Police Officer with a chip?

[swansonj]

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.

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.

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.

 

[middleman]

[QUOTE 3722412, member: 45"]I used to be of that view, until Police officers started to look a lot younger.

Remember the one in the clip when the motorbiker offed the cyclist in London and she focussed on the cyclist being on the phone? The one in the coat 10 sizes too big for her who was allowing herself to be controlled by the biker? You'd really let that go?[/QUOTE]

I fail to see how a Police officer looking younger should influence whether or not they command respect or should be listened to?

In my experience that has no bearing on how good the officer might be at their job. Could just as easily meet a grumpy old officer.

I would imagine someone with that attitude would be immediately getting off on the wrong foot with any younger looking copper they interact with even if the officer did have a legitimate point to make.

Human nature is that people don't like being restricted or being told what to do which inevitably leads to the Police being tolerated in todays society rather than respected can't make their job easy so do try to give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time.

 

[Smurfy]

Rider's a cock.

But not nearly as much of a cock as someone who deosn't know that case law established the status of someone pushing a bicycle 35 years ago.

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 passenzer "

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/pushing.html

 

[middleman]

And I quote from the case law. Different from the circumstance in the OP

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement..

All the quoted case law appears to refer to stepping from a pavement at a crossing whereas in the video the pavement and crossing do not feature in the cyclists actions.

 

[summerdays]

Given he probably has no idea of the inter-green settings for the junction or the staging of the ped phases, both videos are a bit of a gamble. Some signal sites can have ped phases which only partially effect the junction, or skip them totally, sometimes timetabled, so your running that risk as well.

Why do you assume he doesn't know the timings ... I pass through lots of lights on my journey and for the vast majority of them I know the sequence, how long I'm likely to wait and when I can exploit the timings. For example when on the cycle path, at a multi-staged crossing (4 sections 8 lanes for one side road, where Coldharbour joins the Ring Road by UWE), I know there is a gap between the right turning traffic and a bus activated turn that allows me to cross the next section and take advantage of the rest of the green men/green bikes - if you only cross on the green light you can't cross that junction without waiting on the traffic islands). I watch the sequences as I approach so I know whether to slow down or speed up, I know points I must be at to make it through a green light. If you regularly do a route you get to know the lights. My downfall will be if they change the sequencing.

 

[jiberjaber]

Why do you assume he doesn't know the timings ... I pass through lots of lights on my journey and for the vast majority of them I know the sequence, how long I'm likely to wait and when I can exploit the timings. For example when on the cycle path, at a multi-staged crossing (4 sections 8 lanes for one side road, where Coldharbour joins the Ring Road by UWE), I know there is a gap between the right turning traffic and a bus activated turn that allows me to cross the next section and take advantage of the rest of the green men/green bikes - if you only cross on the green light you can't cross that junction without waiting on the traffic islands). I watch the sequences as I approach so I know whether to slow down or speed up, I know points I must be at to make it through a green light. If you regularly do a route you get to know the lights. My downfall will be if they change the sequencing.

It's a forum, part of the game is assumptions Indeed, I am assuming you travel through at roughly the same time each day, and in that case the signal staging may stay as you experience it, on a fixed time plan, but at different times of the day it might be different. A good example is where a junction will be biased for AM traffic in one direction, and in another direction for PM traffic... unless your in the know (perhaps part of the team looking after it or connected in someway), its hard to know exactly other than from empirically studying the signals what is going on when. Signals can be timetabled by day of week, hour of day or adaptive to conditions and can flit between fixed time plans and other types of control on a timetable.

On a crossing (be it bike, horse or ped), the green man and red man (or bike or horse) is just an invitation to cross when safe to do so or an advisory not to cross, so if you chose to ignore them and cross irrespective of red indicator, you would be crossing at risk, with green just being crossing at "less" risk. There isn't a law to say you should or shouldn't, but it would be taken in to account should an incident occur (i.e. 'best' practise would be to only cross when safe and invited to do so). What is being discussed regarding the video here and all the other forums where this video has popped up is actually legislated around (RTA) passing the stop line on a red signal, which is different, I think from what you are describing, here you are making a decision to use a crossing against the red advisory indicator (bike/man/horse, delete as appropriate) based on your local knowledge at a time of day.

That rbt at UWE is the one with the square wheel cyclist painted on the cycle track isn't it?

 

[summerdays]

It's a forum, part of the game is assumptions Indeed, I am assuming you travel through at roughly the same time each day, and in that case the signal staging may stay as you experience it, on a fixed time plan, but at different times of the day it might be different. A good example is where a junction will be biased for AM traffic in one direction, and in another direction for PM traffic... unless your in the know (perhaps part of the team looking after it or connected in someway), its hard to know exactly other than from empirically studying the signals what is going on when. Signals can be timetabled by day of week, hour of day or adaptive to conditions and can flit between fixed time plans and other types of control on a timetable.

