# Police Officer with a chip?



## downfader (30 May 2015)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvPMXq3XoI


Saw this on twitter. What I note from this is how I've been advised by my local constabulary to do the same thing where I feel there is a threat to my safety, or where sensors do not detect cycles. It reminds me of the time my Brother and I stopped a local bobby and questioned why he'd told a kid that taking a photo in public was "illegal". That later lead to an official complaint from my Brother who said the guy had to me made aware of his errors. 

I left a comment suggesting the rider takes this further. Another has quoted the Cranks legal case.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (30 May 2015)

Drago will be along soon to ask if you have ever been in a Police car and seen someone walking with a bike...etc etc


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

Rider's a cock.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

I dispair with some people. Walking or riding he still jumped the lights.

All he had to do was walk it across on the pavement.


----------



## MontyVeda (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Rider's a cock.


why? 

what's so wrong with dismounting and walking across the road?


----------



## Arrowfoot (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> I dispair with some people. Walking or riding he still jumped the lights.
> 
> All he had to do was walk it across on the pavement.



I don't think it is illegal. Not sure why he needed to walk the bike?


----------



## MontyVeda (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> I dispair with some people. Walking or riding he still jumped the lights.
> 
> All he had to do was walk it across on the pavement.


errrr, how does one cross the road on the pavement?


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> why?
> 
> what's so wrong with dismounting and walking across the road?



Come off it, that's wanting your cake and eating it. Either get on the pavement or ride on the road, DON'T leg it across junctions to save time, and DON'T get all lippy and waste old bill's time.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> I dispair with some people. Walking or riding he still jumped the lights.
> 
> All he had to do was walk it across on the pavement.



Technically, even morally, he isnt running a red. He's a pedestrian the moment his feet touch the ground and his legs are no longer astride. Plenty of pedestrians will cross diagonally it should be noted, rather than going around the long way


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Come off it, that's wanting your cake and eating it. Either get on the pavement or ride on the road, DON'T leg it across junctions to save time, and DON'T get all lippy and waste old bill's time.


Spot on.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Come off it, that's wanting your cake and eating it. Either get on the pavement or ride on the road, DON'T leg it across junctions to save time, and DON'T get all lippy and waste old bill's time.


So what would you say to Hants Police? They've advised myself and others do do this. Note the driver in the ASL. Ignored by said Policeman


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

Clear-cut cyclist knobbery, I hope drago sees this and gets medieval on his ass.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> So what would you say to Hants Police?



I'd offer to fight them by the bins.


----------



## MontyVeda (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Come off it, that's wanting your cake and eating it. Either get on the pavement or ride on the road, DON'T leg it across junctions to save time, and DON'T get all lippy and waste old bill's time.


and DON'T try to assert your opinion with unnecessary capitalisation... NOBBER :P


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

The correct advice to give is to get off bike, mount pavement and cross the road on foot from the pavement when its safe to do so and yes i would certainly say this to Hants Police.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Note the driver in the ASL. Ignored by said Policeman



The clip doesn't show how it arrived there, there may be nothing for old bill to do anything about.

At the red light the rider had tons of room, nice wide road with another rider waiting.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 May 2015)

My bruvver rides a carbon hardtail mountain bike.

He reckons some traffic lights are not tripped by the plastic frame, so if he's alone at a junction he has to turn himself into a pedestrian.

I thought most traffic lights change automatically after a while to avoid the 'waiting and not tripped' scenario.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> The correct advice to give is to get off bike, mount pavement and cross the road on foot from the pavement when its safe to do so and yes i would certainly say this to Hants Police.


Its not a legal obligation. How can it be "correct advice"? What you mean is YOU want people to do it this way.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> My bruvver rides a carbon hardtail mountain bike.
> 
> He reckons some traffic lights are not tripped by the plastic frame, so if he's alone at a junction he has to turn himself into a pedestrian.
> 
> I thought most traffic lights change automatically after a while to avoid the 'waiting and not tripped' scenario.



I've been sat at lights in Southampton on sensor scenario and timed them. One on Bargate Street wont change for over 7 minutes. I'm not aware of any rider who would wait that long on such a quiet road.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

It would be much safer for everyone if people just obeyed traffic lights and had a bit of patience. I don't want to cycle through junctions where other riders are hot-footing it all over the shop.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> It would be much safer for everyone if people just obeyed traffic lights and had a bit of patience. I don't want to cycle through junctions where other riders are hot-footing it all over the shop.


He said in the description it was a pedestrian stage. Are you really suggesting he should have an obligation to wait based upon that?


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Its not a legal obligation. How can it be "correct advice"? What you mean is YOU want people to do it this way.


He was clearly cycling up to the lights and did not want to stop for them so he jumped off and ran with his bike across the junction.

He has jumped the lights.

The safest thing to do and the advice i and any other sensible Police Officer would give would be that if you don't feel safe, as someone mentioned earlier or you want to cross the junction without waiting for the lights to change is to get off, get on the pavement and cross when its safe to do so as a pedestrian.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> I've been sat at lights in Southampton on sensor scenario and timed them. One on Bargate Street wont change for over 7 minutes. I'm not aware of any rider who would wait that long on such a quiet road.



Have a go at track standing it next time.


----------



## Svendo (30 May 2015)

There are definitely some traffic light filters that only change when a vehicle is detected. For instance the right turn from Kingsway into Moss Bridge Road in Rochdale and at night the right turn from Kingsway onto Isaac Newton Way. As per previous threads on that subject the local authority will often increases the sensitivity if requested, and some lights appear to me to have coils installed to specifically detect cycles, and seem to have changed for me when approached at night with no other traffic.


----------



## glenn forger (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> He said in the description it was a pedestrian stage. Are you really suggesting he should have an obligation to wait based upon that?



No, he could use the pedestrian crossing if he wants to be a pedestrian.


----------



## pawl (30 May 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> why?
> 
> what's so wrong with dismounting and walking across the road?


I was once stopped by a cop when pushing my bike up one way street.Not allowed according to thePC.Asked him is it ok if I picked the bike up and carried it.After some thought he decided that the bike would technically become a parcel so would become a parcel.He also advised me that there was once bylaw that stated prams were once prohibited from being pushed on the footpath.Any one want to buy my shopping trolley.


----------



## sight-pin (30 May 2015)

Personally i couldn't be bothered to dismount etc, But i would think he should of mounted the kerb/curb first to be seen as a pedestrian to perform that move, as it could of been misconstrued by motorist etc, therefore not a wise move IMO.


----------



## MontyVeda (30 May 2015)

pawl said:


> I was once stopped by a cop when *pushing my bike up one way street.Not allowed according to thePC.Asked him is it ok if I picked the bike up and carried it.After some thought he decided that the bike would technically become a parcel* so would become a parcel.He also advised me that there was once bylaw that stated prams were once prohibited from being pushed on the footpath.Any one want to buy my shopping trolley.



One of my college tutors said a similar thing... it sounded like BS then and still does.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> He was clearly cycling up to the lights and did not want to stop for them so he jumped off and ran with his bike across the junction.
> 
> He has jumped the lights.
> 
> The safest thing to do and the advice i and any other sensible Police Officer would give would be that if you don't feel safe, as someone mentioned earlier or you want to cross the junction without waiting for the lights to change is to get off, get on the pavement and cross when its safe to do so as a pedestrian.



Again, he hasnt technically jumped the lights. Provide evidence to the counter if you believe that. 

Who says its safest to detour around the pavements/barriers? Stats, please.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> One of my college tutors said a similar thing... it sounded like BS then and still does.


It is. Cranks v Brooks sorted this out legally many, many years ago. You're allowed to walk in the road if you wish, though I wouldnt advise that myself (as a bikeless pedestrian)


----------



## potsy (30 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Rider's a cock.


I was going to write a lengthy response on my opinion of the cyclist but I think glenn's pretty much summed it up


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Again, he hasnt technically jumped the lights. Provide evidence to the counter if you believe that.
> 
> Who says its safest to detour around the pavements/barriers? Stats, please.



He has, his behaviour on approach to the lights indicates he is a cyclist and as he has stayed on the road and crossed at the road junction then he needs to obey the road traffic signs and signals.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> He has, his behaviour on approach to the lights indicates he is a cyclist and as he has stayed on the road and crossed at the road junction then he needs to obey the road traffic signs and signals.


But you havent shown me either a real world law or a highway code example to back that up. Therefore I call BS under the case law of Cranks v Brooks. Or did you fail to google that too?


----------



## CopperCyclist (30 May 2015)

Ah, one of those scenarios when you have someone insisting "its not technically against the law so you can't stop me".

