made in support of your stance, but it’s got no authority behind it (by which I mean there is no decided case law or statute supporting your interpretation as against my interpretation). So we can agree there are arguments on each side, but neither has been determined in a court of record.

I am somewhat comforted in this analysis because fixed penalty notices has been handed out for years and they do not appear to have successfully been challenged.

Well, nobody challenged the ‘accepted’ interpretation of the 24-hour detention period under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for many many years, but when it was challenged, it was found that the ‘accepted’ version was wrong in law. Just because no-one has bothered to challenge it, it doesn’t mean it’s the correct interpretation.

That’s an argument to be made in support of your stance, but it’s got no authority behind it (by which I mean there is no decided case law or statute supporting your interpretation as against my interpretation).

Taylor v Goodwin

Bicycles were apparently also defined as vehicles in the Local Government Act of 1888.

1879? Really? Notwithstanding the supervening 130-odd years and innumberable pieces of road traffic legislation and statutory instruments?

And it still doesn’t address whether a bicycle is within the meaning of the word “vehicle” for the purposes of the 1988 Act, because (unsurprisingly) a case from 1879 doesn’t address the exception of electrically-assisted cycles.

You need to read the judgement, you need to look at the mischief that they are trying to correct, it is purposefully a wide definition designed to be all encompassing and therefore the courts will interpret it widely rather than narrowly and this is what they have done with equivalent cases in the past.

But you are welcome to continue your one man crusade and waste your time and money if you so wish.

EDIT: You can also look at Smith v. Kynnersley, where a bicycle was contrasted with other vehicles because much narrower terms were used and Corkery v Carpenter, where the same reasoning was followed because a wide definition was used.

Hmmm, Stimpy as coming across the bigger muppet here so far I must say.

[whispers]

So should the bloke have got 3 points for RLJing on a bicycle or not?

[/whispers]

So should the bloke have got 3 points for RLJing on a bicycle or not?

No idea but he can get fined – which Stimpy seems to question.

Kind regards

SM

You can get a £30 fine (non-endorsable) on a pedal cycle for failing to comply with a traffic sign (including lights).

You cannot get points on your dvla licence for something you did riding a bike. In a car it’s £60 and 3 points.