London - on the spot fine

[gaz]

Before commenting further, I'm wondering if anyone could tell me what was achieved by this penalty notice.

Punishment of the offender, which is a quite different thing to a just outcome.

[The utility cyclist]

So what we've deduced is ...
The police need to prioritise their manpower more effectively.
Acts of parliament/legalise are utterly out of date, inconsistent and unclear not to mention plain illogical/daft with respect to you pushing/pulling, carrying/levitating/adorning as jewellery, a cycle.
There was no victim
The penalty is out of proportion for the alleged breach of being a pedestrian holding a bike by your side.
Did I mention the police need to prioritise their manpower/focus?

Yup, only in the UK do you get this cluster @@@@

I'm not sure that's fair. I don't think we can ask the police to ignore cycling offences entirely, just because it's cyclists. The debate here is over whether there was an offence in the first place.

And there will always be points of law that are unclear. Part of the role of the courts is to try to interpret the intentions of Parliament, or the delegated authority that made a regulation, in a particular case. I'm not sure we'd like a world in which laws were so detailed as to cover every instance. For one thing, it would be easier just to say, "A bike's a bike, ridden or pushed", than to try to define when it was and was not covered by traffic law.

Well I do think it's an appropriate response to how police 'police' cycling given the harm done to society. As we know the deaths of pedestrians are already noted to be motorists at fault for the majority of deaths, then the pedestrians themselves then a full 50% behind in the fault stakes cyclists, this by the governments on recent review earlier this year. How many motorists are pulled up for red light jumping, an act that we know kills people (unlike people on bikes does to others), how many are pulled up for dangerous driving, well we already know the stance the MET has, it's not interested in even prosecuting killers of cyclists and will lay blame at the deceased doorstep. I could carry on with that for criminal activity by motorists that we know kills and maims not just in London but everywhere. Their actions/focus is not in proportion to the harm done to society, we know this already and when you add in draconian, not to mention confusing, conflicting and simply plain wrong legislation the outcome is what the OP has experienced.

No victim, no-one put in any harms way at all, and yet is accosted and penalised for that whilst tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of others operating known killing machines are avoiding being 'policed' because y''know, things like people on bikes and e-scooters are "extremely dangerous" require far more policing and time on them than those that actually do the massive harm to our society.

In 7 years motorists killed over 12,500 on UK roads, cyclists FOUR, so IMHO there is no balance of policing and hasn't been for a long time, particularly when one of the big road group users gets zero policing at all yet actually does more harm than people on bikes to themselves as well!

Additionally, pushing, carrying etc a bike whilst on foot is clearly not cycling or 'propelling' in the accepted understanding and is no longer a vehicle, a vehicle is something that transports oneself, at that juncture it is no longer a vehicle because it simply is not transporting you along and you are not operating or propelling that vehicle in its only mode to do so.
That we even had the discussion over a cyclist being killed or harmed by a motorist on a zebra crossing who should stop for a person wanting to cross and can see they are approaching a designated crossing is yet another indication as to how our rule makers, those that police and sit in judgement think, iy's so massively wrong, it's oppressive, it;s costing thousands of lives and untold misery and continues to favour and legitimise reckless, dangerous and deadly acts.

We know this because of the unadulterated death toll and serious injuries on our roads (which has gone back up again in recent years despite yet more so called 'safety' advances, and that the powers that be pat themselves on the back when only 1700 people die and 22500 are seriously injured, that's a sick indictment in its own right as to how things are so slanted.

The rule makers spend decades pontificating and not acting on safety of certain groups and yet are quick to drum up new laws that are well defined when one overtly bias and discriminatory case is publicised not just nationally but internationally. They are quick to act against one group when it suits their agenda but rules and acts of parliament that are unclear, simply an absolute nonsense and discriminatory that lead to worse outcomes to that group are not addressed, even things like lighting regulations take a quarter of a century and are still a joke, yet motorists lighting regs are pushed through quicker than you can say 'DRL'. Antiquated nonsense in the HC, rules that have zero impact on vulnerable persons safety but used as a tool to victim blame, meanwhile other 'rules' for motorists are blatantly ignored by police, CPS, judges and jurists including several that have a direct impact in deaths/SI. HC rule 126 for example.

