Stopped by the Police, did I break the law?

It's possible to be within the letter of the law and still be an arse. If you want to morph into a pedestrian then get off and use the actual crossing. If nothing else it is safer, it's where pedestrians are meant to be. Personally I am surprised that you are surprised at the responses to your original post. The British have a strong sense of fair play, you are clearly pushing the bounds of what is acceptable behaviour and unfortunately the rest of us become stereotyped by your actions. Take the advice, move on, become a better ambassador for cycling.

Legal or illegal, the video evidence and the responses on line demonstrate that this sort of thing gets up people's noses.

No point in being right and a plonker.

If wrong; still a plonker.

Wait for the light.

441 Crank v Brooks

Queen's Bench Division

16 May 1980
[1980] R.T.R. 441

Waller LJ and Stephen Brown J

16 May 1980

Pedestrian crossing—Precedence—Pedal cyclist on foot, pushing bicycle and using crossing—Whether ‘foot passenger’— Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 s 23(1)(5) — Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1971 reg 8

Section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 provides:

‘(1) The … Minister may make regulations with respect to … precedence of vehicles and foot passengers … at … crossings … (5) A person who contravenes any regulations made under this section shall be liable … to a fine…’

Regulation 8 of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1971 provides:

‘Every foot passenger on the carriageway within the limits of an uncontrolled zebra crossing shall have precedence within those limits over any vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to the foot passenger, if the foot passenger is on the carriageway within those limits before the vehicle or any part thereof has come on to the carriageway within those limits…’

A cyclist, who was on foot pushing her bicycle on a ‘Zebra’ pedestrian crossing, intending to cross to the other side of the road, was knocked down by a motor car driven by the defendant. He was charged with failing to accord precedence to a foot passenger, contrary to regulation 8 of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulation 1971 and section 23(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 . On a submission of no case to answer on the ground that a cyclist pushing a bicycle was not a ‘foot passenger’, the justices were of opinion that a cyclist could not become a foot passenger at will, and they dismissed the information.

On appeal by the prosecutor:

Held, allowing the appeal, that a person on foot and pushing a bicycle throughout the time of using a ‘Zebra’ pedestrian crossing was a ‘foot passenger’ within regulation 8 (pp 442L–443A) and the fact that a bicycle was being pushed at the time was immaterial (p 443B); that, therefore, the justices had erred and the case would be remitted to them with a direction to continue the hearing.

No case is refered to in the judgment or was cited in argument .

Case stated by Cheshire Justices sitting at Sandbach

The defendant, Clive Brooks, was summoned to appear before the justices on information of the prosecutor, Brian Crank, a police inspector for the Cheshire Constabulary, for that he on 14 March 1978 at Elworth in Cheshire, being the driver of a motor vehicle, namely, a motor car in London Road, did fail to accord precedence to a foot passenger on the carriageway within the limits of an uncontrolled crossing, such foot passenger having been within those limits before the vehicle or any part thereof had come within those limits, contrary to regulation 8 of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1971 and section 23(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 *442 .

[ The justices heard the information on 11 July 1978 and ] … found the following facts. A witness had cycled to a post office situated in London Road, Elworth, Cheshire from her home. The witness having visited the post office walked to the pavement edge pushing a bicycle with the intention of crossing the road by means of the pedestrian crossing situated near the post office. The witness while pushing her bicycle on the pedestrian crossing was knocked down by a motor car being driven by the defendant. The intention of the witness was to remount the bicycle on the other side of the road to continue her journey home.

On a submission of no case to answer it was contended on behalf of the defendant that a person pushing a bicycle was not a ‘foot passenger’. The following authorities were quoted:

McKerrell v Robertson, 1956 SLT 290

Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences 9th ed (1977)p 450.

The justices, having heard the contentions from both the defendant's solicitor and the prosecutor, preferred the view that a cyclist could not become a ‘foot passenger’ at will. They, therefore, dismissed the information on the basis of that submission.

The prosecutor appealed.

The question for the opinion of the court was whether the justices were right in law in dismissing the information on the submission that a person pushing a bicycle was not a ‘foot passenger’.
Representation

Roger Bell for the prosecutor.
The defendant did not appear and was not represented.

JUDGMENT

WALLER LJ

This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Cheshire Justices sitting at Sandbach on 11 July 1978.

The defendant was summoned for a breach of regulation 8 of the Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 1971 and section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 , for that he on 14 March 1978 at Elworth in Cheshire, being the driver of a motor vehicle, namely, a motor car in London Road, did fail to accord precedence to a foot passenger on the carriageway within the limits of an uncontrolled crossing, such foot passenger having been within those limits before the vehicle or any part thereof had come within those limits.

The justices found that a witness had cycled to a post office in London Road. Having visited the post office she walked to the pavement edge pushing a bicycle with the intention of crossing the road by means of the pedestrian crossing situated near the post office. The witness while pushing her bicycle on the pedestrian crossing was knocked down by a motor car being driven by the defendant. The intention of the witness was to remount the bicycle on the other side of the road to continue her journey home.

