swansonj
Guru
The operative word in the Road Teaffic Act seems to be "propel" rather than "ride". Nonetheless I think that's a perfectly valid opinion, and the one thing that seems certain is, there is no absolute legal certainty as to the status of this action, and there won't be until it is specifically ruled on by a court - and no-one seems to have found such a ruling yet.I take a different view. The perceived offence here is crossing the traffic-light controlled white line, not that of pushing the bike on the carriageway. In the video the cyclist dismounted before the white line, began his journey across the white line on foot, fully crossed the white line on foot and then remounted. At no point did he "ride" the bike across the white line, just as in CvB at no point did she "ride" her bike across any part of the ped crossing as both began and intended to end their journeys across the confines of the road feature on foot. I think that the implication that somehow a quick trip to the footpath resets his legal obligations is wrong.
IMO, in order to more quickly cross the junction, all the cyclist had to do was to cross the white line on foot and he could have legally re-mounted his bike as soon thereafter as he liked and he did not need to scamper across the whole junction before re-mounting.
Not knowing the junction, light sequence or other conditions I can't say whether what the cyclist chose to do was in his opinion a reasonably safe manoeuvre.
IANAL but IMHO CvB is not necessarily generalisable, firstly because the judgement lays stress on the person concerned having started on a pavement, and we may guess but cannot know what the outcome would be if that had not been the case; and secondly because CvB seems to adjudicate directly only on whether a person pushing a bike acquires the legal privileges of a pedestrian, not whether they forgo the legal requirements of a vehicle.
I remain of the view, personally, that an offence may have occurred. But I agree with many others here that whether or not an offence technically ocurred is secondary to issues such as was it safe; was it sensible; how does it play out in the bigger war for ownership of roads; and did both the cop and the cyclist behave constructively in the subsequent encounter.
My attempts to understand the law as it stands should in no way be taken as implying I think the present law, let alone its selective application, has very much to commend it.