London - on the spot fine

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Redrhino
Posts: 7
Joined: 19 Aug 2018, 8:48pm

London - on the spot fine

Postby Redrhino » 19 Nov 2018, 6:47pm

Arrgh. The pain and the shame. Cycling from the City to Paddington on the Embankment Cycling highway, many cyclists are perhaps familiar with the right turn into Nortumberland Ave.

See my picture. I saw the Police officer monitoring the junction so was particularly careful. I dismounted by the circle and re-mounted at the triangle. The right filter traffic light was green so I cycled off - only to be stopped 50m on and issued with an on the spot fine for cycling through a red light.

The Police officer said I shouldn't have walked through a red light. I said cyclists who walk are pedestrians so can ignore signals.
Then she said I should have walked across the whole carriage way (to the red cross).

All captured on the officer's video. Both sides were polite even as I received a £50 fine. If I was reckless or dangerous I could more understand the officer's concern. No cars were passing, it was day light and no one was at risk.

Questions:
Are you allowed to dismount and walk through red lights? I thought so.
Do I have a case? The pink fixed penalty slip says pay or go to court.
Is that the procedure? I would have thought a simple inspection would see the case is surely so minor and throw it out.
Expert views welcome.

[img]
Untitled%202.jpeg
[/img]
Image Attachments
Untitled 2.jpeg

brynpoeth
Posts: 8436
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby brynpoeth » 19 Nov 2018, 6:55pm

If you had carried your cycle you might have not been fined

Seems an awful use of police time
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 11489
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby mjr » 19 Nov 2018, 7:36pm

I'm pretty sure the police got that one wrong. Contact the Cyclists Defence Fund ASAP? https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/ Or maybe CUK HQ or London Cycling Campaign can help.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27605
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Nov 2018, 7:41pm

This has come up in various forms a few times but my interpretation is that in a situation like this, riding or pushing the bike makes no difference. Note that the relevant legislation refers to driving or propelling a vehicle.

Here's an earlier thread which is one among many

viewtopic.php?p=623326#p623326

It's a bit long in the tooth and the TSRGD have been updated, but AFAIK nothing to change the relevant law here.

Whatever else you do, read the information with the ticket. If you don't meet the deadlines, then things will grind on by default.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 5113
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby Bonefishblues » 19 Nov 2018, 7:54pm

brynpoeth wrote:If you had carried your cycle you might have not been fined

Seems an awful use of police time

Why would you want cyclists who failed to stop at a Stop sign treated differently to your oft-advocated policing of the same type of scenario to catch motorists contravening the law by failing to stop?

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 43598
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby Mick F » 19 Nov 2018, 7:58pm

I agree with TC.
Pushing or riding, you are still propelling the bike.



As for reading the the info on the ticket ..........................

I was in conversation 2nd/3rd hand with someone who told me that someone had told him, that a cyclist was fined for exceeding the speed limit by doing more than 30mph in a 30 limit. My reply is that a bicycle rider cannot exceed a speed limit because speed limits are for mechanically propelled vehicles, not human propelled vehicles.

However, I maintain - though I have no knowledge of the facts of this particular case - that the copper mistakenly issued a fixed penalty notice, and the "speeder" paid up instead of going to court. Had he gone to court, it would have been thrown out.
Mick F. Cornwall

brynpoeth
Posts: 8436
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby brynpoeth » 19 Nov 2018, 8:05pm

Bonefishblues wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:If you had carried your cycle you might have not been fined

Seems an awful use of police time

Why would you want cyclists who failed to stop at a Stop sign treated differently to your oft-advocated policing of the same type of scenario to catch motorists contravening the law by failing to stop?

Of course cyclists must stop at stop signs, I always do :D
I thought the OP did stop
I understand a person wheeling a cycle is legally riding it (5 kmh?), if she carries it (3 kmh?) that is walking

Cyclists must always stop at stop signs. Then one may proceed
..
Don't understand the situation fully, don't know the place unfortunately :?
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs

Bonefishblues
Posts: 5113
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby Bonefishblues » 19 Nov 2018, 8:11pm

brynpoeth wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:If you had carried your cycle you might have not been fined

Seems an awful use of police time

Why would you want cyclists who failed to stop at a Stop sign treated differently to your oft-advocated policing of the same type of scenario to catch motorists contravening the law by failing to stop?