This defence is usually legally sound, but also usually utilised by cockwombles doing something that the majority of people know would not be approved of by many around them.

Pound to a penny the reply to my post will be sometime simply admonishing me and repeating the "but it's legal" mantra.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Ah, one of those scenarios when you have someone insisting "its not technically against the law so you can't stop me".
> 
> This defence is usually legally sound, but also usually utilised by cockwombles doing something that the majority of people know would not be approved of by many around them.
> 
> Pound to a penny the reply to my post will be sometime simply admonishing me and repeating the "but it's legal" mantra.


Ok, lets take this via another route. What actual risk was caused by said rider?


----------



## buggi (30 May 2015)

Technically he did nothing wrong, morally he did. He only got off coz he knew the copper was watching. We all know he would have just rode across otherwise and so does the copper


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

buggi said:


> Technically he did nothing wrong, morally he did. He only got off coz he knew the copper was watching. We all know he would have just rode across otherwise and so does the copper



This is getting to be a real face-palm thing... It was an unmarked police car. Buggi, are you really suggesting he would have altered his behaviour on that basis? Morally doesnt come into it unless you cause risk... danger.. etc


----------



## Tin Pot (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvPMXq3XoI
> 
> 
> Saw this on twitter. What I note from this is how I've been advised by my local constabulary to do the same thing where I feel there is a threat to my safety, or where sensors do not detect cycles. It reminds me of the time my Brother and I stopped a local bobby and questioned why he'd told a kid that taking a photo in public was "illegal". That later lead to an official complaint from my Brother who said the guy had to me made aware of his errors.
> ...



What a twat.

With an attitude like that we can rest assured he will get his head kicked in at some point.


----------



## CopperCyclist (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Ok, lets take this via another route. What actual risk was caused by said rider?



Police officer head off, speaking just as myself here. 

The 'risk' is purely the extension and reaffirmation of many drivers that "all cyclists red light jump". They won't care about the technicalities of the law.


----------



## swansonj (30 May 2015)

I think the legalities are more nuanced than some are allowing. C v. B establishes that when you start on foot on a pavement, push across the road, and end up on the other pavement, you are a pedestrian even though you are pushing a vehicle. When you start on the bike on the carriageway and never leave it, I think C v. B does not apply directly and you could well still be a vehicle in the eyes of the law, not entitled to cross red lights.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

If he didn't have a bike it would have been legal for him to run across there, so why does the fact that he had a bike make it illegal?


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

The world's gone mad.


----------



## MontyVeda (30 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3720959, member: 45"]He was being cheeky. Policeman was unprofessional. That's all.[/QUOTE]
that's pretty much the top and bottom of it.


----------



## Feastie (30 May 2015)

If you're walking, you're a pedestrian and have every right to go over a pedestrian crossing like this guy did. If he'd cycled over a pedestrian crossing then that would have been different because he could have cycled over/into a pedestrian. But he became a pedestrian in order to use the crossing... which is the whole point of it.

I'm kind of surprised by people's responses to the contrary.


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

No win situation for either party. I guess the cop felt the need to have a word and thats all it was. Not worth getting excited about it.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Feastie said:


> If you're walking, you're a pedestrian and have every right to go over a pedestrian crossing like this guy did. If he'd cycled over a pedestrian crossing then that would have been different because he could have cycled over/into a pedestrian. But he became a pedestrian in order to use the crossing... which is the whole point of it.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised by people's responses to the contrary.


I think the assertion many are trying to make is that he didn't walk across the pedestrian crossing but across the road along side it. Some people seem to think this is illegal. 
I don't understand. It would be legal to walk or run there without a bike, why would it be illegal with one. What's the difference?


----------



## potsy (30 May 2015)

If it was a scooter rider who did the same do you think it would have been acceptable?


----------



## Feastie (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> I think the assertion many are trying to make is that he didn't walk across the pedestrian crossing but across the road along side it. Some people seem to think this is illegal.
> I don't understand. It would be legal to walk or run there without a bike, why would it be illegal with one. What's the difference?



...in which case I cross the road on foot illegally all the time! I agree with you entirely.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

He crossed the stop sign on the road running the red light at the same time.

He didnt just run off the pavement across the road.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Feastie said:


> ...in which case I cross the road on foot illegally all the time! I agree with you entirely.


I've noticed that if I'm walking with my bike drivers are less likely to stop at zebra crossings. Maybe they think that's illegal too.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> He crossed the stop sign on the road running the red light at the same time.
> 
> He didnt just run off the pavement across the road.


But that's not illegal. Riding across astride a bike is, running or walking across on foot isn't. 
You may not like it, but traffic lights don't apply to pedestrians walking in the road.


----------



## User33236 (30 May 2015)

Just a thought .....

Would this be any different to a car driver switching off his engine and pushing his car across the junction?


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> But that's not illegal. Riding across astride a bike is, running or walking across on foot isn't.
> You may not like it, but traffic lights don't apply to pedestrians walking in the road.


No but they do apply to cyclists of which he is clearly in this video.

As @potsy said would you say the same thing if it was a scooter rider?


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

User33236 said:


> Just a thought .....
> 
> Would this be any different to a car driver switching off his engine and pushing his car across the junction?


Well, slightly less practical to shove a car across! Discussed further up thread - apparently not legal to push car through a red light, but legal to push a bike through.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> No but they do apply to cyclists of which he is clearly in this video.
> 
> As @potsy said would you say the same thing if it was a scooter rider?


Scooters a motor vehicle, so no, not legal.
And no, the fella in the video wasn't a cyclist, he was a pedestrian pushing a bike. So again, like it or not, he wasn't breaking any laws.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

He ran the STOP Line on the road not on the pavement .


----------



## User33236 (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Well, slightly less practical to shove a car across! Discussed further up thread - apparently not legal to push car through a red light, but legal to push a bike through.


Must've missed than when I skimmed over the thread.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Thing is, it's actually another example of the fact that our roads and laws haven't really kept pace with the change in the way we use them. 
Lots of people are getting away with stuff that is clearly wrong on technicalities, and we spend ages arguing the toss over things like this video, where the chap hasn't put anyone at risk based in the fact that it seems like it should be illegal. 
Bonkers.


----------



## potsy (30 May 2015)

Maybe he was in the middle of a 10 mile tt?


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> He ran the STOP Line on the road not on the pavement .


Doesn't matter, he was on foot so he was a pedestrian and pedestrians are allowed to run across junctions even if there is a red light. Traffic sognals don't apply to pedestrians, even if they happen to be wheeling a bike that they were riding moments earlier, and pedestrians are allowed to walk/run in the road. 
No offence has been committed.


----------



## Milkfloat (30 May 2015)

Personally, I think it is genius and not illegal, not something I would have ever considered doing or will consider doing in the future, but clever nonetheless.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 May 2015)

User33236 said:


> Just a thought .....
> 
> Would this be any different to a car driver switching off his engine and pushing his car across the junction?



The driver is then in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle, even if it was propelled by a human at the time.

This opens up lots of motoring offences, although the wording for most of those is along the lines of 'you drove a mechanically propelled vehicle'.

Is pushing the sodding thing the same as driving it in this context?

No idea, but plenty there for lawyers to argue about.


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

Looking at it from another point of view. The position of the high kerbs/drop kerbs, barriers, the island visible in the video, timing phases at crossings are all designed and engineered in such a way to provide a safer place to cross for pedestrians minimising the chance of them being struck by a vehicle should a motorist go through a light or simply lose control.

The rider didn't dismount his bicycle correctly at the kerb mount the pavement and cross the road at the appropriate point, remount his bicycle at the kerb at the other side and carry on, just a chancer. Never ever going to be prosecuted for anything such as 'J walking' as there are many more things done on the roads which are much more serious which if detected are not prosecuted. 

Doesn't make what he did right imo and unfortunately the lack of discipline and patience on our roads makes it more dangerous for all users but especially cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The driver is then in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle, even if it was propelled by a human at the time.
> 
> This opens up lots of motoring offences, although the wording for most of those is along the lines of 'you drove a mechanically propelled vehicle'.
> 
> ...


Even pushing is driving in the true sense of the word.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

middleman said:


> Looking at it from another point of view. The position of the high kerbs/drop kerbs, barriers, the island visible in the video, timing phases at crossings are all designed and engineered in such a way to provide a safer place to cross for pedestrians minimising the chance of them being struck by a vehicle should a motorist go through a light or simply lose control.
> 
> The rider didn't dismount his bicycle correctly at the kerb mount the pavement and cross the road at the appropriate point, remount his bicycle at the kerb at the other side and carry on, just a chancer. Never ever going to be prosecuted for anything such as 'J walking' as there are many more things done on the roads which are much more serious which if detected are not prosecuted. Doesn't make what he did right imo and unfortunately the lack of discipline and patience on our roads makes it more dangerous for all users but especially cyclists and pedestrians.


Pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road, they don't have to walk on the pavement.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Even pushing is driving in the true sense of the word.


So is pushing riding in the true sense of the word then?


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> So is pushing riding in the true sense of the word then?


Not sure, but the origins of the word drive aren't anything to do with cars. 
You can drive a nail into wood, but you would expect to get pulled over by a copper for carrying a nail and hammer through a red light.


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road, they don't have to walk on the pavement.



I know in the UK they are permitted to cross the road anywhere they like but are advised by the Highway code that if there is a crossing available they should use it. Again not sure of the law but even if there isn't a specific Jaywalking law in the UK, it still doesn't make it right and the Police officer was right to have a word, their job is not just to uphold the law but primarily to protect life

If you are allowed to walk on the road it doesn't mean you should or that it is safe to do so. Maybe the law does need looked at in that case.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

middleman said:


> I know in the UK they are permitted to cross the road anywhere they like but are advised by the Highway code that if there is a crossing available they should use it. Again not sure of the law but even if there isn't a specific Jaywalking law in the UK, it still doesn't make it right and the Police officer was right to have a word, their job is not just to uphold the law but primarily to protect life
> 
> If you are allowed to walk on the road it doesn't mean you should or that it is safe to do so. Maybe the law does need looked at in that case.


But it does actually make it right, that's the point. 
Pedestrians have as much right to use the road as cyclists, horse riders and motorised vehicles in the UK. whether you think that's right or not or safe or not doesn't matter. The fact is that this chap didn't do anything illegal, he didn't put anyone at risk.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> But it does actually make it right, that's the point.
> Pedestrians have as much right to use the road as cyclists, horse riders and motorised vehicles in the UK. whether you think that's right or not or safe or not doesn't matter. The fact is that this chap didn't do anything illegal, he didn't put anyone at risk.



How do you work that out ? What about the traffic turning into the path that he is running into.

This is the sort of idiot that causes carnage but comes out of it smelling of roses.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 May 2015)

downfader said:


> So what would you say to Hants Police? They've advised myself and others do do this. Note the driver in the ASL. Ignored by said Policeman


No they havent


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> How do you work that out ? What about the traffic turning into the path that he is running into.
> 
> This is the sort of idiot that causes carnage but comes out of it smelling of roses.


Work what out? If he'd been run over by a driver failing to notice a pedestrian on the road I've no doubt the driver would have been been dealt with very lightly as they so often are.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 May 2015)

The real crime here is wearing a bright red shell suit...in Dulwhich of all places!!!

I'm amazed he wasn't arrested on the spot


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> But it does actually make it right, that's the point.
> Pedestrians have as much right to use the road as cyclists, horse riders and motorised vehicles in the UK. whether you think that's right or not or safe or not doesn't matter. The fact is that this chap didn't do anything illegal, he didn't put anyone at risk.



That is also your opinion that he didn't put anyone at risk and obviously the Police officer didn't agree with you in this case and felt the need to speak to him based on this but did no more than that because there was nothing to do which I thought was fair enough in my opinion. He didn't do anything illegal does not necessarily mean that he did not put anyone at risk including himself. The system of Policing in the UK involves Policing by consent which also means that not everything is written down like a constitution. There are certain parts of the world where the chap in question would not only be spoken to but prosecuted for an offence as they are much more strict regarding this.

There are many other places throughout the world that I prefer to cycle than the UK and a lot of this is down to the attitude of some road users and I mean all types of road users when I say this. It's the reason everytime I hear a car approaching behind me it could be game over as they could be looking at the phone in their lap rather than the road. It's their road for them to do with what they like.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

middleman said:


> That is also your opinion that he didn't put anyone at risk and obviously the Police officer didn't agree with you in this case and felt the need to speak to him based on this but did no more than that because there was nothing to do which I thought was fair enough in my opinion. He didn't do anything illegal does not necessarily mean that he did not put anyone at risk including himself. The system of Policing in the UK involves Policing by consent which also means that not everything is written down like a constitution. There are certain parts of the world where the chap in question would not only be spoken to but prosecuted for an offence as they are much more strict regarding this.
> 
> There are many other places throughout the world that I prefer to cycle than the UK and a lot of this is down to the attitude of some road users and I mean all types of road users when I say this. It's the reason everytime I hear a car approaching behind me it could be game over as they could be looking at the phone in their lap rather than the road. It's their road for them to do with what they like.


I suspect the police man chose to speak to him because like many he has a poor attitude towards cyclists than concern of risk. We've all watched the video, he didn't put anyone at risk, there wasn't any traffic.
You can waffle on about policing by consent and what might happen in other parts of the world all you like, but the fact remains that in the UK where it was filmed he hasn't broken any laws and the police officer had no right to speak to him in the disrespectful manner that he did.


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> I think the police man chose to speak to him because like many he has a poor attitude towards cyclists than any suggestion of risk. We've all watched the video, he didn't put anyone at risk, there wasn't any traffic.
> You can waffle on about policing by consent and what might happen in other parts of the world all you like, but the fact remains that in the UK where it was filmed he hasn't broken any laws and the police officer had no right to speak to him in the disrespectful manner that he did.



I have listened to the video again after your reply. What did the Police officer say that was disrespectful? Or how was his manner disrespectful? Or are you saying that a Police officer in the UK cannot speak to a member of the public?


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

middleman said:


> I have listened to the video again after your reply. What did the Police officer say that was disrespectful? Or how was his manner disrespectful? Or are you saying that a Police officer in the UK cannot speak to a member of the public?


I thought his general tone was quite rude. He constantly speaks over the man when he tries to reply and at one point tells him " this is a one way conversation. "He's shouting through most of the conversation. it was completely disrespectful.
I fail to see how anyone could interpret that as a polite response from the police officer.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

How do you know that Police Officer wasn't a cyclist himself like many members of CC


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> I thought his general tone was quite rude. He constantly speaks over the man when he tries to reply and at one point tells him " this is a one way conversation. " it was completely disrespectful.



Maybe he should have asked the cyclist politely to dismount at the side of the road so that he could speak to him, parked his car and then had the conversation safely at the side of the road. Would have taken much longer though which would have been completely disgraceful verging on unlawful detention.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

middleman said:


> Maybe he should have asked the cyclist politely to dismount at the side of the road so that he could speak to him, parked his car and then had the conversation safely at the side of the road.


No he shouldn't. He should have let him go about his business un - harassed given that he'd not done anything wrong, instead of taking what he thought was an easy opportunity to bully a member of the public.


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> No he shouldn't. He should have let him go about his business un - harassed given that he'd not done anything wrong, instead of taking what he thought was an easy opportunity to bully a member of the public.



I take it the Police do not have your consent from you as you assume the Police Officers intentions were as stated above. "easy opportunity to bully a member of the public".


----------



## swansonj (30 May 2015)

In a person-pushing-bicycle combination, there are two components: the person, who has the character of a pedestrian, and the bicycle, which has the character of a vehicle. The question is, in legal terms, which of the two contradictory categories applies to the combo? Pedestrian, in which the actions of the cyclist in the vid are legal, or vehicle, in which case they are not? C v. B says that when the person starts as a pedestrian, pushing the bike on the pavement, and ends likewise as a pedestrian on a pavement, it is sensible to treat them as a pedestrian even when they're on the carriageway. It seems to me (though I am not setting myself up as an expert) that the converse is also sensible: when they start the manoeuvre as a vehicle, on the carriageway, and finish it once again as a vehicle on the carriageway, and remain on the carriageway throughout, their predominant character during the ambiguous pushing-the-bike phase is also that of a vehicle.


----------



## middleman (30 May 2015)

swansonj said:


> In a person-pushing-bicycle combination, there are two components: the person, who has the character of a pedestrian, and the bicycle, which has the character of a vehicle. The question is, in legal terms, which of the two contradictory categories applies to the combo? Pedestrian, in which the actions of the cyclist in the vid are legal, or vehicle, in which case they are not? C v. B says that when the person starts as a pedestrian, pushing the bike on the pavement, and ends likewise as a pedestrian on a pavement, it is sensible to treat them as a pedestrian even when they're on the carriageway. It seems to me (though I am not setting myself up as an expert) that the converse is also sensible: when they start the manoeuvre as a vehicle, on the carriageway, and finish it once again as a vehicle on the carriageway, and remain on the carriageway throughout, their predominant character during the ambiguous pushing-the-bike phase is also that of a vehicle.