The rules, laws if you will, could easily be changed and clarified, but they won't because it's better for everyone (within those groups making policy and policing it) to suppress and beat down on one group and use them as a scapegoat/deflect from the carnage caused by others that they have failed to curb.
It's sickening, discriminatory and unlawful.

[thirdcrank]

... That's a clear explanation, and I think I'm closer to seeing where you're coming from. However, I don't really see the thing about having more than one status (at a given moment). Can you give some examples of that actually happening in practice and how it works out in law? If the most restrictive applies, which makes perfect sense, then in effect there is only one status, but a cyclist pushing a bike is a cyclist, and cannot walk along the pavement, which no-one here is seriously maintaining (even though they might have done before the middle of the last century). On the other hand, if multiple statuses actually apply, it seems to me (and, I think others here) that that has absurd consequences - the zebra above being a case in point.

The bit I've underlined seemed implicit to me.

===========================================================================

Edit to add:I forgot your query about other examples. I think the licence category has changed but there are what were once called "pedestrian controlled vehicles" ie mechanically propelled vehicles controlled by a driver on foot. Many of the offences prohibited by the Highways Act 1835 such as driving cattle are likely to be committed by people on foot. They cannot simply claim to be pedestrians and therefore exempt.
=======================
I've thought hard about the rest of your post and I can only feel that I'm not expressing myself clearly. The law is in need of modernising, but unless it is, we are stuck with it. Crank v Brooks was about the duty of a driver approaching a zebra crossing to give priority to a pedestrian. In that context, a cyclist wheeling a bike is a pedestrian. In the context of wheeling a bike past a traffic light, being a pedestrian is incidental.

Unless something has changed, if a cyclist rides across a standard zebra crossing, they are not a pedestrian so they don't have the protection they would have as a pedestrian if they were walking.

Maybe not quite as protected, but does a cyclist on the carriageway not normally get precedence over whoever is trying to drive into they space they're occupying anyway?

In the case routinely quoted on here to support the cyclist-as-a-pedestrian argument, the driver was prosecuted under the zebra crossing regs. That doesn't mean they couldn't have been prosecuted for another offence such as dangerous driving.

Somebody wheeling a motorbike is even more restricted as the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle.
Hang on! Is a pushed motorcycle mechanically propelled or driver propelled there?

A mechanically propelled vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle because of its construction

[kwackers]

Unless I've missed something then the gist of walking a bike past a red light is:

Ride up to said light, dismount and lift one's bicycle onto the pavement. Cross the road from the pavement whilst pushing. Lift bike onto carriageway and continue.

Is that right?

[horizon]

The law is in need of modernising, but unless it is, we are stuck with it.

That's actually not true in a practical sense. What we are stuck with is:

1. A police officer who didn't make a sensible decision.
2. Poor training of said officer (and others no doubt)
3. Lack of oversight and supervision of said officer.
4. Lack of policy in respect of moribund/out-of-date laws.
5. A general social attitude that says that cyclists must be punished.
6. An unbelievable lack of awareness from this officer upwards that cycling needs to be encouraged.

I presume that there are plenty of laws and their attendant offences that never get prosecuted for practical reasons. I have to agree with TUC that this prosecution has a background and an agenda. It wouldn't need to be specific or conscious but nevertheless endemic in the police force and their political masters.

There are many laws that we require but are reliant on good policing and prosecution policy as it is sometimes impossible to predict their usage - taking your clothes off on the beach is one of these. You simply cannot make a distinction in legalese to cover all circumstances. So the laws stand but their effect is attenuated by good police practice.

