kwackers wrote: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.
When I pointed out that particular cut off was flawed you agreed and redefined it.
kwackers wrote:I don't think anyone would be fooled by scooting.
But IMO if you've got both feet on the floor and your bottom isn't on the seat then it's no longer a vehicle, ...
It makes for a very simple distinction without all the daft edge cases that surround the current definition.
kwackers wrote: gaz wrote:
Even that definition still allows me* to ride towards a stop line, perform a running dismount, cross the line on foot and mount up again. It's not about fooling anyone, it's about defining the conditions to be met for an offence to be comitted.
*Probably not me, I'd end up flat on my face if I tried it.
And why is running across the road an offence? I do it all the time and nobody tries to stop me.
What difference would pushing something make?
The current system is a nonsense.
Yes, the current system includes some nonsense. IMO I illustrated above that a different system just creates some different nonsense.
Hows about I ride up to the stop line, jump off, fold up my Brompton ... a whole new level of nonsense to unpick
kwackers wrote:When your granny can't push her bike across a busy road without being prosecuted for jumping a red light then you have to accept that's its got nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with pedantry.
No, it's just a daft edge case that exists under the present system, change the system and you'll get a different daft edge case.