That's a very interesting point very well put. Not sure if it has ever been tested and in this case I doubt it will be but it supports my reasoning above @swansonj


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> I suspect the police man chose to speak to him_* because like many he has a poor attitude towards cyclists than concern of risk*_. We've all watched the video, he didn't put anyone at risk, there wasn't any traffic.
> You can waffle on about policing by consent and what might happen in other parts of the world all you like, but the fact remains that in the UK where it was filmed he hasn't broken any laws and the police officer had no right to speak to him in the disrespectful manner that he did.



what the hell have I just read ?

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the cop was simply giving the bloke some advice.....sprinting across a junction at a red light holding a bike or anything else is detrimental to not only his but also the safety of other road users..

its worth noting that standing on a bridge parapet over a fast flowing river isnt illegal, yet should any passing cop (whos duty is to protect) god forbid should encounter a cyclist on a suicide run....forget it...


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

doog said:


> what the hell have I just read ?
> 
> Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the cop was simply giving the bloke some advice.....sprinting across a junction at a red light holding a bike or anything else is detrimental to not only his but also the safety of other road users..


Woah steady on @doog this is not the thread for sensible and obvious common sense talk.


----------



## swansonj (30 May 2015)

Actually, there's something else going on here too. Even if the cop genuinely just wants to be helpful, once he's put his siren on and, perforce, shouted because he's still in his car and on the far side too, it's going to be very difficult for the conversation to get off on anything other than a confrontational footing. I think that's a perennial problem in encounters between police and members of the public who are in the grey zone between pure-as-the-driven-snow and hardened criminal - how to avoid an escalating power play.


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

swansonj said:


> Actually, there's something else going on here too. Even if the cop genuinely just wants to be helpful, once he's put his siren on and, perforce, shouted because he's still in his car and on the far side too, it's going to be very difficult for the conversation to get off on anything other than a confrontational footing. I think that's a perennial problem in encounters between police and members of the public who are in the grey zone between pure-as-the-driven-snow and hardened criminal - how to avoid an escalating power play.



It was simply a word wasnt it....something done thousands of times a day .The escalation came when the cyclist refused to accept it and uploaded it to social media. I doubt the cop has given it a second thought.


----------



## boydj (30 May 2015)

I had one set of light on my commute where, if I just missed the lights, then next in the sequence was the pedestrian light, followed by greens for two other roads before my road had it's turn again. Walking across on the pedestrian green was an eminently sensible, and legal, thing to do.


----------



## Bianchi boy (30 May 2015)

Totally legal did nothing wrong, once you dismount your bicycle you are a pedestrian, let the police take it further, a judge would have them for contempt of court for wasting cps time


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

doog said:


> what the hell have I just read ?
> 
> Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the cop was simply giving the bloke some advice.....sprinting across a junction at a red light holding a bike or anything else is detrimental to not only his but also the safety of other road users..
> 
> its worth noting that standing on a bridge parapet over a fast flowing river isnt illegal, yet should any passing cop (whos duty is to protect) god forbid should encounter a cyclist on a suicide run....forget it...


No he wasn't simply giving advice. He was rude and confrontational over what essentially was a non event.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

Sara you are a nurse. Behaviour like that idiot showed causes serious RTAs that the emergency services have to deal with and also have to explain to the families of some of the poor victims.


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> No he wasn't simply giving advice. He was rude and confrontational over what essentially was a non event.



Leaping off your bike, sprinting across a major junction on the road (not the crossing) and against a red light is a non event ?.....what world do you inhabit ?


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

doog said:


> Leaping off your bike, sprinting across a major junction on the road (not the crossing) and against a red light is a non event ?.....what world do you inhabit ?


Yes, legally speaking it is. You appear to disagree, we shall have to agree to differ. 
I think that it was utterly unneceserry for the police to stop this man, let alone speak to him in a rude and aggressive manner.


----------



## Sara_H (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> Sara you are a nurse. Behaviour like that idiot showed causes serious RTAs that the emergency services have to deal with and also have to explain to the families of some of the poor victims.


No, people running or walking across roads is not a common cause of serious collisions.


----------



## Hill Wimp (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> No, people running or walking across roads is not a common cause of serious collisions.


Sorry Sara but behaviour like that DOES cause serious collisions. I know from many years of experience and i am amazed at you for condoning it.


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

.


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

User said:


> Crossing the road on a green man phase causes collisions?



bloke ran a red,,, keep up


----------



## doog (30 May 2015)

User said:


> Correct, for once. Ran, as in on foot, pushing a bicycle, during green man phase.



there was no green man , look at 0.12 on the vid the lights are changing to green for the traffic from his right before he had cleared the junction, a green man would involve a longer delay.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> No, people running or walking across roads is not a common cause of serious collisions.


Junction Sarah, not road.

Would you suggest a child should cross a junction like this,just because there may or may not be a law against it.

There is also no law against picking up knives by the blade or catching javelins yet I can't imagine you would condone daft behaviour like that either.

I suspect you would teach a child to get off the junction and cross on either the crossing or a safe section of road, not on a green light in the middle of a four way junction.

The bloke is a fool of Mr Bean proportions and will cause an accident some day...but it won't be his fault cos it's all legal init.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

jonny jeez said:


> Junction Sarah, not road.
> 
> Would you teach a child should cross a junction like this,just because there may or may not be a law against it.
> 
> ...


Again - that is a misrepresentation of risk. Walking/running across a junction on a green man phase, providing you look out for others as you would when walking or running without a bike, wont cause others any kind of injury. 

If you people are so against being on foot whilst pushing a bike how the hell do you ever park your bike? Does it levitate next to you, LOL!?


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

Hill Wimp said:


> Sara you are a nurse. Behaviour like that idiot showed causes serious RTAs that the emergency services have to deal with and also have to explain to the families of some of the poor victims.


What collision? It was a green man phase, You can even seen the lights change AFTER he starts to reseat.


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

doog said:


> bloke ran a red,,, keep up


Prove it. I'll ask the same of you, Doog. Show me the law that says you cannot walk/run over a stop line whilst pushing a bike. Running a light is a legal black and white oddly enough. You have to be seated and propelling the machine whilst astride the bike:
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/


----------



## downfader (30 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Police officer head off, speaking just as myself here.
> 
> The 'risk' is purely the extension and reaffirmation of many drivers that "all cyclists red light jump". They won't care about the technicalities of the law.


And how do you think those biased are going to react when they've read cyclists themselves getting the legalities wrong here? We all have to be clear on not just the law but also our rights. Some of you might have reaffirmed the myths many of these people believe.


----------



## jonny jeez (31 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Again - that is a misrepresentation of risk. Walking/running across a junction on a green man phase, providing you look out for others as you would when walking or running without a bike, wont cause others any kind of injury!?



Excellent. I can't imagine why governmets around the world haven't already realised this and instead have wasted so much of our money on those silly crossing things.

What fools "we people" are.


----------



## middleman (31 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Yes, legally speaking it is. You appear to disagree, we shall have to agree to differ.
> I think that it was utterly unneceserry for the police to stop this man, let alone speak to him in a rude and aggressive manner.



I thought it was utterly unnecessary for the cyclist to do what he did instead of remain at the light until it changed like the other cyclist did who was beside him at the line.



User said:


> Cyclist definitely says "green man". He might have been making that up but, either way, he is comfortably across and on his way before any other traffic moves. I reckon he knew perfectly well from experience that he had time to do it. It doesn't mean that he is not a cock of course but all this rationalising it as a crime is just nonsense.



I don't think it has been rationalised as a a crime as I think we have established that no offence has been committed by UK law but what I am saying that in my opinion what he did was irresponsible and unnecessary so therefore on that reasoning the Police officer was right to speak to him, I don't think he was overly rude or aggressive in the circumstances. I can imagine that as he was stopped in the road, he was expecting it to be a quick word and on you go but the cyclist then began arguing. 

If it was me in the circumstances and I was stopped I would accept what was being said and research it myself or gauge opinion with my peers later on what was not only legal but what was usual cycling etiquette for future not start arguing with the officer at the roadside. I was brought up to respect the Police and wouldn't identify that as harassing me. 

The example I could give is that when cycling I signal when turning to inform other road users of my intentions, I know other cyclists who don't, plenty of car drivers don't. I am unlikely to be prosecuted if I don't but think its the right thing to do and is in the highway code. If a Police Officer stopped me if I didn't signal to inform me that I should I wouldn't get on the offensive and say "But I don't have to".


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 May 2015)

downfader said:


> And how do you think those biased are going to react when they've read cyclists themselves getting the legalities wrong here? We all have to be clear on not just the law but also our rights. Some of you might have reaffirmed the myths many of these people believe.