My advice to the OP would be to take this further to their political representative and then to the Police and Crime Commissioner for London. Whether the OP does this to escape the fine or simply on a matter of principle is up to them. I'm pretty sure that had the OP been in possession of a small amount of cannabis at the time, he/she would not have been prosecuted for it.

Edit: I note that drossall has said much the same above.

Edit also to note that that does not in anyway reduce the usefulness of this discussion, just to change the conclusion to be drawn.

[Cyril Haearn]

Just walked my cycle to the Sheffield stand in the busy pedestrian zone, dread to think what might happen if the cops were on the lookout

Fortunately they were persecuting motrons today instead, the cops were astonished to catch so many using their phones

[kwackers]

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

Yep, to be safe stay just behind the line - I'd say a wheels width.
If you want to test the law to its limits (and risk a quick truncheoning) then you could try wheeling your bike actually on the stop line.

I'd also presume if there's an ASL then you could enter the box and then cross the road from the box since the first line doesn't apply to you.
(Although you still might be risking a truncheoning).

You could also try gently lifting your bike over the stop line (i.e. carrying it) and then proceeding - although I suspect a truncheoning is a foregone conclusion here and if not that then you become one of gaz's Schrödinger's cyclist/pedestrian's...

[gaz]

You could also try gently lifting your bike over the stop line (i.e. carrying it) and then proceeding - although I suspect a truncheoning is a foregone conclusion here and if not that then you become one of gaz's Schrödinger's cyclist/pedestrian's...

Lets just say there's a lot of paperwork .

[althebike]

Earlier this year I rode up to some traffic lights, using the cycle lane, there was the box at the lights for cyclists, I rode in to this box , cycling over to the right hand side to make a right turn when the lights changed. Oncoming traffic that was coming from my left, and making a right turn into my road, saw me cycling across the box , panic set in and a couple of cars swerved and honked horns thinking I was cycling across their path. I shows that even when we think we are doing the right thing, other people can interpret it as being a danger.

[kwackers]

Earlier this year I rode up to some traffic lights, using the cycle lane, there was the box at the lights for cyclists, I rode in to this box , cycling over to the right hand side to make a right turn when the lights changed. Oncoming traffic that was coming from my left, and making a right turn into my road, saw me cycling across the box , panic set in and a couple of cars swerved and honked horns thinking I was cycling across their path. I shows that even when we think we are doing the right thing, other people can interpret it as being a danger.

I'd never do that - or at least I can't imagine a scenario where I would.
The worst thing would be that as you start to move across the front of the traffic the lights change and the cars boot it off the line - particularly if there are two lanes (and the guy in the turn right lane actually want's to go straight on but didn't want to queue - as is often the case these days).

[1066enthalpies1939]

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.

If the OP had carried the cycle across the carriageway they in law be consider a pedestrian.

[londoncommuter0000]

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]

Coming late to the party, and there may be other responses, but .. DO NOT PAY THIS FINE!

If you genuinely were pushing your bicycle through the red light, then you were a pedestrian (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441), and there is no offence of 'jaywalking' in England & Wales.

[londoncommuter0000]

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.

A cyclist pushing his or her bicycle is not 'propelling' it any more than a pedestrian walking down the street is 'propelling' himself (or herself) - at least for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.

The decision in Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441 concerned a pedestrian crossing, but the decision on a cyclist being 'a foot passenger' is NOT limited to pedestrian crossings.

[londoncommuter0000]

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.

Your interpretation is wrong. It is not an offence to push a bicycle through a red light or a stop sign. Since a cyclist pushing a bicycle is a foot passenger, then making it illegal to push a bicycle through a red light or stop sign, would be creating the offence of 'jaywalking', and the courts don't make law in this country (with some narrow exceptions, cf statutory interpretation).

[londoncommuter0000]

Before commenting further, I'm wondering if anyone could tell me what was achieved by this penalty notice.

Punishing someone who has dared not to conform to societal norms.

Hope this helps.