On a crossing (be it bike, horse or ped), the green man and red man (or bike or horse) is just an invitation to cross when safe to do so or an advisory not to cross, so if you chose to ignore them and cross irrespective of red indicator, you would be crossing at risk, with green just being crossing at "less" risk. There isn't a law to say you should or shouldn't, but it would be taken in to account should an incident occur (i.e. 'best' practise would be to only cross when safe and invited to do so). What is being discussed regarding the video here and all the other forums where this video has popped up is actually legislated around (RTA) passing the stop line on a red signal, which is different, I think from what you are describing, here you are making a decision to use a crossing against the red advisory indicator (bike/man/horse, delete as appropriate) based on your local knowledge at a time of day.

That rbt at UWE is the one with the square wheel cyclist painted on the cycle track isn't it? View attachment 90456

Last point first... yes when they dug up the path for the BT? the replacement bicycle wheel is a little odd shaped! (Just after the helpful crossing where you can't see to your left (onto the roundabout) due to the enormous sign they put up for cars completely obscuring your view).

I cycle at a fairly constant time inwards but all my other journey's are at random times throughout the day. My example was at a crossing of a cycle path and a road, but I also travel on the roads themselves. But each time you are stopped at a junction you get a chance to watch the junction and in the case of some the adjoining junctions so I can see when their lights change or the pedestrian phase finishes and know if my lane is the next one in the sequence. There is another junction where I don't wait for the green man as it puts you into conflict with traffic (Zetland Road) which is a known problem and I've found the best way is to get the 3 second advantage when the previous sequence goes to red to get across the junction before I get the green bike, at the same time as the crossing motor traffic. It's just about observing and looking to see if it is safe. If I was part of the team involved in traffic lights oh they would be some changes if I could manage it ... oh the power .... Actually the first change would be to put some lights on the one junction without them on Aztec West roundabout to stop it grinding to a halt at 4 o'clock every day!

As for the original video ... I couldn't be bothered to bypass those lights for that length of wait, I would only dismount and cross via the crossings if it was really snarled up. Then it's a real pleasure to leave behind the motorists trapped by themselves blocking a junction.

 

[cd365]

Did the cyclist do anything illegal, No.
Would I do the same thing, no? But then I'm not that impatient.
Was the copper a cock, yes. It wasn't necessary what he did and he should learn a bit more of the law he is trying to uphold.

 

[martinclive]

Did the cyclist do anything illegal, No.
Would I do the same thing, no? .

+ Did the cyclist help or damage the reputation of cyclists to all those watching?

If we want to be treated better we should act better......

 

[glasgowcyclist]

+ Did the cyclist help or damage the reputation of cyclists to all those watching?

If we want to be treated better we should act better......

Whilst I accept that the non-cycling public see cyclists as an out group and commonly attribute the failings of the few to the rest, I don't accept this notion of collective responsibility. And cyclists do themselves no favours by indulging in this themselves, it only reinforces ill-informed judgements and prejudices.

GC

 

[martinclive]

Whilst I accept that the non-cycling public see cyclists as an out group and commonly attribute the failings of the few to the rest, I don't accept this notion of collective responsibility. And cyclists do themselves no favours by indulging in this themselves, it only reinforces ill-informed judgements and prejudices.

GC

Maybe true - but like it or hate it - here in Cambridge we are seen as a group and I cannot see that ever changing

 

[martinclive]

Seeing as how we have pretty much all agreed that none of us would do it, how much better do you think we need to act before we notice better treatment?

Many people here seem to feel he did nothing wrong and want to stand behind the letter rather than the spirit of the law - so that would be my suggestion of where we start ...............

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Maybe true - but like it or hate it - here in Cambridge we are seen as a group and I cannot see that ever changing

If you, as a cyclist, engage in it you will prolong it.
If you want it to change, stop taking the blame for someone else's riding errors.

GC

 

[martinclive]

[QUOTE 3724006, member: 45"]You think? I see that many people here suggest that there was nothing illegal about his behaviour. If you asked them if they would do it, whether they thought it was good practice or whether they thought the cyclist was being a cheeky sausage you might get a different picture.[/QUOTE]
Agreed - so why not just condemn the behavior rather than get into the legal small print?

 

[martinclive]

And do what? Then, once we have done it, what form will the better treatment take?

I think it's quite simple - we (sorry GC!) act better and we will get treated better on the roads but if we act badly we encourage bad behavior from others. A small amount of additional respect between all road users goes a long way.