We also need to not confuse "not illegal" with "a right to do something" for fear of devaluing the things we do have a "right" to do.


----------



## Arrowfoot (31 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> We also need to not confuse "not illegal" with "a right to do something" for fear of devaluing the things we do have a "right" to do.



Yes. This is where I suspect the confusion reigns. Not an illegal act but not the right thing to do. Its a safety issue in the main.


----------



## fatblokish (31 May 2015)

swansonj said:


> In a person-pushing-bicycle combination, there are two components: the person, who has the character of a pedestrian, and the bicycle, which has the character of a vehicle. The question is, in legal terms, which of the two contradictory categories applies to the combo? Pedestrian, in which the actions of the cyclist in the vid are legal, or vehicle, in which case they are not? C v. B says that when the person starts as a pedestrian, pushing the bike on the pavement, and ends likewise as a pedestrian on a pavement, it is sensible to treat them as a pedestrian even when they're on the carriageway. It seems to me (though I am not setting myself up as an expert) that the converse is also sensible: when they start the manoeuvre as a vehicle, on the carriageway, and finish it once again as a vehicle on the carriageway, and remain on the carriageway throughout, their predominant character during the ambiguous pushing-the-bike phase is also that of a vehicle.


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.


----------



## Falco Frank (31 May 2015)

Interesting thread.

Just watched the video once again, I'm impressed at the cyclists skill level, in all honesty.

A few comments.
Unmarked police car had crossed the first ASL white line, with another cyclist in front of him, read into that what you will.
Unmounted cyclist, had fully crossed the junction before the cross-traffic lights changed to green, supporting the 'crossing during a pedestrian phase' claim.
Police car used flashing lights and siren over a section of road with 'sleeping policemen'???

Sorry, I wanted to end on something ironic.


----------



## Sara_H (31 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> We also need to not confuse "not illegal" with "a right to do something" for fear of devaluing the things we do have a "right" to do.


there are lots of things that may seem unsafe going on all the time that aren't illegal - climbing trees, swimming in the sea, smoking, drinking. They don't warrant blues, twos and an aggressive attitude.


----------



## doog (31 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Prove it. I'll ask the same of you, Doog. *Show me the law that says you cannot walk/run over a stop line whilst pushing a bike*. Running a light is a legal black and white oddly enough. You have to be seated and propelling the machine whilst astride the bike:
> http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/



I meant in the literal sense..ie ' ran ' , most got it but I can understand in the rush to prove their point some didnt . If you dont believe that his actions were slightly daft and reflect badly on cyclists then there really is no hope for us all. Actually lets all start doing it and watch the carnage ensue.


----------



## Sara_H (31 May 2015)

doog said:


> I meant in the literal sense..ie ' ran ' , most got it but I can understand in the rush to prove their point some didnt . If you dont believe that his actions were slightly daft and reflect badly on cyclists then there really is no hope for us all. Actually lets all start doing it and watch the carnage ensue.


Yes let's - because we somehow need to demonstrate what a complete shambles our roads and the laws around them are. 
They're not fit for purpose.


----------



## Sara_H (31 May 2015)

middleman said:


> I take it the Police do not have your consent from you as you assume the Police Officers intentions were as stated above. "easy opportunity to bully a member of the public".


I'm realistic about the fact that the police are as vulnerable to the fragilities of human nature as anyone else and I've seen many examples of police officers abusing their powers. 
I don't tar all police officers with the same brush, I speak as someone who has recently been a victim of a serious assault, witnessed and reported crime against others, made numerous 999 calls for police assistance in the course of my work and also as someone who works with Police officers as part of my multi agency team 2 - 3 times a week on average. In all these scenarios I've seen good and bad practice. Unfortunately the public at large will generally only get to see the bad examples on YouTube etc and I'm afraid in this particular video the officer was in the wrong and he behaved badly.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 May 2015)

User said:


> Why do we have this attitude? .



Because many cyclists have an 'us and them' bunker mentality.

Too many are also far too interested in what and how others are riding.

Ride your own bike, and leave other cyclists alone to ride theirs.


----------



## downfader (31 May 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> We also need to not confuse "not illegal" with "a right to do something" for fear of devaluing the things we do have a "right" to do.


You're all making a mountain out of molehill. The Police need to save their efforts for REAL threats and REAL lawbreaking not something they DEEM unsafe. (Capitals for emphasis) 

Otherwise we'd all be prosecuted for cycling on the pavement when pushing the bike: http://www.commonlii.org/int/cases/EngR/1861/97.pdf

The Policeman has not been an effective judge of the circumstance. I REALLY hope you all do not advise other cyclists as to their rights.


----------



## glenn forger (31 May 2015)

I'd say pick your fights Downfader. This rider isn't a safety campaigner, he's an argumentative squit.


----------



## Brandane (31 May 2015)

A worrying thread.
The guy with the bike did nothing illegal, and as an adult he is able to calculate any risk for himself and decide whether it is safe to walk/run across the road while pushing a bike.
Yet there are posters on here who want to eradicate all forms of risk from our lives; or so it seems. As @Sara_H has pointed out, there are all types of activities which carry an element of risk but are not illegal. This is where all this OTT health and safety stuff worries me. I am all for health and safety done with a common sense approach, but it is now being used as a method of control; and some posters on here are falling in line with it. Hook, line and sinker.


----------



## mick1836 (31 May 2015)

downfader said:


> Technically, even morally, he isnt running a red. He's a pedestrian the moment his feet touch the ground and his legs are no longer astride. Plenty of pedestrians will cross diagonally it should be noted, rather than going around the long way



What a load of tosh.........so if you get out of your car you can push it through a red traffic light because you are no longer a driver but a pedestrian?


----------



## Sara_H (31 May 2015)

mick1836 said:


> What a load of tosh.........so if you get out of your car you can push it through a red traffic light because you are no longer a driver but a pedestrian?


No, that's illegal. It's been covered already.


----------



## Sara_H (31 May 2015)

Brandane said:


> A worrying thread.
> The guy with the bike did nothing illegal, and as an adult he is able to calculate any risk for himself and decide whether it is safe to walk/run across the road while pushing a bike.
> Yet there are posters on here who want to eradicate all forms of risk from our lives; or so it seems. As @Sara_H has pointed out, there are all types of activities which carry an element of risk but are not illegal. This is where all this OTT health and safety stuff worries me. I am all for health and safety done with a common sense approach, but it is now being used as a method of control; and some posters on here are falling in line with it. Hook, line and sinker.


Very succinctly put. I agree that the H&S angle is often used as a method to control the activities of others, in this case to bully and harass, and as a general cover all for sloppy laziness.


----------



## downfader (31 May 2015)

mick1836 said:


> What a load of tosh.........so if you get out of your car you can push it through a red traffic light because you are no longer a driver but a pedestrian?


Again, you aint listening... Learn to read. That has already been established in case law that you CAN push a bike, but you CANNOT push a motorised vehicle. 

I will say it again, please never give advise to other cyclists. You will confuse the wider picture.


----------



## downfader (31 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I'd say pick your fights Downfader. This rider isn't a safety campaigner, he's an argumentative squit.


I have no idea about how the rider acts, but when someone is doing something legal and without real risk we have to back them up. One day it could be one of us and thats why we need to be more black and white


----------



## glenn forger (31 May 2015)

Oh please. All grown-up people know that you don't argue with the police. This bloke's like those Free Men chuffers who reckon if you don't stand up in court it doesn't count and they can't touch you. He wasn't even listening to the officer, he was just arguing.

Do you really want to tackle junctions where you have people scuttling about pushing their bikes to beat the phasing?


----------



## glenn forger (31 May 2015)

Goes against every instinct I have. Be polite to the police and finish the encounter as fast as possible. All day long that copper deals with gobby little yobs, day in day out people arguing about their rights.


----------



## downfader (31 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Oh please. All grown-up people know that you don't argue with the police. This bloke's like those Free Men chuffers who reckon if you don't stand up in court it doesn't count and they can't touch you. He wasn't even listening to the officer, he was just arguing.
> 
> Do you really want to tackle junctions where you have people scuttling about pushing their bikes to beat the phasing?


The few cops I have personally known wont respond like that. They will pause, let the person vent for a moment, even step/lean back with placid body language and then calmly respond. There are good ways to police and bad ways. The video make was hardly about to get violent or abusive, he was merely trying to (perhaps a little frustratingly) interject.

You seem to think I am encouraging others to run across junctions. I am not. I am assessing this one video based upon what is shown. I am clarifying the legal issue as I understand it.


