Cycling UK Forum

Illegal here but is it that heinous a crime? Its very common to see them in the Netherlands but I don't recall an excess of backie induced deaths and injuries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33681509

P-poor journalism as per usual. Still searching for the "1998 Road and Traffic Act"

But, yeah, I totally agree it's another of those things which is not dangerous https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... dangerous/

I really have gone off the BBC. I'm no politician or conservative supporter but I've always liked Boris. He knows how to have fun and I guess so does his wife! Good on him for being so restrained with all those interfering, controlling numpties...b

My Dutch bike's rack is rated to carry the weight of a person as long as they're not too heavy and doing so is mentioned in the maker's advertising ("Perfect for pannier bags, shopping and most importantly: the Dutch way of giving your mates a lift!"). Anyone know if that would count as constructed to carry two people in the sense of the RTA?

London hire bikes are even heavier than my Dutchie, so it seems like they could easily double the system's user capacity if they put a sturdy rear rack on them!

I'd have thought the manufacturer's claim of suitability should be good enough. Maybe you should go the whole hog and get a seat http://www.cyclechicrepublic.com/27-bac ... t-cushions

The RTA says "constructed or adapted". I'd say that's adapted

If I've read the linked BBC article correctly, the suitability or otherwise of the rack isn't an issue

It shows Ms Wheeler sitting on the saddle, without a helmet, holding her handbag as her husband stands on the pedals.

You couldn't make it up. He's claiming ignorance of the law about cycling while giving a saddle to a barrister called "Wheeler."

It's the silly season.

thirdcrank wrote:If I've read the linked BBC article correctly, the suitability or otherwise of the rack isn't an issue

It shows Ms Wheeler sitting on the saddle, without a helmet, holding her handbag as her husband stands on the pedals.

Have we got to the state now where saddles are expected to wear helmets too?

What is dangerous is relative and depends upon conditions. I have seen people sharing Boris-bikes on a few occasions, but on observing them doing it while going the wrong way up a busy one-way street, it is the latter that worries me more for the riders' safety. But again, these things are relative. I am, at the moment, routinely using a 10yd stretch of temporary 1-way street (due to construction works) in the wrong direction, as do many other cyclist passing there, as we have tried the alternatives and they are worse. You can just wait until there's nothing coming and it's Not A Problem.

About 12 years ago I saw BoJo cycling up the Strand while talking into a hand-held mobile phone. At the time, the road, in his direction of travel, was entirely full of standing traffic. Such is the narrow width of the lanes on the Strand, it is very challenging to cycle at all on the Strand when it is so full of standing traffic - you usually can't get past a bus in such conditions without leaving the carriageway. Indeed, even though I worked on the Strand, I used to avoid cycling on the Strand if it could at all be avoided - my usual routes avoided it entirely. But to be attempting it while talking on a hand-held mobile was a challenge indeed.

"Not more than one person may be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/24

Been wondering this since the story broke but the press are just unquestioningly parroting the story so no hope there. The bit I've bolded would suggest this law only applies to electric bikes etc? I know the law can be a little obtuse at times but it's rarely so daft it acually means the opposite of what it is written.

The alternative would mean that this does not apply to electric bikes???

I believe that it applies to bicycles which are not mechanically propelled; that is most pedal cycles.

Electric bikes are not considered mechanically propelled.

Ah, makes sense, mis understood what was meant by 'mechanically propelled', misread it as manually propelled.

Stevek76 wrote:"Not more than one person may be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person."

A prize for the person who can make that clearer! The two 'not's don't help ; 'propelled by mechanical power' seems clumsy, but I can't think of anything better at the moment; the person 'carried' could be construed as a passenger.

How about:
A human powered bicycle may carry one person only unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person.
?

How about - why he hell is this in the statute books?

All bikes are built for two, one on the saddle, one on the pedals.

Note I Don't include handlebar sitting...

[XAP]Bob wrote:How about - why the hell is this in the statute books?

Parliament had been twiddling its collective thumbs, and seized this opportunity to right an historic wrong and make the world a better place to live in?