Page 9 of 12

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 24 Feb 2013, 11:48pm
by gaz
thirdcrank wrote:A good find there.


Thank you. The document was very much a chance find.

thirdcrank wrote:(To anybody else planning to read it, the page numbers are hidden in the footers. Once I'd worked that out it was a lot easier finding the relevant bit.)


It's even easier to change the page number in the box at the top from "1" to "50" and press "enter". :wink:

Although you miss out a lot of other interesting stuff along the way.

thirdcrank wrote:It's interesting to see how the thought processes worked at the Ministry of Transport.


In every respect that is the only "new" revelation and it's a fairly low-grade one when all's said and done. Our learned friends might not agree with what the DoT consider to be a fair extrapolation of case law, I doubt that we'll ever find out and I still wouldn't want to stretch the concept any further.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 24 Feb 2013, 11:55pm
by thirdcrank
gaz wrote: ... Our learned friends might not agree with what the DoT consider to be a fair extrapolation of case law, I doubt that we'll ever find out ...


I hope you are right, but in the midst of what I also hope won't become a trend of crackdowns who knows?

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 25 Feb 2013, 7:51am
by Geriatrix
gaz wrote:A further find, purely with regard to wheeling a bike on the pavement:-
http://www.hodology.com/resources/Notes ... ycling.pdf , Page 50.

In the historical section:
One guide to the Lake District warns cyclists that "fitting brakes is advisable" and that they should "learn to distinguish between a thorn hedge and a dry stone wall" for when descendants got out of control.

:D Failure to do so is likely to result in no more descendants.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 1 Mar 2013, 9:29am
by gaz
gaz wrote:Now does anyone want to look up the position when riding on a shared use footway adjacent to a set of traffic lights? :wink:

OK then I'll do it.
LTN 2/08.

9.3.4 If there is insufficient room in the carriageway for a bypass, it can be created by converting part of the footway to a cycle track using powers under the Highway Act 1980, such as in Figure 9.5. In this case, cyclists going straight ahead can use the track to bypass the signals at a Tjunction. A good way of returning cyclists to the carriageway is to place the end of the cycle track on a buildout and parallel to the main flow. Such an arrangement minimises the potential for conflict when cyclists rejoin, and should allow them to do so without stopping.


So stop signals for the main carriageway do not extend to a cycle being ridden on an adjacent cycletrack. Can I extrapolate that as far as stop lights do not apply to a cycle being pushed on an adjacent footway? :mrgreen:

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 1 Mar 2013, 9:50am
by Geriatrix
gaz wrote:So stop signals for the main carriageway do not extend to a cycle being ridden on an adjacent cycletrack. Can I extrapolate that as far as stop lights do not apply to a cycle being pushed on an adjacent footway? :mrgreen:

Interesting point. My understanding is that the conversion of the footway to a cycle track is not up to the discretion of the cyclist, but the HW authority, in which case a dismount is no longer needed if the foot path is has been demarcated for that.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 1 Mar 2013, 2:43pm
by RickH
gaz wrote:So stop signals for the main carriageway do not extend to a cycle being ridden on an adjacent cycletrack. Can I extrapolate that as far as stop lights do not apply to a cycle being pushed on an adjacent footway? :mrgreen:

The cycle facilities on the A6 not far from us that seems to be specifically designed for cycles to bypass the traffic lights.

Heading south out of Chorley the road is climbing slightly and as the road-edge cycle lane approaches some traffic lights the lane diverts onto the pavement to become a section of shared use path with the cycle lane splitting off & rejoining the road beyond the lights. (Google StreetView here & here).

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 1 Mar 2013, 2:51pm
by kwackers
RickH wrote:
gaz wrote:So stop signals for the main carriageway do not extend to a cycle being ridden on an adjacent cycletrack. Can I extrapolate that as far as stop lights do not apply to a cycle being pushed on an adjacent footway? :mrgreen:

The cycle facilities on the A6 not far from us that seems to be specifically designed for cycles to bypass the traffic lights.

Something similar here:
http://goo.gl/maps/A7JJu
The car's in the way but basically you can see just behind it the ramp onto the pavement (marked with a bicycle but hidden by the car) then just around the corner there's a ramp back onto the road marked by a painted bicycle.
Pretty obviously intended to allow you to skip the red light when turning left.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 9:48pm
by mjr
EnquiringMind wrote:On the other hand, consider the example of two people walking along with bikes. The pavement isn't wide enough for them both (perhaps at a sign) so one steps onto the road. If the situation is right (or wrong!) it seems he may now be committing an offence (propelling a vehicle past a traffic light) where his companion is not - even if both have returned to the pavement.

I think that's a key example showing that wheeling a bicycle probably isn't "propelling" in a legal sense.

While I saw a lot of attempts at various proofs and disproofs by assertion, I didn't spot anyone citing case law or legislation of what "propelling" is or isn't. Does anyone know any?

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 9:56pm
by thirdcrank
mjr wrote: ... While I saw a lot of attempts at various proofs and disproofs by assertion, I didn't spot anyone citing case law or legislation of what "propelling" is or isn't. Does anyone know any?