----------



## downfader (31 May 2015)

User said:


> And vice versa, and that was a very disappointing feature. The police officer had had all the time to evaluate the incident waiting for the lights to change, and react calmly. He could easily have caught up driving normally without the son et lumier. He could have passed, stopped a bit further on and got out to have a conversation. He chose to manage it all badly.


I can understand though if he wants to be behind the wheel, he may think he's about to chase a rider perhaps.


----------



## doog (31 May 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Yes let's - because we somehow need to demonstrate what a complete shambles our roads and the laws around them are.
> They're not fit for purpose.



Im struggling here, in one breath you state the roads / laws are a shambles (and by their nature risky) then a few posts later you are agreeing with people who are saying we are all becoming too risk averse. You cant have your cake and eat it. There will never be an ideal solution, If the roads were great and safe for cyclists you would still get people abusing the 'system' and pushing the boundaries, which is exactly what the cyclist did.


----------



## Feastie (31 May 2015)

The cyclist didn't do anything illegal and didn't cause any risks to anyone, which would be the only really legit reason for the policeman to intervene. If you feel that crossing on a green man symbol is dangerous and reckless, I can't help but feel that you've missed the whole point of traffic lights. Pragmatically and legally, this is a non-event for which this guy was told off for no real reason.

Anybody still coming up with objections seems to me to just be plastering the situation in pointless red tape for ?reasons.


----------



## jiberjaber (31 May 2015)

The guy in this video has posted it on a couple of other forums, the majority of which are of the opinion he was a bit of a tool for what he did. He also has another video of an interaction with Police, this time for leaving a red light 4 seconds or so before it changed. 



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.

It can be argued whether he was legal or not, but personally it isn't a maneuver I would have made!

*Fed up of waiting at traffic lights:*
For those who are being frustrated by having to wait at lights, you can often trigger the presence detection on the road more efficiently by forcing a 'shorted turn effect' on the loop in the road. 

The loop is mostly tuned to the inductive effect of a larger lump of metal than is present in a bike, but by riding along the edge of the loop in the road (the bit in the same direction you are riding, parallel to the kerb), you in effect make the bike have more effect on the loop.

This works even with my fully carbon bike, and can save you waiting at the junction for some time. If the loop is broken anyway or there i a particular cycle the lights are programmed to move round then this wont work, but for most lights there is no harm in trying


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> ...you don't argue with the police...



You do if you're being unfairly dealt with. Most cops can do their job without being officious but there are a few who like to think their word is final, even when they're in the wrong.



glenn forger said:


> Be polite to the police and finish the encounter as fast as possible. All day long that copper deals with gobby little yobs, day in day out people arguing about their rights.



Some cops need to be reminded that not everyone they encounter has to be spoken to as if he were a 'gobby little yob'. I've been on the receiving end of the bully cop who wants to abuse his position and ignore my rights, that's not something I'll meekly accept while tugging my forelock.

GC


----------



## Sara_H (31 May 2015)

doog said:


> Im struggling here, in one breath you state the roads / laws are a shambles (and by their nature risky) then a few posts later you are agreeing with people who are saying we are all becoming too risk averse. You cant have your cake and eat it. There will never be an ideal solution, If the roads were great and safe for cyclists you would still get people abusing the 'system' and pushing the boundaries, which is exactly what the cyclist did.


I didn't say we are becoming too risk averse, I said that people often use the H&S argument as a tool to control people without any good real reason, and I gave some examples of legal risky behaviour that generally speaking most adults decide for themselves if the wish to take the risk without intervention from the police. 
The road system is a shambles, we have a system that for the most part prioritises motor traffic flow over the safety and convenience of other more vulnerable road users. It doesn't work for cyclists or pedestrians, so to be harassed by when not actually causing any risk to others or breaking the law is a bit much.


----------



## winjim (31 May 2015)

Irresistible twat meets immovable pillock.

So it goes.


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 May 2015)

downfader said:


> You're all making a mountain out of molehill. The Police need to save their efforts for REAL threats and REAL lawbreaking not something they DEEM unsafe. (Capitals for emphasis)



I haven't made any comment about whether it was a suitable use of the officers time, I was just asked what I thought the risk was and gave the answer of why I personally disapprove.

I wouldn't have stopped him personally - which shouldn't be mistaken as approval for his actions.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3722286, member: 45"]There's a noticeable difference between the attitude of this policeman and him of the OP.[/QUOTE]

Also the attitude of the cyclist.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 May 2015)

[QUOTE 3722377, member: 45"]Yes, but if an unprofessional bobby started overtalking me to dismiss the points he was wrong about, I'd be more likely to stand up for myself.

And if he'd said "this is a on-way conversation", meaning he'd speak horlicks and I'll listen and he's not interested in a conversation, then I'd certainly have something to say.

He needs training. He's got a stinking attitude, and I'd be worried about his performance in important matters if he can't deal with something so easy.[/QUOTE]

My policy when dealing with a copper is not to focus on winning the argument, but to focus on getting on my way as soon as possible with no meaningful sanction.

It's an art, not a science, but usually involves coughing the (non) job, an apology or two, and saying 'yes, officer' and 'no, officer' in what I deem to be the right places.


----------



## swansonj (31 May 2015)

fatblokish said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

[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 (1 Jun 2015)

glenn forger said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

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 (1 Jun 2015)

jiberjaber said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

summerdays said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

jiberjaber said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (1 Jun 2015)

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 (1 Jun 2015)

cd365 said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

martinclive said:


> + 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 (1 Jun 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

User said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

martinclive said:


> 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 (1 Jun 2015)

[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 (1 Jun 2015)

User said:


> 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.


----------



## martinclive (1 Jun 2015)

Wait behind a car today rather than squeezing through and the car behind then waits behind me and gives me time - stuff like that.

Ever seen someone squeeze past a car then the car passes them too close in return - that too

Certainly does not always work - but I find it helps - maybe it's just me!


----------



## cd365 (1 Jun 2015)

martinclive said:


> + 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......


He did not represent me in any way at all.


----------



## martinclive (1 Jun 2015)

cd365 said:


> He did not represent me in any way at all.


Yep - agreed 100%

But while he represents no one but himself it is possible that others, seeing his behavior and incorrectly seeing cyclists as a group may accidentally form an incorrect opinion of one of us from his actions
Legal or illegal if all cyclists did what he did at every junction I can see it ending very badly - so personally for lots of reasons think his actions were wrong (my opinion only)
Cheers


----------



## Leodis (1 Jun 2015)

The guy is a nob imho. All this hassle to save a few minutes because he wants to get smart with the fuzz.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Jun 2015)

martinclive said:


> 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.



So my treatment at the hand of motorists is dependent on behaviour that's out of my control? That's absurd.

GC


----------



## martinclive (1 Jun 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> So my treatment at the hand of motorists is dependent on behaviour that's out of my control? That's absurd.
> 
> GC



Not at all absurd - 'dependent' maybe not, 'potentially influenced by' certainly - every day


----------



## CopperCyclist (1 Jun 2015)

[QUOTE 3724127, member: 45"] We're never going to eradicate all of the idiots so, unless Godwin sorts them out, the best thing we can do is take no notice of the inevitable public negative view of cyclists.[/QUOTE]

Godwin? They all trying to do 200 miles a day, or quoting Hitler?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Jun 2015)

martinclive said:


> Not at all absurd - 'dependent' maybe not, 'potentially influenced by' certainly - every day




Well your original quote left no room for doubt but let's say it can 'potentially influence' others' behaviour towards me on the road - that's equally absurd.
I ride in a legal and considerate manner every day and somehow that's not enough not to be treated badly?

Please have a think about the mindset of people who do what you're supporting and its consequence. 

GC


----------



## martinclive (1 Jun 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Well your original quote left no room for doubt but let's say it can 'potentially influence' others' behaviour towards me on the road - that's equally absurd.
> I ride in a legal and considerate manner every day and somehow that's not enough not to be treated badly?
> 
> Please have a think about the mindset of people who do what you're supporting and its consequence.
> ...


I'm supporting a notion that some acts in life influence other acts - and you may well have no control over that - you do not seem to believe that happens - your prerogative,
I believe it happens all the time, every day..............anyway - take care
(and I am certainly not supporting bad behavior or anything else - not sure on your reference to what I'm supporting above)
Cheers
Martin


----------



## swansonj (1 Jun 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> So my treatment at the hand of motorists is dependent on behaviour that's out of my control? That's absurd.
> 
> GC


I think, if you were a Muslim, you would understand only too well how your treatment at the hands of society is only too heavily dependent on behaviour that's outside your control. (sorry if I've missed the point you were making.)


