Am I breaking the law?

[glenn forger]

don't tell her to eff off, there's too much saying eff off going on. Listen to her politely and respectfully. take on board her argument, then set fire to her car.

 

[Bazzer]

I'd tell her to eff off. You're a pedestrian, and the presence of a bicycle, shopping trolley, or dead body rolled up in an old carpet is neither here nor there.

+1

 

[midlife]

After you have set fire to the car toast some marshmallows, no point in wasting a good bonfire

Shaun

 

[Drago]

don't tell her to eff off, there's too much saying eff off going on. Listen to her politely and respectfully. take on board her argument, then set fire to her car.

Then tell her to eff off.

 

[raleighnut]

Listen to her rant then reply....... "Que"...............(you could add "I am from Barcelona, Khowww do you do" but you've got to manage the 'clearing your throat' bit in the middle of Barcelona for it to be effective. )
DAMHIKT but my mate was in hysterics.

 

[TreeHuggery]

If you see her regularly you could try different modes of transport - space hopper, pogo stick, skateboard, not sure it would solve anything from a legal perspective re the bike, but its got to be amusing to go past her on a peddle car....

 

[jnrmczip]

Why not just go through the arch on the pavement instead of the road one as it is a bit tight and could be dangerous with cars coming at you round the roundabout. Saying that don't think you broke the law but maybe safer to use the arch on the pavement then rejoin the road

 

[CopperCyclist]

Been done to death recently in this thread:

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/police-officer-with-a-chip.181002/

Interestingly, the thread actually changed my view! Previously I had always believed the stated case mentioned would hold, rendering sometime pushing a bike a pedestrian.

My view is now "a stated case is needed for a definitive answer". Crank v Brooks may not apply as the bike in that case was being pushed from pavement to pavement - not ridden on road then dismounted, which may well still classify as "being propelled", and hence cause an offence to be committed.

However for what it's worth, personally I would expect (and hope) any case to go in your favour and deem you a pedestrian. I'd also be surprised if you actually had anyone stop and report you.

 

[mjr]

You can walk a bike however. You need to if you want to park in some of the cycle parks. Also, it'd be a real bitch to get across town otherwise so...

Yes, it's similar in King's Lynn, where we've a two street section of NCR1 with a cycling prohibition. They're installing new cycle parking where you can ride to it, but there's twenty years or so of cycle parks to relocate and there's no money for that, of course.

It's not illegal to push past no entry signs. I do it to avoid riding on the A148 sometimes. Blasted streets should have been changed to allow contraflow cycling 6 years ago but either they blew the money on buses or the safety auditors blocked it again, depending who I ask.

 

[cd365]

My view is now "a stated case is needed for a definitive answer". Crank v Brooks may not apply as the bike in that case was being pushed from pavement to pavement - not ridden on road then dismounted, which may well still classify as "being propelled", and hence cause an offence to be committed.

I personally think that the pavement is a red herring, what about instances where there is no pavement or only one side of the road has pavement? Because of this I think Crank v Brooks is correct so if you are not on the bike wherever you start or finish you are a pedestrian.

 

[Cubist]

don't tell her to eff off, there's too much saying eff off going on. Listen to her politely and respectfully. take on board her argument, hoof her in the slats, then set fire to her car.

FTFY

 

[Tin Pot]

Ask her if she's filed her PPI claim yet and if you can help her with it, and she'll eff off by herself.

 

[swansonj]

I personally think that the pavement is a red herring, what about instances where there is no pavement or only one side of the road has pavement? Because of this I think Crank v Brooks is correct so if you are not on the bike wherever you start or finish you are a pedestrian.

I don't think the issue is over whether you are a pedestrian. You undoubtedly are a pedestrian when you cross a zebra crossing starting from the pavement (CvB). You may or may not be a pedestrian when walking on the carriageway. But the issue isn't whether you are a pedestrian, the issue is whether you are also propelling a vehicle. Many of the people who adamantly assert that CvB settles everything don't seem to allow for the possibility that you can be a pedestrian and simultaneously be in charge of or propelling a vehicle.

 

[spen666]

don't tell her to eff off, there's too much saying eff off going on. Listen to her politely and respectfully. take on board her argument, then set fire to her car.

All very reasonable advice except....

a) When does he D Lock her and
b) When does he pour paint stripper on her car from the bottle of it carries for this purpose

 

[spen666]

Lots of people purporting to give legal advice who have not got a clue on the law.

Wonder if the same people give advice on brain surgery etc as well