I think that "propelling" may have been introduced to deal with the legal baggage which "driving" has accumulated when people are doing things like trying to bump start a motor vehicle. Put this the other way round: does anybody really suggest that pushing a pedal cycle along isn't propelling it?

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 10:24pm
by mjr
thirdcrank wrote:I think that "propelling" may have been introduced to deal with the legal baggage which "driving" has accumulated when people are doing things like trying to bump start a motor vehicle. Put this the other way round: does anybody really suggest that pushing a pedal cycle along isn't propelling it?

I think that "propelling" may have been introduced to deal with a vehicle that's been set on a course and then lost its driver, perhaps after people doing things like trying to bump start a motor vehicle and getting it wrong.

I suggest that pushing a cycle might not be "propelling" in this sense. Legal terms don't always mean what we think they ought. After all, if I remember the example correctly, a ridden bicycle isn't mechanically-propelled in law.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 19 Nov 2018, 10:54pm
by gaz
Earlier in the thread I referenced the now repealed RTRA 1967, my underline.

25 Stopping of vehicles at school crossings

(1) When between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon a vehicle is approaching a place in a road where children on their way to or from school are crossing or seeking to cross the road, a school crossing patrol wearing a uniform approved by the Secretary of State shall have power, by exhibiting a prescribed sign, to require the person driving or propelling the vehicle to stop it.

From that I feel that a person propelling a vehicle is clearly expected to be sufficiently in control to enable it to stop.

Perhaps a different speculative scenario would be to consider the role of two people manoeuvring a car that has run out of fuel into a petrol station. The person sat in the driving seat is clearly providing the function of a driver, in the temporary absence of mechanical propulsion the poor soul at the back is doing the propelling.

I'm confident that propelling is principally intended as a description in relation to pedestrian operated vehicles, such as pedal cycles being wheeled, rickshaws, sedan chairs and the handcarts in which one may travel to hell :wink: .
Untitled1.png
The road to hell?

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 20 Nov 2018, 8:56am
by Mick F
mjr wrote: ................. case law or legislation of what "propelling" is or isn't. Does anyone know any?


From the other thread.
Mick F wrote: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.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 20 Nov 2018, 9:21am
by mjr
Mick F wrote:
mjr wrote: ................. case law or legislation of what "propelling" is or isn't. Does anyone know any?


From the other thread.
Mick F wrote: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.

What's the source for that, please?

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 20 Nov 2018, 9:33am
by kwackers
thirdcrank wrote:Put this the other way round: does anybody really suggest that pushing a pedal cycle along isn't propelling it?

What about down a hill where you're pulling it to try to stop it rolling away? Or where the hill has just enough slope so you're simply balancing it?
Propulsion involves effort from oneself to make it move, if you're not providing effort you're not propelling.

My real point being you need a sensible cut off otherwise it gets silly. IMO that sensible cut off involves actually being sat on the bike.
That definition also provides a clean cut off for pushing a bike in a pedestrian only zone etc otherwise you end up with an even more confused set of rules.

Keep is simple. Sitting on a bike is riding it, off the bike is and it's as much a vehicle as a push chair is.

Re: Red Lights - Pushing a Cycle and the Law

Posted: 20 Nov 2018, 10:06am
by gaz
mjr wrote: ... While I saw a lot of attempts at various proofs and disproofs by assertion, I didn't spot anyone citing case law or legislation of what "propelling" is or isn't. Does anyone know any?

Let's look again at snigbo's assertion.
snibgo wrote:The 1954 Highway Code includes, in the legal bit at the back:
You must, even if you are wheeling your bike, observe traffic signs and signals and the directions of a police officer directing traffic. R.T.A. 1930 Sect. 49
(My emphasis.)

So that sent me scurrying to the RTA 1930. Section 49 is:
Where a police constable is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where any traffic sign being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic, has been lawfully placed on or near any road in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section, any person driving or propelling any vehicle who--
(a) neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to proceed in or keep to a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the execution of his duty; or
(b) fails to conform to the indication given by the sign, shall be guilty of an offence.
(My emphasis.)

From this I deduce that, back in those olden days, a person wheeling a bike was regarded as a person propelling a vehicle, but not driving it.


This remains for the Highway Code 1978, as revised 1983.
You must, even if you are wheeling your cycle,

- observe amber and "STOP" signals, traffic signs which give orders, double white lines (solid or broken), yellow road markings and the directions of a police constabe controling traffic;

Relevant referenced acts is Road Traffic Act 1972 Section 22, still propelling or driving.
22 Drivers to comply with traffic directions

(1)Where a constable is for the time being engaged in the regulation of traffic in a road, or where a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type, or of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who—

(a)neglects or refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic when directed so to do by the constable in the execution of his duty, or

(b)fails to comply with the indication given by the sign,

shall be guilty of an offence.

The current legislation is similarly worded. I neither know when nor why the HC dropped the "even if wheeling phrase".
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.

The HC 1954 and 1983 both make it clear that wheeling a cycle through a red light is an offence. For it to be an offence the act of "wheeling" a cycle must fall within either "driving", "propelling" or both.