CTC Forum - On the road

Syndicate content
Discussion boards hosted by CTC, the national cycling charity
Updated: 1 hour 8 min ago

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

18 November 2014 - 10:21am
he gambled and he lost.

Re: Abuse

18 November 2014 - 10:16am
I remember the Ever-Ready ones.
In my case, it was the front one that was unreliable and needed tweaking all the time on the contacts. I think they didn't seal very well, so the contacts corroded easily.
Also, one night some grubby little thief stole the batteries out of my back light.

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

18 November 2014 - 9:42am
Redvee wrote:Postboxer wrote:Just to dig this out with an update-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30085749

The A431 has opened today, about a month earlier than expected, leaving him with a £10k-15k loss, seems it was very expensive to run.

BaNES found money to finish the roadworks early, originally it was scheduled to finish at Christmas which would have left the toll road in profit, just.
So will the guy now be seeking compensation from the council for their failure to meet their own schedules (properly); for misleading him over the duration of the works; etc. And in our compensation culture I would not be surprised if he did (and then won).

Or was it part of a bigger scheme whereby land gets accepted as "change of use" without formal consideration, making it e.g "brown field" and thus suitable for a housing development ...

(But I do admit to being something of a cynic)

Ian

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

18 November 2014 - 9:28am
I wonder if there's a table somewhere of average cost per mile for all European railways, split into peak and off-peak? (not including advance fares, which are no good for many of us).

(Yesterday went to London by rail. 40 mins late in (signalling) even though we (and most passengers on our train) had to change to a later service at Northampton because our driver beyond that point was still stuck somewhere around Watford, heaven knows when we'd have got in if we'd stayed with our train.)

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

18 November 2014 - 9:00am
TonyR wrote:
The maglev that has been running for years between Shanghai Airport and Pudong runs a regular service at 270mph over the 19 mile journey and has reached the 500kph/311mph speed in passengerless tests.

Is this feasible? At 270 mph 19 miles takes 4 minutes and 13 seconds. Can it accelerate to 270 mph for any meaningful distance before having to start slowing down? Even if it is feasible it seems an odd investment, how much electrical power is required to get the train up to that speed just to start decelerating? I can understand wanting to travel at 270 mph if you have say 300 or more miles to cover but surely covering 19 miles in 20 minutes would be perfectly adequate?

Re: Undertaken - on the pavement...

18 November 2014 - 7:21am
Oh i lurve the Beehive as a motorist and as a cyclist, i often position my van to prevent undertaking vehicles at the point where the road has not yet split into two lanes, but vehicles do it anyway blocking the cycle lane.....

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

18 November 2014 - 12:06am
Postboxer wrote:Just to dig this out with an update-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30085749

The A431 has opened today, about a month earlier than expected, leaving him with a £10k-15k loss, seems it was very expensive to run.

BaNES found money to finish the roadworks early, originally it was scheduled to finish at Christmas which would have left the toll road in profit, just.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

17 November 2014 - 11:50pm
Postboxer wrote:Meanwhile in Japan...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30067889

311 mph! Which would mean London to Edinburgh in just over an hour!

The maglev that has been running for years between Shanghai Airport and Pudong runs a regular service at 270mph over the 19 mile journey and has reached the 500kph/311mph speed in passengerless tests.

Re: Abuse

17 November 2014 - 11:40pm
661-Pete wrote:
This idea is from a motorbike forum, but it's the same principle: could be the perfect answer. Has anyone tried this? I might. That was the sort of thing I had in mind. Lights on the end of the carrier are not easy to see from a rider's view and if there are street lights you may not see much light on the road. It's all very well trying to look behind you, but you can't be continually doing that, and you may need to be focussing much more on what's ahead when riding at night.

Re: I Hate Virgin Trains

17 November 2014 - 11:02pm
Meanwhile in Japan...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30067889

311 mph! Which would mean London to Edinburgh in just over an hour!

Re: Private 'toll road' - cyclists not welcome.

17 November 2014 - 10:57pm
Just to dig this out with an update-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30085749

The A431 has opened today, about a month earlier than expected, leaving him with a £10k-15k loss, seems it was very expensive to run.

