Crank -v- Brooks - an appeal.

[pete75]

When I was a lad they put a zebra crossing in our nearest town. This was back in the sixties. The local bobby told us off for wheeling our bikes across it and said if we did car drivers didn't have to stop and could run us over if they liked. It seems this view was quite common back then..

[Nettled Shin]

a cyclist could not become a ‘foot passenger’ at will

is an astonishingly vague phrase to base an argument around. In what circumstances would a dismount not be at the will of the cyclist? According to this, if we haven't been knocked off our bikes, or instructed to get off by someone in authority, we are still cyclists. Similarly, if you have just bought your first bike and push it home but have not yet ridden it, you are a pedestrian because you've never been a cyclist.

[thirdcrank]

a cyclist could not become a ‘foot passenger’ at will

is an astonishingly vague phrase to base an argument around. In what circumstances would a dismount not be at the will of the cyclist? According to this, if we haven't been knocked off our bikes, or instructed to get off by someone in authority, we are still cyclists. Similarly, if you have just bought your first bike and push it home but have not yet ridden it, you are a pedestrian because you've never been a cyclist.

You may have got hold of the wrong end of the legal stick. The magistrates hearing the case initially took that line and were overruled on appeal. ie the appeal was decided on the basis that a cyclist puching a pedal cycle is a foot passenger AKA a pedestrian.

[karlt]

When I was a lad they put a zebra crossing in our nearest town. This was back in the sixties. The local bobby told us off for wheeling our bikes across it and said if we did car drivers didn't have to stop and could run us over if they liked. It seems this view was quite common back then..

He was exaggerating anyway. Having priority never gives anyone a carte blanche to run into them.

In reality, what would actually be the case is that the motorist would not automatically be at fault, as they would be in nearly all circumstances if they hit a pedestrian on a zebra. It would be as if the zebra crossing were not there - did your action in crossing the road at that point make it impossible for the motorist to avoid you?

This is all assuming that a cyclist wheeling a bike isn't a pedestrian; it appears that he is anyway.

[Mick F]

......... ie the appeal was decided on the basis that a cyclist puching a pedal cycle is a foot passenger AKA a pedestrian.

The person pushing the cycle over the zebra crossing has the same rights as a pedestrian. It doesn't say or mean that a person pushing a cycle always has the same freedom. The cycle is still there, and although he can push it across a zebra crossing, there are still places that he cannot push it.

[carlislemike]

How do I become a magistrate and send the motorists down if they in any way intimidate, strike or injure both cyclists and pedestrians? I guess I couldn't get into the court car parks as there would be no access except for cars and their geriatric magistrate drivers.

[thirdcrank]

How do I become a magistrate ....

An answer to that bit is here.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndComm ... /DG_195453

As for the rest of it, a cycling JP of my acquaintance* told me that they would not let him near the type of case you have in mind because they thought he was prejudiced. (Before you ask, I've never heard the same complaint from a motoring JP although I don't know many personally.)

* No names, no pack-drill.

[MartinC]

As for the rest of it, a cycling JP of my acquaintance* told me that they would not let him near the type of case you have in mind because they thought he was prejudiced. (Before you ask, I've never heard the same complaint from a motoring JP although I don't know many personally.)

This doesn't surprise me. Trying to deconstruct the underlying logic is diffcult. Obviously being a motorist (whatever that means) is "normal" and anybody else must be excluded. But being a cyclist seems to disqualify you from being a motorist - so the "purity" of one's qualification as a motorist is relevant too. There's something very defensive and vulnerable about the "motoring lobby" and it's desire to retain control, they seem to fear any challenge or dissent. I think that deep down they must know their preferred lifestyle is unsustainable.

[karlt]

As for the rest of it, a cycling JP of my acquaintance* told me that they would not let him near the type of case you have in mind because they thought he was prejudiced. (Before you ask, I've never heard the same complaint from a motoring JP although I don't know many personally.)

This doesn't surprise me. Trying to deconstruct the underlying logic is diffcult. Obviously being a motorist (whatever that means) is "normal" and anybody else must be excluded. But being a cyclist seems to disqualify you from being a motorist - so the "purity" of one's qualification as a motorist is relevant too. There's something very defensive and vulnerable about the "motoring lobby" and it's desire to retain control, they seem to fear any challenge or dissent. I think that deep down they must know their preferred lifestyle is unsustainable.

Well, it might be that, or it might be that if the magistrate were known to be a keen cyclist, especially if he were involved in cycling advocacy/campaigning, clever briefs might use this as a wedge into appeals against sentences.

[thirdcrank]

...Well, it might be that, or it might be that if the magistrate were known to be a keen cyclist, especially if he were involved in cycling advocacy/campaigning, clever briefs might use this as a wedge into appeals against sentences.

In a way, that supports rather than contradicts what MartinC is saying.

[Tonyf33]

Surely having someone with a greater knowledge of an injured parties situation and the intricacies of such (as in why a cyclist might need to be in the centre of the carriageway for instance) has to be a good thing to give a full & reasoned understanding of a case. Whilst I'm not suggesting all JPs are blind old fools, the car centric society we have and the red light jumping cycling bashers that are eager to point out we are the devils work it is easy to see how a JP (& many other in authority) might easily overlook something like that as being just dangerous as they have no understanding of such.

[thirdcrank]

I think the realities are that many (possibly most) JP's are there through political affiliations. The ads., for volunteers suggest they can't get enough, while the protests from magistrates (often in letters to the Times or Telegraph, signed off "JP") suggest that a lot of their case load has been taken from them, either by other disposals (police cautions, tickets) or an increase in the number of district judges (who until recently would have been called stipendiary magistrates.)

Afaik, as a retired police officer I'm disqualified from becoming a JP (even though my past would be known) but I'm OK as a juror (even though I could keep my past secret while influencing the verdict.) I've known at least one former police officer who qualified as a solicitor and then became a stipe, so it seems legal training cleanses the mind of prejudice )

[reohn2]

Theres a despicable term "play the white man" supposedly meaning upright,fair and all that is good.
I propose it be replaced in these enlightened times by the saying "play the motorist" which would equal the former.

[thirdcrank]

After reading the HC about pavement cycling, I had a look at s 129 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 which is quoted in the HC as the equivalent law in Scotland. My sincere apologies to anybody who has made this point before when I've overlooked what they have said, this provision has what looks like a clear exemption for pedal cycles being pushed on a footway:

Section 129 (5)
... , a person who, in a footway, footpath or cycle track, as the case may be drives, rides, leads or propels a vehicle or horse, or any swine or cattle, commits an offence:

Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply— ...
(b)in relation to a pedal cycle which is ... not being ridden ...