are you still cycling if...

[dangerousjules]

a friend at work put the question to me for which i did'nt know the answer, so i throw it open for discussion...
are you still considered to be cycling if you are caught by police on the pavement or pedestrian path coasting on one pedal but not straddled on the bike with both feet in the pedals? i give you the reason why i was asked, my friend has to do a big detour on his bike in hyde park in order to reach the exit he needs and feels strongly that it is very unfair since a path which has been asigned to pedestrians only takes him where he needs to be. please do not pre-judge since he is the only cyclist i've met that stops at every red light and obeys the highway code to the letter he just feels he should be able to scoot without repercussions!
wadda you think?

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Methinks he will be judged to be riding his bike. He can walk and wheel it tho'.

 

[buggi]

technically i would say he is scooting. but what do i know? what he needs to do is find the definition of "cycling" in english law.

 

[wafflycat]

Ye gods, it sounds just like a speeding motorist who has been caught out and is now trying to use 'technicalities' to wheedle an excuse!

 

[yenrod]

a friend at work put the question to me for which i did'nt know the answer, so i throw it open for discussion...
are you still considered to be cycling if you are caught by police on the pavement or pedestrian path coasting on one pedal but not straddled on the bike with both feet in the pedals? i give you the reason why i was asked, my friend has to do a big detour on his bike in hyde park in order to reach the exit he needs and feels strongly that it is very unfair since a path which has been asigned to pedestrians only takes him where he needs to be. please do not pre-judge since he is the only cyclist i've met that stops at every red light and obeys the highway code to the letter he just feels he should be able to scoot without repercussions!
wadda you think?

Lets put it this way if a car driver was to hang out of a automatic car would he still be driving or considered the driver

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Just wondering - how far does he have to cycle legally? Can't be very far can it as Hyde Park isn't exactly the size of Yorkshire?

 

[hubgearfreak]

there is clear judicial authority for the proposition that anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ stated:

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger "

 

[spandex]

the law states that if you have a foot on the bike you are bestride the bicycle which is against the law.

 

[Maz]

If done safely and courteously, I can't see a problem with it. You He should be ok.

 

[fossyant]

Stick to the road and stuff this sort of rubbish !

 

[alecstilleyedye]

If done safely and courteously, I can't see a problem with it. You He should be ok.

seconded

 

[domtyler]

I wouldn't do it if I were you your 'friend'.

 

[bonj2]

If you are going less than 5 mph you are technically a pedestrian, as you might as well be. That's the rule. The only reason a cyclist presents more of a hazard to other peds in hyde park is because they're likely to be going faster. But if you are only going 5mph or less, then you fulfill the safety criteria of being a ped, so therefore you can technically be considered one.
You can't possibly define cycling in terms of how 'on the bike' you are, try as people might - because whatever you define it as you could easily be HALF that, i.e. if you define it as with a foot on the pedal, what if your foot occasionally touches the pedal, accidentally? What if you place your foot on the pedal for a segment of its revolution every so often? What if you have your foot on the pedal scoot-like fashion, but hop every so often/every revolution? WHAT IF, you have a DOME SHAPED CAPE enshrouding you and your bike, and completely surrounding you - thus rendering you a black-box entity?
It just can't be defined in terms of contact with the bike, so it has to be defined by speed.

 

[hubgearfreak]

It just can't be defined in terms of contact with the bike

it can, and has been

there is clear judicial authority for the proposition that anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ stated:

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger "

 

[spandex]

If you are going less than 5 mph you are technically a pedestrian, as you might as well be. That's the rule. The only reason a cyclist presents more of a hazard to other peds in hyde park is because they're likely to be going faster. But if you are only going 5mph or less, then you fulfill the safety criteria of being a ped, so therefore you can technically be considered one.
You can't possibly define cycling in terms of how 'on the bike' you are, try as people might - because whatever you define it as you could easily be HALF that, i.e. if you define it as with a foot on the pedal, what if your foot occasionally touches the pedal, accidentally? What if you place your foot on the pedal for a segment of its revolution every so often? What if you have your foot on the pedal scoot-like fashion, but hop every so often/every revolution? WHAT IF, you have a DOME SHAPED CAPE enshrouding you and your bike, and completely surrounding you - thus rendering you a black-box entity?
It just can't be defined in terms of contact with the bike, so it has to be defined by speed.

There is no Technically in the law if you are walking you are walking if you are bestride your bike you are bestride your bike if you riding your bike you are riding your bike. You can not be walking with and be bestride your bike at the same time. The same as being bestride and riding your bike it does not work when the law is involved.