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 10:37pm
thirdcrank wrote:Now, if somebody was charged with wheeling a bike past a red traffic light, an appeal on a point of law would require the appellate court, normally the QBD, to answer a question like "Is a person wheeling a pedal cycle driving a vehicle?" I really can't see any other answer but "Yes."

Wheeling a pedal cycle on a footway would involve a question such as "Is a person wheeling a pedal cycle driving a carriage?" Again, I can't see how it could be other than "Yes."

In short I agree but IMO there is another point of law to consider.
snibgo wrote:ZPPPCRGD s13(d) defines the offence:

(d)except as provided in sub-paragraph (f), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line;

To answer a question like "Does a stop line apply to a person wheeling a pedal cycle on the carriageway?" I really can't see any other answer but "Yes."

If the question were "Does a stop line apply to a person wheeling a pedal cycle on the footway?" I can see how it could be "No", especially in the light of cycle by-pass lanes and shared use footways which avoid the stop line by creating a separate lane to which it does not apply.

thirdcrank wrote:All this presumes first that somebody is prosecuted, then that the case goes on appeal. Stranger things have happened.
+1

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 10:03pm
Let's look at this another way. ie the way an appellate court would, especially in a criminal case.

The defendant will have faced a charge, either by way of a summons or a police charge at a police station. This will have set out in quite precise detail the offence charged. Returning to the Brooks v Crank case, the charge was failing to give precedence to a foot passenger on a zebra crossing. (That's my summary, not the precise wording.) The defendant was acquitted, apparently on the basis that the person on the crossing was pushing a pedal cycle and so, not a passenger on foot. At the Queens Bench Division, the judge giving the decision of the court said something lon the lines of that he had no hesitation in answering the question "Is somebody wheeling a bicycle on a zebra crossing a passenger on foot?" in the affirmative. Perhaps he muttered something about who's wasting our time with this garbage?

Now, if somebody was charged with wheeling a bike past a red traffic light, an appeal on a point of law would require the appellate court, normally the QBD, to answer a question like "Is a person wheeling a pedal cycle driving a vehicle?" I really can't see any other answer but "Yes."

Wheeling a pedal cycle on a footway would involve a question such as "Is a person wheeling a pedal cycle driving a carriage?" Again, I can't see how it could be other than "Yes."

All this presumes first that somebody is prosecuted, then that the case goes on appeal. Stranger things have happened. The magistrates court in the Crank case ( ) were talked into believing that somebody walking wasn't on foot, but the appeal court would brook none of it.

PS It's possibly relevant that the regs on traffic lights which I've often quoted before on threads like this refer to "vehicle" rather than "motor vehicle."

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 9:27pm
I'd interpret things differently. The same edition of the Highway Code also stated:
You must
- at night, if you are wheeling your cycle or are stationary without lights, keep as close as possible to the nearside edge of the road.
The expectation of the DoT at the time was that cycles should be wheeled in the carriageway. IMO the expectation of the DfT now is that cycles may be wheeled on the footway or in the carriageway.

Whilst the legislation quoted has been superceded, I feel that shift in expectation has much more to do with established practices of the general public than a change in law.

IMO you'll commit an offence wheeling a cycle on the carriageway if you do not stop for a red light.

IMO wheeling a cycle on the footway without stopping for a red light is unlikely to lead to a prosecution.

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 8:40pm
gaz wrote:FWIW my 1983 copy of the Highway Code reads: ...
And it doesn't say it any more, because (I contend) it isn't true. Or, to be more precise, there is no legislation or case law that makes it true.

ZPPPCRGD s13(d) defines the offence:
(d)except as provided in sub-paragraph (f), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line;
The exception in (f) is for emergency vehicles.

I contend that a wheeled bike isn't "vehicular traffic". This is just my contention. AFAIK it hasn't been tested in court.

A pushed car is actually "driven", and may have two drivers: both the person steering/braking, and the person pushing. (Sorry, I can't provide an authority for this.) And a cycled bike certainly is "driven".

But a bike that is pushed isn't being driven. My logic: if it were being driven, then HA 1835 would prohibit pushing bikes on footways. The DfT have told me that it doesn't prohibit pushing bikes on footways. (Of course, the DfT's opinion isn't necessarily correct, and a court might disregard it.)

thirdcrank wrote:The obituary of an eminent lawyer was published recently and he was quoted as saying the greater an advocate's expressions of respect, the more the opposite applied (my reinterpretation.)
Darn. I'm busted.

