London - on the spot fine

[mjr]

Is somebody pushing a pedal cycle propelling it? I think so.

And several others of us think not, with various examples showing absurd consequences if it is. In the absence of statute or precedence, it seems like it might be worth challenging.

[thirdcrank]

... And several others of us think not, with various examples showing absurd consequences if it is. In the absence of statute or precedence, it seems like it might be worth challenging.

I've never seen any discussion of the subject which wasn't based on a misunderstanding of the criminal law in general and of the pedestrian crossing case I mentioned in particular. I don't claim that's in any way conclusive but I'd hope for something which was argued by a lawyer to change my interpretation.

The question of cyclists dismounting and pushing pedal cycles crops up repeatedly, of course, so it would benefit from a clear decision, although that's not something our legal system is geared up to provide. I'd be slow to suggest to the OP that they should try to get their name on a decided case.

[foxyrider]

Is somebody pushing a pedal cycle propelling it? I think so.

And several others of us think not, with various examples showing absurd consequences if it is. In the absence of statute or precedence, it seems like it might be worth challenging.

Surely pushing a bike is just that, manoeuvring the machine whilst not under direct power.

To propel it would involve either scooting or rotating the drive system both of which you would normally need to be (to some extent) mounted on the bike.

If the OP rode/scooted the machine across a red light then it's under propulsion, if they had walked the full width of the junction i'm pretty sure they would not have been stopped.

[mjr]

If the OP rode/scooted the machine across a red light then it's under propulsion, if they had walked the full width of the junction i'm pretty sure they would not have been stopped.

As I understand it, the OP pushed the machine from the red light in cycleway to the right turn lane, then rode from that point because the right turn filter light was green. At what point did the OP ride/scoot the machine across a red light?

AIUI, the OP was approaching from behind the camera's left shoulder in https://mapstreetview.com/#unysx_-2mb8_5k.a_-cj43

[drossall]

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

I find it very hard to see how someone could be a pedestrian, and propelling a vehicle, at the same time. The link I quoted gives case law (as I, a non-lawyer, understand it), to say that someone pushing a bike is, in law, a pedestrian. Are you saying that different parts of the law can disagree over this? I don't see how.

[Bmblbzzz]

Crank v Brooks would suggest that a person pushing a cycle is a pedestrian with an accompaniment, just as would be the case with a pram.

[gaz]

I find it very hard to see how someone could be a pedestrian, and propelling a vehicle, at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulled_rickshaw

[drossall]

Not quite sure what that is showing? It's not a road sign, so presumably reflects a bye-law, which is different. It may not have been written by someone familiar with road law (because it almost certainly doesn't apply to a road - a public park or something?) In any case, it's probably just trying to be quite clear that (pushed) bikes aren't excluded, in case anyone is in doubt.

[gaz]

The wiki link is showing you an example of how a pedestrian can indeed propel a vehicle.

The pic is of a highway sign, on a highway maintained at public expense rather than a PRoW or in a park. One of a pair IIRC. I don't know it's age, clearly it is not recent.

I feel it illustrates a number of other vehicles that are propelled by a pedestrian, YMMV.

[drossall]

Oh, I see. But the rickshaws are usually pulled, not propelled. And anyway, this is now about English language, not English law. It's law that determines what should happen around traffic lights.

I still think the sign looks as though it relates to some kind of bye-law. It's not explaining standard road law as far as I can see, or there'd be more such signs around?

[gaz]

It's law that determines what should happen around traffic lights.

Road Traffic Act 1988, s36.

36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs.

(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign—

(a)of the prescribed size, colour and type, or

(b)of another character authorised by the [relevant authority] 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.

I note your reasoning above as to why propelling a vehicle would not encompass pulling it, or pushing it for that matter. I do not share your view, neither did snibgo who IMO established a link in law between wheeling a cycle and propelling a cycle here.

[thirdcrank]

... I find it very hard to see how someone could be a pedestrian, and propelling a vehicle, at the same time. The link I quoted gives case law (as I, a non-lawyer, understand it), to say that someone pushing a bike is, in law, a pedestrian. Are you saying that different parts of the law can disagree over this? I don't see how.

We are discussing the criminal law which prescribes sanctions for "criminal" behaviour. These sanctions can only be applied when the offence is proved to the highest standards. As part of this, statutes and regulations are - in theory at least - carefully worded. A pedestrian may disobey traffic lights because doing so isn't prohibited. The driver of a vehicle or somebody propelling it cannot. I don't see any inconsistency there.

Back to the pedestrian crossing, the driver was eventually convicted because they failed to give precedence to a passenger on foot (who happened to be pushing a cycle. ie Pushing the bike didn't stop them being on foot. All I'm saying is that pushing a bike amounts to propelling it.

On the specific subject of the definition of "propel" if there has been any sort of legal precedent set, it will be in the roadtraffic law "bible" Wilkinson.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wilkinsons-Tra ... ad+traffic

[Redrhino]

Thanks for all the replies - I have just seen another thread about cyclists walking through red lights.
Apologies if I have duplicated the subject.

On balance I think I will just pay the fine.
It sounds like the law is open to interpretation and a judge could have a simple view that "a red light means stop".

I learnt a lesson. I should just be more respectful of the rules and take a few seconds to better comply.

[Mick F]

Pushing vs Propelling.

You must have a driving licence to push a broken car on the road. It's still a vehicle even though the engine and gearbox are knackered or non-existent.

Therefore, pushing a cycle on a road has to conform to the rules of the road.

[ANTONISH]

Pushing vs Propelling.

You must have a driving licence to push a broken car on the road. It's still a vehicle even though the engine and gearbox are knackered or non-existent.

Would this still apply if the holder of a driving licence was in the driving seat and someone without a licence was pushing ?