Of course cyclists must stop at stop signs, I always do :D
I understand a person wheeling a cycle is legally riding it (5 kmh?), if she carries it (3 kmh?) that is walking

Cyclists must always stop at stop signs. Then one may proceed

You said it was an awful use of police time, yet you are a passionate advocate of Stop sign policing. I would have thought you would have welcomed it, so was interested to understand the apparently contradictory approaches.

brynpoeth
Posts: 8436
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby brynpoeth » 19 Nov 2018, 8:17pm

Bonefishblues wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:Why would you want cyclists who failed to stop at a Stop sign treated differently to your oft-advocated policing of the same type of scenario to catch motorists contravening the law by failing to stop?

Of course cyclists must stop at stop signs, I always do :D
I understand a person wheeling a cycle is legally riding it (5 kmh?), if she carries it (3 kmh?) that is walking

Cyclists must always stop at stop signs. Then one may proceed

You said it was an awful use of police time, yet you are a passionate advocate of Stop sign policing. I would have thought you would have welcomed it, so was interested to understand the apparently contradictory approaches.

The OP did not describe ignoring a stop sign, right? (OP comment/explanation welcome)

The cops should be targeting motrons with a target to reduce traffic in half to start, all the drivers who cannae read should lose their licences
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras & STOP signs

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13235
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby gaz » 19 Nov 2018, 8:19pm

Redrhino wrote:Questions:
Are you allowed to dismount and walk through red lights? I thought so.

Do you think a driver could get out of their car and push it through a red light without fear of prosecution because they're just a pedestrian?

+1 to TC's interpretation and my thanks to him for linking the previous thread, saved me the trouble of finding it myself.

Bonefishblues
Posts: 5113
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby Bonefishblues » 19 Nov 2018, 8:26pm

brynpoeth wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote:
brynpoeth wrote:Of course cyclists must stop at stop signs, I always do :D
I understand a person wheeling a cycle is legally riding it (5 kmh?), if she carries it (3 kmh?) that is walking

Cyclists must always stop at stop signs. Then one may proceed

You said it was an awful use of police time, yet you are a passionate advocate of Stop sign policing. I would have thought you would have welcomed it, so was interested to understand the apparently contradictory approaches.

The OP did not describe ignoring a stop sign, right? (OP comment/explanation welcome)

The cops should be targeting motrons with a target to reduce traffic in half to start, all the drivers who cannae read should lose their licences

I didn't say it was, but it was clear that the OP was describing a scenario where cyclists are required to stop, which was actively being policed, yet you feel it was an awful use of police time. Unlike your passionate advocacy of the merit of their being allocated to police Stop signs. Just found it rather puzzling.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27605
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Nov 2018, 8:39pm

I presume this is the streetview:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.50675 ... 384!8i8192
Is that the procedure? I would have thought a simple inspection would see the case is surely so minor and throw it out.
Expert views welcome.


The fixed penalty is an offer to you to avoid court proceedings by paying.

You can still write in, suggesting that this enforcement action was inappropriate, but don't hold your breath.

You can check the notice for procedural faults but the prosecution can apply to amend the details.

If you decide on a court hearing, you would need to attend to give evidence. It's also a really good idea to have legal representation. (They cannot enforce your attendance but in your absence, the prosecution would be kicking into an open goal.) Make it clear you intend to plead not guilty or your first attendance may result in an adjournment for a hearing.

If you plead not guilty, it's up to the prosecution to prove their case. They can do this by reading out witness statements (eg the officer who issued the ticket) so if you want to challenge their evidence (ie its truth rather than the morals of the case) you must require their attendance. Once they have given their evidence you can cross examine, but only on the facts of their evidence, not on the appropriateness of enforcement.

The prosecution must prove that you were driving/ propelling a vehicle (it's settled law that a pedal cycle is a vehicle) on the named road on the named occasion and that you failed to comply with the indication of a lawfully erected traffic sign. If the evidence doesn't prove that, the case should be dismissed "no case to answer."

I take it from your account above that you did pass a red traffic light controlling the part of the road you were using. If so, it's hard to see any defence unless there's something technical in the procedure a loophole. You can also offer mitigation.

There have been cases taken up by the CDF (linked by mjr above) where the CPS has decided to drop a case without ever really explaining why. I don't think it's open to the court to "throw out" a case because it's so minor, and it can be a risky line to take. The best you might hope for would be that the court would give an absolute discharge.


