@jonty: "Relevant to earlier discussion" I have a couple of times encountered drivers stopping at red lights that do not apply to them. Specifically, the repeater lights on the far side of a junction. This usually happens on non-yellow-box junctions where the traffic tails back across the junction and the lights then turn red. Drivers blocking the junction are beyond the stop line so don't have to obey the light - as should also be blindingly obvious to them were they to reflect for a femtosecond on the fact that they are obviously blocking the flippin' junction for traffic that now has a green light. Sigh...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Today's rubbish cycling
(4503 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
@Murun Buchstansangar: As the article points out, the prosecution was under the 1872 Licensing Act, which actually says:
"Every person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine, or who is drunk when in possession of any loaded firearms, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings, or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment
for any term not exceeding one month."Apparently the same law has been used to prosecute people found drunk in charge of mobility scooters, which are exempt from some road traffic laws, including drunk driving (as well as driving on the footway).
Note that:
1) Mr Walne got a conditional discharge, which means he hasn't been sentenced, and won't be so long as he behaves himself over the next three months;
2) The £20 was a "victim surcharge" - presumably something to do with the car he said he didn't collide with - not a fine.From the description of the event in that report, it also sounds like he failed the attitude test. ("The cyclist then didn’t answer when the officer asked his name, and was then arrested after apparently arguing with the officer and attempting to ride off.")
In any case, he pleaded guilty so in the end the definition of "in charge of a carriage" wasn't tested in the court.
TL;DR: While of passing interest, I don't think this particularly relevant.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yes, repeater-light-stopping is a bit bizarre. Happens a lot at the new uphill repeater for the Calton Road junction on Leith Street and also the repeater red going into Waterloo Place from Princes Street - but never, sadly, for those cars illegally turning left from Leith Street.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Every person who is drunk while in charge on any highway or other public place of any carriage, horse, cattle, or steam engine
Apparently, "in charge of" doesn't even mean you had to be operating or otherwise in control of the vehicle or animal at the time. This is mental.
https://www.ibblaw.co.uk/service/road-traffic-offences/drunk-charge-motor-vehicle
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yeah, I know of someone who parked his camper van up in a scenic public car park for the night, and proceeded to have a few beers. Got charged with drunk driving because he was in charge of the vehicle. Something to do with a sign that said 'no overnight camping' so there was some expectation that he would be leaving at nightfall and would not have been sober...seemed harsh but that seems to be the law.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@snowy, would probably been charged with 'drunk in charge' rather than drink driving.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yes, my loose language, you are quite right.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Note also the statement on that linked page:
There is no definition of “in charge” and the courts have been keen to avoid an all-embracing test.
Whether that applies solely in the context of this particular law, or all laws that use the term, is not clear.
Posted 4 years ago # -
After some more digging, I came across section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which states:
36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs.
(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign—
(a)of the prescribed size, colour and type, or
(b)of another character authorised by the [relevant authority] under the provisions in that behalf of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.Note the words "driving or propelling". It does not use the words "in charge of". So I think that suggestion was indeed a bit of a red herring.
OTOH...propelling looks like it could apply to a bike being pushed. But I would offer the following argument:
1) It's legal to push your bike along the footway [if anyone knows to the contrary, please speak now];
2) Since it's illegal to drive a carriage on the footway, a person pushing a bicycle would appear to be regarded as a pedestrian with a wheeled load (as argued by EdinburghCycleCam);
3) No Entry signs don't apply to pedestrians, therefore
4) It's not illegal to push your bike the "wrong" way down a one-way street.In support of point 1) above I would cite Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, which is still referenced in the Highway Code as the law which means that "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement". The act states:
If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon...every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.
The key part of that would appear to be "wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description". Note that there is no reference to propelling. The word "lead" in this case pretty clearly refers to leading animals. Whether pushing a bicycle could realistically be argued to fall under the meaning of "lead...a carriage of any description" I rather doubt (judges are supposed to take into account the intention of lawmakers when they interpret statute) and I've not found any case law that establishes such a meaning.