----------



## Smurfy (1 Jun 2015)

middleman said:


> 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.


The important point is that when you push a bicycle as a pedestrian, the bicycle is effectively a piece of luggage, same as a suitcase on wheels. Red lights do not apply to pedestrians, either with or without luggage. The fact that he is on the road and not the pavement is neither here nor there, as although walking on the road may not always be advisable, it is not a forbidden activity, and frequently necessary in rural areas that have no pavements.


----------



## PedalCat (1 Jun 2015)

I recognise that voice; the cyclist is David Beckham. Maybe the rozzer is a Manchester United hater.


----------



## 4F (2 Jun 2015)

13 pages discussing the merits of an impatient dickhead cyclists, the world has gone mad.

I am retreating back to the safety of the helmet / earphones sub forum


----------



## middleman (2 Jun 2015)

YellowTim said:


> The important point is that when you push a bicycle as a pedestrian, the bicycle is effectively a piece of luggage, same as a suitcase on wheels. Red lights do not apply to pedestrians, either with or without luggage. The fact that he is on the road and not the pavement is neither here nor there, as although walking on the road may not always be advisable, it is not a forbidden activity, and frequently necessary in rural areas that have no pavements.



I think its a particular case that would need tested in court given the differences of opinion on this thread to establish whether or not he was considered to be a pedestrian in these circumstances and what i am saying is that the stated case law does not clear up that point as the circumstances for which they applied to are different with the pavement coming play as in the OPs video the cyclist never leaves the roadway. Without that test I don't think we can say a law has been broken or not. 
I still maintain though that the cop was correct in speaking to the man about it even if he didn't deal with it in a mannerly fashion if it was even to advise the cyclist of the possible dangers.


----------



## middleman (2 Jun 2015)

4F said:


> 13 pages discussing the merits of an impatient dickhead cyclists, the world has gone mad.
> 
> I am retreating back to the safety of the helmet / earphones sub forum



Quite a few on here don't seem to think he was an impatient dickhead cyclist, in fact some would put forward a view it was a clear case of Police Harassment by an anti cyclist rozzer who has no business speaking to a member of the public unless they have broken a law and that we should all start running about on the roadway with our cycles beside us rather than sitting on them and pushing the pedals.

Must check out this helmet/earphones sub forum. Can you hear the beeps when the green man is on with your headphones on as you run across the junction with your bike?

Healthy discussions whilst they last


----------



## 4F (2 Jun 2015)

middleman said:


> Quite a few on here don't seem to think he was an impatient dickhead cyclist, in fact some would put forward a view it was a clear case of Police Harassment by an anti cyclist rozzer who has no business speaking to a member of the public unless they have broken a law and that we should all start running about on the roadway with our cycles beside us rather than sitting on them and pushing the pedals.



Some may think that but I would say they are wrong. If you are on a bike wait for the lights, if you want to cross on foot dismount and use the pedestrian crossing rather than acting like a duffus running on the road

Imho it was not police harassment however the policeman should have given up when he realised he was trying to reason with an idiot

For the record I don't use earphones and think that anyone that does is a ****, however this thread is not the place to discuss that


----------



## middleman (2 Jun 2015)

4F said:


> Some may think that but I would say they are wrong. If you are on a bike wait for the lights, if you want to cross on foot dismount and use the pedestrian crossing rather than acting like a duffus running on the road
> 
> Imho it was not police harassment however the policeman should have given up when he realised he was trying to reason with an idiot
> 
> For the record I don't use headphones and think that anyone that does is a ****, however this thread is not the place to discuss that



I'm in total agreement with you, my posts in the previous 12 pages should allude to that. Not going to open the headphone discussion here hence the


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jun 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Scooters a motor vehicle, so no, not legal.
> And no, the fella in the video wasn't a cyclist, he was a pedestrian pushing a bike. So again, like it or not, he wasn't breaking any laws.





Sara_H said:


> Pedestrians are allowed to walk on the road, they don't have to walk on the pavement.





downfader said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnvPMXq3XoI
> 
> 
> Saw this on twitter. What I note from this is how I've been advised by my local constabulary to do the same thing where I feel there is a threat to my safety, or where sensors do not detect cycles. It reminds me of the time my Brother and I stopped a local bobby and questioned why he'd told a kid that taking a photo in public was "illegal". That later lead to an official complaint from my Brother who said the guy had to me made aware of his errors.
> ...



How have we got 13 pages and nobody has considered if he's a tridork (sorry, triathlete) rather than a cyclist anyway? That was a very smooth dismount and remount (actually, maybe that's why...).
Wouldn't do it, do know the sequences of the lights on my commute. Do walk the bike across one crossing on the A20 if I arrive as the lights go red because it makes me half a kilometre or more on the traffic stopped at the red which is handy in all sorts of ways.


----------



## Col5632 (2 Jun 2015)

I would say the cyclist is a twat, done all that just cause he couldnt be bothered waiting at a set of lights


----------



## w00hoo_kent (2 Jun 2015)

Col5632 said:


> I would say the cyclist is a twat, done all that just cause he couldnt be bothered waiting at a set of lights


I'd have waited, for that length of stop. Plus I'd have done it square in front of the car in the ASL, just to piss him off.

I'm still of the opinion he was practicing his dismounts/mounts for heading in to the run/out of the swim.


----------



## Feastie (2 Jun 2015)

middleman said:


> I'm in total agreement with you, my posts in the previous 12 pages should elude to that. Not going to open the headphone discussion here hence the



Allude!
Sorry, just pet peeve.


----------



## middleman (2 Jun 2015)

Feastie said:


> Allude!
> Sorry, just pet peeve.



Thanks corrected it there


----------



## Col5632 (2 Jun 2015)

User said:


> A controversial interpretation of events.



Is that not what happened? Looks like it to me


----------



## Col5632 (2 Jun 2015)

User said:


> That was exactly what happened, something everyone had agreed on pages back.



So why controversial then?


----------



## middleman (2 Jun 2015)

Col5632 said:


> So why controversial then?



I think there might have been a hint of sarcasm in his post


----------



## Bianchi boy (2 Jun 2015)

The title of this post is "police officer with a chip" looking at the amateurish way he handled this NON situation, would indicte very strongly that he certainly does have a chip if not a log on his shoulder


----------



## RedRider (2 Jun 2015)

The whole jumping off the bike, running and jumping back on just isn't a cool look though. Save it for the cyclocross and chill out.



Brandane said:


> A worrying thread.
> The guy with the bike did nothing illegal, and as an adult he is able to calculate any risk for himself and decide whether it is safe to walk/run across the road while pushing a bike.
> Yet there are posters on here who want to eradicate all forms of risk from our lives; or so it seems. As @Sara_H has pointed out, there are all types of activities which carry an element of risk but are not illegal. This is where all this OTT health and safety stuff worries me. I am all for health and safety done with a common sense approach, but it is now being used as a method of control; and some posters on here are falling in line with it. Hook, line and sinker.



Spot on that.


----------



## doog (2 Jun 2015)

Bianchi boy said:


> The title of this post is "police officer with a chip" looking at the amateurish way he handled this NON situation, would indicte very strongly that he certainly does have a chip if not a log on his shoulder



Try communicating from the inside of a vehicle to someone outside and on your nearside with the engine running without raising your voice ever so slightly. The role of the Police is also to protect the public (so forget the rights and wrongs, stated cases etc), he was totally right in what he did (in my view) by simply giving some 'advice' and was just doing his job...

There's a contingent on here who dont like 'advice'...and a uniform just increases their resentment. Despite accepting the rider might have been a muppet some still prefer to talk in riddles ..


----------



## doog (2 Jun 2015)

User said:


> No, he should have driven past, stopped and got out so he could communicate without raising his voice at all



so the rider could simply ride around him and off into the sunset.....? Wow your'e naive.


----------



## lesley_x (3 Jun 2015)

Next time I can't be bothered to wait at a traffic light I'm gonna put the car into neutral and push it across. My feet on the floor make me a pedestrian right?  Should save a few minutes off the commute!


----------



## Sara_H (3 Jun 2015)

lesley_x said:


> Next time I can't be bothered to wait at a traffic light I'm gonna put the car into neutral and push it across. My feet on the floor make me a pedestrian right?  Should save a few minutes off the commute!


Yeah, I think we've done that one to death.


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Jun 2015)

Sara_H said:


> Yeah, I think we've done that one to death.



After 15 pages, I think we've done the whole thing to death.

But hey, I'm not knocking it, I've played my part.


----------



## benb (3 Jun 2015)

middleman said:


> Never ever going to be prosecuted for anything such as 'J walking'


Mainly because there is no such offence in the UK, and long may that continue.