ABOVE ALL, READ THE PAPERWORK CAREFULLY AND COMPLY WITH THE TIMETABLE.
======================================================================================
PS Usually by this point, somebody has leapt in saying you were a pedestrian subject to different rules. The point here is that a pedestrian can drive / propel a vehicle and if they are doing so, they are governed by the relevant law. There's a red herring involving cyclists walking on a pedestrian crossing, when they are obviously pedestrians, within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

peetee
Posts: 964
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby peetee » 19 Nov 2018, 9:15pm

You willfully avoided a stop sign so you committed an offence. In the eyes of the law it is no different to a motorist getting out of his vehicle and pushing it across the junction.
Having said that, sometimes it's unavoidable. I used to regularly negotiate a traffic light junction at 5.40 am and cross my fingers each time because if my bike was the only vehicle waiting the sensors didn't detect it!
As an aside, if you were pushing your bike along a footpath that crossed private land you would also be committing an offence as you should pick it up and carry it. Also, in the same scenario walkers are not permitted to loiter or stop for a rest or food even if they responsibly stay glued to the path in order not to flatten 'farmer Palmers' spuds, as it were.
Current status report:
Latter side of fifty and feeling less than nifty.
Too many bikes on pegs and too few miles in the legs.

drossall
Posts: 4298
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby drossall » 19 Nov 2018, 9:29pm

The discussion seems to be confusing what is legal, what is wise, and what is desirable in terms of the Police responding to cycling and motoring offences (or perceived offences). That's all very well, but only the first is strictly relevant. A Police officer is of course entitled to give advice or even instructions regarding what is wise, but surely cannot issue a ticket.

The core question is whether someone pushing a bike is (legally) a cyclist or a pedestrian (because a pedestrian is not obliged to obey traffic lights). Whichever view you take, you have to be consistent, and follow through the consequences. So, here goes:

When I learned to ride, in the 1960s, there was an assumption that the answer was "a cyclist". One of the consequences, of course, is that the bike is still a vehicle, so still cannot go on the pavement, even though it is being pushed. For that reason, I was taught to walk on the pavement, wheeling my bike in the gutter. So, if you've come on here and said that the officer was correct, do you push your bike on the pavement, and do you expect to be fined for doing so?

However, as far as I know, the law is not explicit on this point, and so it's up to the courts to interpret the law and its intention - and there was little or no case law, historically. Since the 1960s, assumptions have changed; no-one wheels a bike in the way I have described, and everyone assumes that "No cycling" means, "Get off and push", not "Don't even wheel it down here". And there is, finally, limited case law, which concludes that even a motorcycle being pushed is allowed on the pavement.

So, no, assuming that you walk all the way, and don't scoot or do anything else half-baked, walking through a junction is not failing to obey a red light.

There are some common-sense consequences that also support this. For example, this story:

Mrs Jones was cycling through town when she saw her friend, Mr Smith. They had not spoken for some time, so Mrs Jones dismounted, and walked with him along the empty pavement. As they approached the traffic lights, the pedestrian lights turned green. She said, "Hang on, you go across; I need to get back on and wait for the traffic to get a green phase so that I can ride through the junction. I'll get off again on the other side, and we can carry on talking."

Or not...

Please note - I'm not advocating any particular course of action in any particular circumstance, and I'm not even sure that what the OP describes is in the spirit of the provision, but I fail to see how, legally, you can not be entitled to walk through.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27605
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: London - on the spot fine

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Nov 2018, 9:44pm

This particular bit of the law prohibits people driving or propelling a vehicle from failing to comply with a lawfully erected traffic sign on the relevant list.

Is a pedal cycle a vehicle? Yes. (Ellis v Nott Bower 1895)
Is somebody pushing a pedal cycle propelling it? I think so.
Are red traffic lights on the list? Yes.

The core question is whether someone pushing a bike is (legally) a cyclist or a pedestrian (because a pedestrian is not obliged to obey traffic lights). Whichever view you take, you have to be consistent, and follow through the consequences.


This isn't about what pedestrians are allowed to do, but what is prohibited for people driving/ propelling vehicles.

The error in this approach is apparent in Crank v Brooks (or is it Brooks v Crank) where a driver collided with a "foot passenger" on a pedestrian crossing who was wheeling a bike. The driver was prosecuted for failing to give precedence and the case was dismissed, apparently on the grounds that as a driver of the pedal cycle, the injured person was not a foot passenger." The police appealed and it was held that somebody walking was (obviously) a passenger on foot. However, the legislation here is couched in different terms so the pedestrian crossing decision is irrelevant.