TL;DR: I now believe that the person who told me that pushing your bike the "wrong" way down a one way street was talking out of his hat. (On the other hand, wilfully antagonising a policeman who challenges you on the point may not be the wisest course of action.)
Posted 4 years ago # -
"When red light shows wait here" sign has been moved more towards the barracks entrance... I was probably within a metre of it in crossing to the shared use path tonight. May have to get off and push - will try and see where shared use starts in case can access earlier. Certainly going the other way it is not clear where the shared usage ends? That seems to be quite a common theme I've noticed - there's invariably an element of doubt / common sense kicks in.... then again the common sense doesn't apply to Cutlins Road and the usage (as a core path?) goes up at least as far as the canal entrance....
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ejstubbs - Crank v. Brooks (was there ever a more cycling name of a case) is what you want - as alluded to by Fimm earlier.
Person pushing a bike across a pedestrian crossing, hit by driver. Driver tried to argue that person with bike was a cyclist and cyclists shouldn't be using pedestrian crossings (slightly odd defence in that it appears to be admitting to seeing the person and running them over anyway, because if they shouldn't be there then surely they can't exist or something).
Waller LJ in the judgement, "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 passenger"
Posted 4 years ago # -
The drunk cycling one is odd - I'd suggest there was an easy appeal that the Road Traffic Act 1988, s.30, has superceded the 1872 Act. "A person who, when riding a cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs (that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an offence."
Posted 4 years ago # -
@wilmington's cow: "I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger".
Has an unintended "not" crept in there, or am I failing to read the sentence properly?
Thanks for the reference, in any case.
As for the RTA superceding the HA, my understanding is that it does so only if it specifically states that in the later act. The fact that the RTA creates another offence doesn't of itself remove the offence created earlier by the HA. I'd have thought.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@twinspark: The first shared use sign is opposite the junction with Elliot Place next to the little-if-ever-used gate to the cavalry barracks. I think if you join the footway at the entrance to the infantry barracks - which is the main operational entrance these days - then for the first 100m or so you will not be on the shared use path :(
That is supported by OSM (usual caveats apply). If only there was an easy way to look these things up on the web site of whoever puts them in place. Oh, that would be Edinburgh City Council... The council atlas has layers for core paths, quiet routes and cycle parking, but not shared use paths :(
IMO it would be helpful if there was specific signage to indicate the start and end of a shared use path, like there is for bus lanes. The way they're signed at the moment in places such as that being discussed leaves it pretty vague and open to conflicting interpretations.
(Interesting[?] factoid: Google shows a Costa Coffee in the infantry barracks. I've not yet tried popping in for an espresso and biscotto.)
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ejstubbs
"
IMO it would be helpful if there was specific signage to indicate the start and end of a shared use path, like there is for bus lanes. The way they're signed at the moment in places such as that being discussed leaves it pretty vague and open to conflicting interpretations.
"+1
There is a Costa in Fort George.... but it's open to the Public. Possible MoD have a contract for franchises?
Posted 4 years ago # -
The 2 bikes who filtered down the outside at the George St/St Andrew Sq junction on the cobbles as the lights were changing green, one of whom then turned out to be turning left. They were lucky they found an aware bunch of drivers just behind them.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yesterday going home time, I often get off the bike at the top of Haymarket Yards and walk it along to the bike racks at the station rather than negotiate the lights and traffic on Haymarket Terrace. As I was pushing it east along the westbound tram platform, a chap came riding east towards me, on the platform, at speed, weaving around the thankfully few people on the platform (a tram has just left).
Tosser. Inconsiderate poltroon.Posted 4 years ago # -
@ejstubbs: "I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger".
I think in this case it must mean that "it cannot be used as an argument that the was not a foot passenger."
Posted 4 years ago # -
@ejstubbs @paulmilne, aye, exactly. The 'not' is correct, double negative with 'unarguable'. Just a judge being more florid than necessary (not something we as lawyers are ever guilty of. Oh no).
