No wonder Cyclists are unpopular with motorists!

[4F]

But this is not the case with regards to Crank V Brooks, the judgment there was:-

"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."

The question asked earlier I took to be dismounting whilst on the road, pushing across on the road and then remounting from the road.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

were you wearing the headgear from your avatar

way to much drag from the ears. I've done the testing to prove it.

 

[format]

If you were in a car, would you consider getting out pushing across and then carrying on ?

No, because that's utterly ridiculous. Please try and maintain a reasonable level of debate.

?

Why not just wait? Are you delivering transplant organs or something?

I wait, most of the time. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and if I can shave a minute off my journey when there is 100% no chance of anyone (myself, pedestrians or motorists) being injured by my actions, then I don't see why I shouldn't just roll over the crossing.

I am a car driver and a cyclist. The question of is it be OK to dismount, walk across and reemount is a nonsense question whichever mode of transport you or on / in.

A red light means stop.

If I want to dismount at a set of lights to go into a shop nearby, do I need to wait until the light goes green before I get off my bike?

 

[4F]

I wait, most of the time. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and if I can shave a minute off my journey when there is 100% no chance of anyone (myself, pedestrians or motorists) being injured by my actions, then I don't see why I shouldn't just roll over the crossing.

If a driver of a motorised vehicle was also in a hurry would it be OK for them to jump the lights as well as long as there was no chance of anyone else getting injured ?

Lets face it the only reason you sometimes jump them is because you are impatient and there is little chance of you getting caught.

 

[Dan B]

But this is not the case with regards to Crank V Brooks, the judgment there was:-

"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."

The question asked earlier I took to be dismounting whilst on the road, pushing across on the road and then remounting from the road.

You're suggesting that whether there's a pedestrian crossing or not makes a difference to a pedestrian who is crossing? Or that being on the carriageway instead of the footway is important to whether an unmounted cyclist is considered a pedestrian? Or that dismount-then-remount would push a cyclist over the boundary from legal to illegal? You could argue it either way - as we are doing here. Without knowing exactly what was in Waller's mind when he said this we have no way of knowing which are the points he considered salient and which are irrelevances, and until there's another case or some new legislation that's how the law will stay: "grey area"

Which is, returning to my point, why there have to be better ways of deciding whether something is a bad idea or not than by appeal to the "letter of the law", because sometimes the law just isn't written down all that clearly

 

[4F]

You're suggesting that whether there's a pedestrian crossing or not makes a difference to a pedestrian who is crossing? Or that being on the carriageway instead of the footway is important to whether an unmounted cyclist is considered a pedestrian? Or that dismount-then-remount would push a cyclist over the boundary from legal to illegal? You could argue it either way - as we are doing here. Without knowing exactly what was in Waller's mind when he said this we have no way of knowing which are the points he considered salient and which are irrelevances, and until there's another case or some new legislation that's how the law will stay: "grey area"

Which is, returning to my point, why there have to be better ways of deciding whether something is a bad idea or not than by appeal to the "letter of the law", because sometimes the law just isn't written down all that clearly

Yes I agree that it could be argued either way and in all reality it is a nonsense. If you are on foot then commonsense dictates that you are a pedestrian irrespective of where you start from.

 

[Alien8]

If a driver of a motorised vehicle was also in a hurry would it be OK for them to jump the lights as well as long as there was no chance of anyone else getting injured ?

How do you feel about the concept of left-turns through a red if safe to proceed?

 

[addictfreak]

I find it hard to believe that some posters are actually suggesting it may be ok the RLJ (car or bike). Red means stop simple as that and it applies to all.

 

[Norm]

How do you feel about the concept of left-turns through a red if safe to proceed?

The concept is fine if it is legal because then people will be expecting it, just as it is fine to have unlimited stretches of autobahn if everyone is expecting it.

However, if it is illegal, then other road users don't anticipate it happening, don't feature it into their plans and get pissed off when they see someone else do it.

 

[Norm]

Which would be valid if people in vehicles only stopped for red lights in places where there are cameras or coppers likely to be hidden.

But they don't, so let's move on.

 

[Norm]

[QUOTE 1346647"]
Eh?

If you are in a car and you jump a red light then you can be reported regardless if there is Police or cameras nearby hidden or otherwise.

I've known people to be reported directly to the transport office with respect to RLJing in a truck where the company name is visible. Go figure how that come about because it was not off the back of a camera or copper - it was a member of the general public ringing up and reporting the number plate.
[/quote]I've known people who have died when riding a motorbike. I still ride one.

Just because we know someone who knows someone who said they knew someone who fell victim to the risks that we face every day, it doesn't mean we change our own actions.

The reason I don't RLJ (car or bike or motorbike) has nothing to do with the remote possibility that I'll be seen, and everything to do with it being against the law. I don't generally decide which laws to obey and which can be ignored.

 

[Norm]

Really? It seems to follow quite well to me but let me cut out some of the crap in the middle then, see if that helps...

[QUOTE 1346645"]Let's face it, you would only wait because your car has number plates and therefore could be tracked and reported. The only way going forward is for bikes to have registered number plates which allow cyclists who routinely break the law to be caught and bought to book. [/quote]

The reason I don't RLJ (car or bike or motorbike) has nothing to do with the remote possibility that I'll be seen, and everything to do with it being against the law. I don't generally decide which laws to obey and which can be ignored.

 

[Clandy]

[QUOTE 1346645"]
The only way going forward is for bikes to have registered number plates which allow cyclists who routinely break the law to be caught and bought to book.


[/quote]

Something which has been an expensive failure everywhere it has been tried.

 

[Norm]

[QUOTE 1346651"] Whatever it is I'm bored already. [/quote]I'm not surprised, taking all that time to re-write a history that you had already discounted.

 

[ramses]

he had an ipod playing in his ears!

I cycle to music, I find it makes me more visually aware of my surroundings as I don't rely on my ears.

It's like the helmet issue, it's a personal choice. After all would you stop a deaf person from cycling?