London - on the spot fine

[Mick F]

No, because there was a person in charge with a licence.

I was suggesting pushing it by yourself. Done this once or twice over the years, by pushing on the side with the driver's door open and steering at the same time.

[Jon Lucas]

So, getting back to the issue raised by the OP, this interpretation of the law seems to suggest that if you are cycling along a road towards a traffic signal with a right turn filter lane, and don't have the confidence to move across into the right turning lane, but instead choose to stop at the red light, walk across to the right turn lane, and remount, you have committed an offence. Absolutely bloody daft.

And if you did it five yards before the red light, filtering your way through the stopped traffic? Would that be allowed?

[mercalia]

getting on the bike at the triangle was dangerous - mounting a bike is a point of instability and could have caused an accident with an oncomeing car, had you wavered and wobbled? the cop was right that you should have walked across the road completely but not for the reason given, but for being dangerous - but there is no simple law for that so she used the easy one at hand; had you walked over the road she maybe would have used common sense and let it go, her retort suggests as much? All the discussion though interesting is besides the point here?

[thirdcrank]

So, getting back to the issue raised by the OP, this interpretation of the law seems to suggest that if you are cycling along a road towards a traffic signal with a right turn filter lane, and don't have the confidence to move across into the right turning lane, but instead choose to stop at the red light, walk across to the right turn lane, and remount, you have committed an offence. Absolutely bloody daft.

And if you did it five yards before the red light, filtering your way through the stopped traffic? Would that be allowed?

I'd say the key point is passing the traffic light: you must obey the signal. And my interpretation is that you must obey the signal whether you are riding or pushing the bike. Anything done without passing the signal may or may not be OK, depending on other signs etc., but it does not amount to failing to conform with the traffic light. Around here at least, this turning right at lights situation is sometimes provided for by a so-called "jug-handle" toucan crossing where riders use a short cycle track on the nearside to reach the toucan to cross the main carriageway.

There are all manner of points here about the way cyclists are treated but the legal status of a cyclist at traffic lights seems clear to me. When riding, they are driving a vehicle: when wheeling it they are probably still driving a vehicle and certainly propelling it. One point about the junction in this case is that it looks as though it has been designed with those principles in mind: riders turning right have dedicated signals to protect them when making this manoeuvre. ie crossing into Northumberland Avenue. Others familiar with the junction may know if it's standard practice for cyclists to treat the traffic lights as a give way sign.

[fastpedaller]

Crikey - the law can be so complicated. I'll try walking across at some traffic lights carrying my frame in one hand and my wheels in the other and see if I can get some clarity

[Cyril Haearn]

One place I sometimes walk there is a stop sign, I always stop when walking because there is no extra sign 'pedestrians free'

[gaz]

... if you are cycling along a road towards a traffic signal with a right turn filter lane, and don't have the confidence to move across into the right turning lane, but instead choose to stop at the red light, walk across to the right turn lane, and remount, you have committed an offence. Absolutely bloody daft.

And if you are cycling towards this traffic signal with a right turn filter lane and do have the confidence to move across into the right turning lane as you approach, ...

Untitled1.png

... you cannot enter the ASL box without committing an offence.

Absolutely bloody daft.

It sure is.

Edit: Ignore me, upthread mjr has linked changes to the legislation that mean cyclists can enter an ASL at any point.

[Phil Fouracre]

Now I am confused! I would take primary in the right hand lane, so, why can’t I stop in the ‘bike box’ ?? Am I missing something?

[PH]

Now I am confused! I would take primary in the right hand lane, so, why can’t I stop in the ‘bike box’ ?? Am I missing something?

The theory is you'd have committed an offence by crossing a solid white line and that the only access to the box is via the cycle lane where there is no stop line to cross.

[PH]

In a discussion with a local plod, he thought pushing a bike along the pavement would class me as a pedestrian, pushing it in a vehicle lane would class me as cycling. I have no idea if he was right, but it seems a reasonable explanation and the situation was that I'd got off and pushed because I believed the lights to be faulty.

[kwackers]

In a discussion with a local plod, he thought pushing a bike along the pavement would class me as a pedestrian, pushing it in a vehicle lane would class me as cycling. I have no idea if he was right, but it seems a reasonable explanation and the situation was that I'd got off and pushed because I believed the lights to be faulty.

If pushing and riding are the same then you can't push a bicycle on a pavement and you can't push a bicycle anywhere without working lights.

[PH]

In a discussion with a local plod, he thought pushing a bike along the pavement would class me as a pedestrian, pushing it in a vehicle lane would class me as cycling. I have no idea if he was right, but it seems a reasonable explanation and the situation was that I'd got off and pushed because I believed the lights to be faulty.

If pushing and riding are the same then you can't push a bicycle on a pavement and you can't push a bicycle anywhere without working lights.

You could be right, but in that specific circumstance I wouldn't have crossed a stop line if I'd mounted the pavement/footway so that's at least one offence I wouldn't have committed.

[gaz]

If pushing and riding are the same then you can't push a bicycle on a pavement and you can't push a bicycle anywhere without working lights.

Fortunately they are not the same.
RVLR 2009 has specific exemptions that cover a bicycle being wheeled.

Exemptions—Vehicles drawn or propelled by hand

9. A vehicle drawn or propelled by hand which has an overall width, including any load, not exceeding 800 mm is required by these Regulations to be fitted with lamps and reflectors only when it is used on the carriageway of a road between sunset and sunrise other than–

(a)close to the near side or left-hand edge of the carriageway, or

(b)to cross the carriageway.

As for the footway our old friend the Highways Act 1835 prohibits driving a carriage, no prohibition on propelling one.

Time for our learned friends to rush to the dressing up box .

[kwackers]

As for the footway our old friend the Highways Act 1835 prohibits driving a carriage, no prohibition on propelling one.

Time for our learned friends to rush to the dressing up box .

It says you can't "lead or drive" - does that mean I can't pull my bike?

I fear Mr Loophole isn't going to go away any time soon...

[thirdcrank]

In a discussion with a local plod, he thought pushing a bike along the pavement would class me as a pedestrian, pushing it in a vehicle lane would class me as cycling. I have no idea if he was right, but it seems a reasonable explanation and the situation was that I'd got off and pushed because I believed the lights to be faulty.

This probably shows how police training has changed. Once upon a time trainee police officers were expected to learn vast swathes of the law by heart. Police promotion exams were based entirely on a detailed knowledge of the law. Police officers conducted prosecutions in the magistrates' courts. Not any more. This is one of the fundamental problems with fixed penalties, in terms of fairness. Again once upon a time, a prosecution report would be checked by supervisors both for legal accuracy and whether prosecution was appropriate. Not any more. It's only when somebody contests a case that it's looked at in that sort of detail, which is why loophole merchants thrive.

As an example, we've had various instances of PCSO's issuing fixed penalties for "cycling on a footpath" which wasn't covered by the Highways Act.

In general, the more trivial an offence, the more complicated the legislation. Most road traffic legislation is extraordinarily complicated, but the knowledge is needed in real time at the roadside. If somebody's locked up, there's a certain amount of time to read it up or consult specialists.