If the cyclist knew the light phases, knew that he was crossing with a pedestrian phase, then I can't see how his actions were in any way risky to either himself or anyone.

Personally, I am already of the view that the law should be changed to make red lights the equivalent of give way junctions. Paris recently allowed right turn (equivalent of left for us) on red lights for cyclists, and it seems to have worked fine, so we could start with that.

The cyclist broke no laws, and as far as I can tell, posed no risk to anyone.
In other situations at other junctions he would obviously have been an idiot to have tried this.

In future though, he should remount as soon as he is clear of the stop line, as it is crossing the line that is the offence, not crossing the junction.

Finally, I utterly reject the notion of collective responsibility. It's pernicious, and anyone who has a bad attitude to a road user based on something that they saw another completely different person do earlier, should hand their licence back immediately. I see terrible driving every day, but somehow I manage not to hate all drivers for it. People that say "I hate cyclists because some of them jump reds" is a moron.


----------



## Brandane (6 Jun 2015)

benb said:


> Mainly because there is no such offence in the UK, and long may that continue.
> 
> If the cyclist knew the light phases, knew that he was crossing with a pedestrian phase, then I can't see how his actions were in any way risky to either himself or anyone.
> 
> ...



How dare you bring common sense to the table!


----------



## Leodis (9 Jun 2015)

This was on Road CC the other week, it went on forever and the rider get aggressive when people questioned his twatish behaviour


----------



## Smurfy (9 Jun 2015)

I've been doing something similar on my commute. If the lights are red I get off and walk on the pavement, as it is a steep hill, and the next set of lights are only a few yards away and don't remain green for long. It works well for me. I don't have to race for the second set of lights, while breathing in all the emissions of the cars making a hill start from the first set of traffic lights.


----------



## Leodis (10 Jun 2015)

Why don't you just wait at the lights? Poor cycling imho


----------



## w00hoo_kent (10 Jun 2015)

I have one junction on the A20 part of my commute that if I arrive as it goes red I'll get off, walk the bike across, and carry on going. It's worth around 500 metres of road before all the various junctions have had their turn and it's 500m I don't have to share with the majority of cars while doing the incline that follows it. If I arrive and I'm too late in the process, I'll sit and wait with the traffic.

The time gain is good for me and it's a bonus not having to be in the melee away from the lights where close passes (two lane carriageway) are fairly common.


----------



## summerdays (10 Jun 2015)

Hmm this morning I arrived at a right turn where you can only turn unless lucky after the traffic coming towards you is stopped by a red light so only 2 max 3 cars manage the turn. I was at least 5 cars back so decided that rather than wait the complete light sequence again (1 to 2 minutes) I just stopped by the pavement, crossed the road and the side road, got back on and was 200 meters in front of the first car. It was worth it.


----------



## steveindenmark (10 Jun 2015)

Everyone has different opinions on this and I'm not going to argue the toss but here's mine.

As an ex copper I can never recall stopping a bike as this officer did. I would have got ahead of him and stopped him in a safe place after getting out of the car. You are then a person addressing a person. Trying to advise someone about how to use the road is much easier if you don't act like a dick and block the road yourself.

The cyclist in my view would have been a pedestrian had he been walking the bike on the pavement or crossing. As he is he is in the road with all the traffic. It is obvious he could not be bothered to wait for the lights. If we were in the USA he would get a ticket for jaywalking. Unfortunately, you can't get a ticket for being a bit of a dick in the UK, otherwise he would.


----------



## Greenbank (10 Jun 2015)

Short version: *What was done in the video is illegal. Crank vs Brooks doesn't make the bicycle disappear.*

Long version:

So much misunderstanding about Crank vs Brooks.

Crank vs Brooks was an appeal case concerning a motorist who knocked someone down on a zebra crossing and the defence team argued that because the person was pushing a bicycle they were not a 'foot passenger' and therefore there was no requirement for the motorist to accord precedence to them at the crossing. Rather shockingly, this argument was successful in the original case and the case against the motorist was thrown out with no case to answer. It was the appeal (which is the Crank vs Brooks case) that overturned this.

The point of all of this is that the wording of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations refers simply to "foot passenger" and there was no reason why this should not have covered someone who just happened to be wheeling a bicycle by their side.

Quoth the judge: "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."

This is where most people misunderstand CvB. The ruling doesn't make the bicycle disappear if it being wheeled/pushed, it just means that someone can be classed as "foot passenger" whilst wheeling a bicycle along side them. *The bicycle is still there being wheeled.* The Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations doesn't make any distinctions between a "foot passenger" and a "foot passenger propelling a vehicle" so the wheeling of the bicycle becomes immaterial in this matter, what matters is whether the person was considered a "foot passenger" or a "cyclist".

However, the wording in the RTA 1998 specifically points to "a person driving or propelling a vehicle". With Crank vs Brooks in mind the person pushing a bike over a stop line at a red light can be similarly classed as a "foot passenger" but the vehicle (bicycle) is still there, and if the vehicle is propelled (pushed) over the stop line at a red light then an offence has been committed.

In the case of the RTA 1998 it *DOES* make a difference whether someone is crossing the stop line at a red light with a bicycle in their hand or not.

Can a pedestrian walk across a stop line at a red light? Yes, since they're not propelling a vehicle across it.
Can you push a car or motorbike across a stop line at a red light? No, a vehicle is being propelled.
Can you push a bicycle across a stop line at a red light? No, a vehicle is being propelled.
Can you carry a bike across a stop line at a red light? Don't know, that'd probably end up in front of a judge to make that decision on whether "propelling a vehicle" stretches to carrying it.
Can you carry a folded Brompton in a bag across a stop line at a red light? Don't know, that'd probably end up in front of a judge to make that decision, etc.
Can you push a trundle wheel across a stop line at a red light? Yes, since a trundle wheel isn't a vehicle.
Can you push a pram across a strop line at a red light? Don't know, a pram is classed as both a carriage designed for use on pavements but can also be classed as a vehicle under some circumstances.

It's not as simple as you're either a "cyclist" or a "pedestrian".


----------



## benb (10 Jun 2015)

You'd need case law to rule whether a bicycle being pushed by someone walking is being propelled in the definition of the RTA.

That hasn't happened, so you can't definitively say that the person was propelling a bicycle.
Likewise you can't definitively say that they weren't propelling a vehicle. Until it's tested in crown court (mags won't do) we can't say.

If you pick the bicycle up until you're clear of the stop line, that should do the trick, as by no stretch of the imagination are you propelling anything.


----------



## Greenbank (10 Jun 2015)

benb said:


> You'd need case law to rule whether a bicycle being pushed by someone walking is being propelled in the definition of the RTA.



Martin Porter QC (The Cycling Silk) seems quite happy that someone pushing a bicycle would be classed as propelling it: https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/606028605336854528 which is why he notes that he lifts his over the line.

My main point was that Crank vs Brooks is irrelevant in this matter but some people seem to quote it as if it is some piece of magic that will makes bicycles disappear.


----------



## doog (10 Jun 2015)

YellowTim said:


> *I've been doing something similar on my commute. I*f the lights are red I get off and walk on the pavement, as it is a steep hill, and the next set of lights are only a few yards away and don't remain green for long. It works well for me. I don't have to race for the second set of lights, while breathing in all the emissions of the cars making a hill start from the first set of traffic lights.



It isnt similar as he didnt mount the pavement,..whereas you do.


----------



## Bianchi boy (10 Jun 2015)

Waffle on all you like, But this police officer had a chip on his shoulder, thats what the thread is about, He was totally unprofessional in his conduct, and it shows the "profession's" standards are getting worse


----------



## CopperCyclist (10 Jun 2015)

Bianchi boy said:


> Waffle on all you like, But this police officer had a chip on his shoulder, thats what the thread is about, He was totally unprofessional in his conduct, and it shows the "profession's" standards are getting worse



The cyclist had no respect for the red light, just like all the others I see. Just goes to show how all cyclists are getting worse. 

See what I did there?


----------



## Leodis (11 Jun 2015)

Bianchi boy said:


> Waffle on all you like, But this police officer had a chip on his shoulder, thats what the thread is about, He was totally unprofessional in his conduct, and it shows the "profession's" standards are getting worse



No he wasnt, a twat on a bike thought he was been clever and was proved without a doubt to be a twat.


----------



## stoatsngroats (12 Jun 2015)

Rule 18 of the HWC states you should cross the road between the studs, and whilst this isn't a 'MUST', it is part of the Rules for Pedestrians, which the cyclist claimed he was, yet actually wasn't.


----------