The justices accepted a submission that there was no case to answer and they ask this court's opinion whether they were right in law in dismissing the information on the submission that a person pushing a bicycle was not a ‘foot passenger’.

In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing *443 pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a ‘foot passenger.’ If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a ‘foot passenger’. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger.

I would allow this appeal and answer the question that the justices were not right in law in dismissing the information.

STEPHEN BROWN J

I agree
Reported by Mrs Rachel Davies Barrister-at-Law

*444
Representation

Solicitors for the prosecutor: Sharpe , Pritchard & Co for E C Woodcock , Chester

Appeal allowed. Case remitted to the justices with a direction to continue the hearing. Order for payment of prosecutor's costs out of central funds

Wow, read the OP & watched the video and can't believe the comments as there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.

If he had kept a foot on a pedal & 'scooted' across the stop line then I could understand the problem but he dismounted, jogged across to the other side & remounted again.

There was a case of a woman being hit on a zebra while pushing her bike & the driver claimed he didn't have to stop as she was a cyclist not a pedestrian. The case clarified the law with the finding that if you were dismounted and pushing your bike, you are a pedestrian. Prior to that some people (inc the driver obviously) thought you had to carry your bike to show you are a pedestrian.

So untakenname, carry on with your circumventing of red lights & enjoy your extra 15 minutes in bed.

I do this all the time at a main road junction near my flat. When I hop off my bike, I assumed I instantly became a pedestrian with no jaywalking rules to hinder me, cross on the green man rather than wait for another two minutes while fast traffic skims me on on both sides after the lights have changed to green.

I'm quite surprised at the opprobrium OP is getting.

hahaha this guy literally RAN a red light. hahaha.

where's the button to quote everything above? You are not a cyclist, Just a pedestrian on a bicycle. If you want to walk there is a perfectly good footpath somewhere for you, leave the cycling to cyclists.

You failed to stop for a red light. Highway Code 109. Law broken Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 35.

Sorry, but the only dick is you. Mind you if a few minutes of your time is worth more than your life, Darwinism may well kick in and remove you from the gene pool.

Just watched the video.

I'm afraid it's you that's the dick. You're clearly in the wrong.

And it's the kind of thing that irritates the hell out of law-abiding cyclists and drivers.

In my (now thankfully over) London cycle commute days there was nothing that irritated me more than this sort of thing. Just wait for the lights rather than trying to be clever. Or walk to work from Kent and cross whenever you like.

hmm, interesting. if you are walking, then you are not riding across, and I don't see what law you are accused of breaking.
However walking up the road was a little OTT - in future hop onto the pavement while walking and you should be OK

Sorry mate!
I'd love to be able to defend your actions but I can't. Your guilty as charged.

In future if you don't want a repetition of this incident then you must make your transitions between being a cyclist and being a pedestrian clear and unambiguous.
Stop - Dismount- Move onto footpath - Use crossings clearly - Return cycle to the road - Remount - Continue as a cyclist.

Or alternatively get up earlier, set off on your journey earlier and stop for red lights. It really isn't rocket science.

And yes I do know that there is no legal difference between a pedestrian in the road and a pedestrian on the footpath.

i do think that what you did is against the spirit of the law, you were on the carriageway after all and never left it.

BUT,

there is no law against jay walking so i guess you could walk along the road and the police could only advise you to use the pavement. As you can walk a bike on the pavement it doesn't take much of a leap to state you can walk along the road with a bike, and as traffic lights don't apply to pedestrians, which a person pushing a bike is.

The rules of the road relating to pushing a bike on the road and on the pavement are not clear, and there aren't many test cases. Lengthy diiscussion here - http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=71982&start=15 - is directly relevant.

From that discussion, though, it does seem the OP's actions are illegal. Had he hopped onto the footway first and crossed to the footway the other side it is much less clear.

Hilarious. If you haven't got the message already then please go on a cycling proficiency course and learn the rules of the road.

I rather enjoyed this.....the absolute indignation on your part for being caught out and refusal to accept you were wrong. Did you get a fixed penalty notice

This is the equivalent of someone arriving at a red light in their Ford Escort, slamming it into neutral, jumping out and pushing it through the intersection. Totally out of order.

You basically ran through a red light, across a junction with your bike. That was clearly dangerous and obviously not a OK thing to do. Follow the rules of the road, just cause you area a cyclist doesn't mean you get special treatment at red lights.

Yes, I'd say you're in the wrong here and if you still can't see it, you need to stop commuting by bike as you'll probably cause an accident.

Sorry, but I'm with the other commenters on this one - yes, you got off and scooted, but you scooted across the junction, on the road. No wonder the Men in Black went after you

No wonder cyclists get a bad name

Duplicate

What three minutes was too long to wait?

Edit:

Just checked the video and you didnt leave the road, you basically got off your bike approaching the lights and ran across the junction and then remounted. No better than RLJ

Perhaps, if you'd crossed using the pedestrian crossings he would have left you alone. Pushing your bike across the junction in the way you did does look like you jumped a red light.

It's a fair cop.