Posted 4 years ago # -
@paulmilne: Thanks, so the key to understanding it is in the use of the word "unarguable" to mean "not a valid argument" rather than "not open to disagreement; indisputable" as the OED would have it. Once again legal eagles seem to use words to mean what they want them to mean. What fun they must have.
@Wilmington's Cow: Thanks for the pointer to Crank vs Brooks. That lead me to this rather enlightening thread on the Cycling UK forum, which included a reference to section 129 (5) of the Roads Scotland Act 1984 which specifically excludes a pedal cycle which is not being ridden from being subject to the prohibition against driving on the footway. So, in this country at least, it is specifically permitted under statue law to push your bike on the pavement. Whoop-de-doo.
{I would note that both Crank vs Brooks and the above act post-date the dodgy advice I was given about pushing my bike the "wrong" way down a one-way street.)
Posted 4 years ago # -
@twinspark: Regarding Cultins Road, the shared use signs at the north end only extend as far as the first entrance in to the Hermiston Gate service area (the one with the oh-so-tempting Decathlon sign within). I believe that they're there in order to allow cyclists to turn south along Cultins Road from the junction with Hermiston Gait. That section is otherwise northbound only - although it's not actually signed as a one way street, no other traffic is allowed to turn in there and both lanes at the throat of the junction are northbound only (buses only turning right). Bit of an oddity.
I think the question of whether cyclists have to obey traffic laws on sections of Core Path which run along roads has been raised on here before. I suspect that they do, otherwise there wouldn't be any need for that short stretch of shared use path at the north end of Cultins Road (otherwise, since it's a Core Path, cyclists could exercise their right to ride responsibly along the footway). I think it would be helpful to get some definitive guidance on this point but so far my fitful researches have turned up nothing useful.
Posted 4 years ago # -
"Once again legal eagles seem to use words to mean what they want them to mean. What fun they must have."
Thanks.
If I get time I can do the definitive guidance. The assertion of, "I suspect that they do" is half right. Cyclists should abide by the rules regarding that piece of pavement - if a core path runs alongside a road, and the road has roadworks, with a stop light etc, that stop light doesn't apply to the path. Like I say, I may have time at the weekend.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Posted 4 years ago #
-
@Wilmington's Cow: The issue which was raised on here before was concisely summed up by jonty (on page 293 of the "Today's rubbish driving" thread) as follows:
I keep hearing about core paths in urban areas being used as a way of avoiding other signage/traffic law on this forum but never anywhere else. Is there any legal precedent which establishes taking access on a core path in a way which violates road traffic law counts as 'responsible' under the Access Code?
This prompted a bit of debate but no definitive conclusion was reached AFAICS.
An annoying number of the hits that Google turns up when attempting to research the question online seem to be 404.
Posted 4 years ago # -
If I knew my question was going to be cited later I would have taken the time to phrase it better!
Posted 4 years ago # -
Ah, that's actually a slightly easier question to answer, but I'll still need to write it all down to make it make logical sense.
In short, there isn't 'legal precedent' in the form of a court case on Core Paths, but that's actually because the legislation is pretty clear (and, the offences it renders non-offences, such as riding on the pavement, are so low-key as to never get to court, so there's a practical reason).
Expect a discourse on legislative theory and practice in the next few days!
Posted 4 years ago # -
This is another incident that more properly belongs in the currently imaginary "Today's rubbish bicycle" thread, that I may yet start.
Rubbish cycling brought to you by the child who was cycling to school, but who appeared from round the corner of a wall and nearly crashed into me. "Almost", because I avoided the crash by application of
MAD SKILLZ.Unfortunately said mad skillz resulted in the total collapse of the forks of my lovely sparkly purple recumbent, of which I am hugely fond and about which I am now desperately sad and annoyed, and agog at the eyewatering repair bill that I can really do without right now.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Chris Froome
EDIT: Probably shouldn’t be so flippant as it seems to have been a pretty horrendous crash. Healing vibes.Posted 4 years ago # -
Some context for those who don't follow road cycling:
Posted 4 years ago # -
I am now desperately sad and annoyed
Would you like a poem or a painting? Sounds like nothing else will do.
Posted 4 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