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 8:30pm
FWIW my 1983 copy of the Highway Code reads:
You must, even if you are wheeling your cycle,
-observe amber and red "STOP" signals, traffic signs which give orders, double white lines (solid or broken), yellow road markings and directions of a police constable controlling traffic;

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 8:14pm
snibgo wrote:thirdcrank wrote:My own interpretation is that if you are pushing a bike you are driving a vehicle but if you carry it you aren't.
With great respect to TC, I disagree. Driving a carriage on footways isn't allowed but pushing a bike on footways is allowed. Therefore pushing a bike isn't "driving a carriage". Perhaps TC is distinguishing between "carriage" and "vehicle".

It seems to me that walking across a stop line at a red light while pushing or wheeling a bike isn't prohibited. (It may be unwise, of course. And it's worth mentioning that skooting is cycling.)

It seems to me that the words I've underlined here are meaningless in this context unless you mean "nobody is ever going to do anything about it." On that basis, almost anything goes, especially on footways. It's fair to say that the Highway Code was amended on the subject some years ago and somebody on here has even quoted correspondence where the authors were asked about this and they replied that they had taken Brooks v thingy as the authority. As kwackers has already implied, this is academic because the likelihood of this ever going anywhere is somewhat less than zero but I remain confident of my view that that case was about the definition of a pedestrian / foot passenger and you don't need to be the Lord Chief Justice to see that somebody on foot is a pedestrian. I'm saying that being a pedestrian and being a driver are not mutually exclusive.

Is a pedal cycle a vehicle? Yes. (Ellis V Nott Bower 1895)
Is pushing a vehicle when you have control of the steering etc driving? Yes (Any number of decided cases, decided on the extent to which the alleged driver had control of the vehicle. I'd suggest that anybody pushing a pedal cycle in the normal sense of the expression has total control over it.)

Although we began here with traffic lights and vehicles I did quote footways in anticipation of the Cranks v thingy stuff and I wish I hadn't. In the context of the Highways Act 1835, a pedal cycle was declared to be a carriage in later legislation. It's possibly significant that they didn't try to declare it an honorary horse, which would have focused on the riding leg of the section. They didn't; they declared it to be a carriage and it would have been meaningless to do so if they hadn't considered using a bike to be driving it. This dates from the days before the invention of the motor vehicle.

The obituary of an eminent lawyer was published recently and he was quoted as saying the greater an advocate's expressions of respect, the more the opposite applied (my reinterpretation.)

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 7:43pm
But isn't pushing a bike over a road stop line "propelling" it and as such forbidden by the normal red traffic signal law (mentioned by TC elsewhere) ?

If the toucan was red for road vehicles, I presume a very nearby approaching or waiting on-road cyclist could legally dismount before the stop line, wheel the bike up onto the pavement to the share area at the toucan signal poles and either walk or cycle across as normal.

Re: Using a toucan to turn right: banned?

17 November 2014 - 7:32pm
thirdcrank wrote:My own interpretation is that if you are pushing a bike you are driving a vehicle but if you carry it you aren't.
With great respect to TC, I disagree. Driving a carriage on footways isn't allowed but pushing a bike on footways is allowed. Therefore pushing a bike isn't "driving a carriage". Perhaps TC is distinguishing between "carriage" and "vehicle".

It seems to me that walking across a stop line at a red light while pushing or wheeling a bike isn't prohibited. (It may be unwise, of course. And it's worth mentioning that skooting is cycling.)

Re: Abuse

17 November 2014 - 6:38pm
661-Pete wrote:This idea is from a motorbike forum, but it's the same principle: could be the perfect answer. Has anyone tried this? I might.Nothing is new. 35 years ago you could by a simple fibre optic link to monitor your pedal cycle rear light. That was in the days when most people thought fibre optics were only used to make funny table lights. So it has been done before, but I suppose there was not enough of a market to sustain it other than as a DIY.

I like to know that my light is lit, probably from using the same Ever Ready lights although a piece of cardboard between the batteries made them much more reliable. My modern rear lights, battery or dynamo, are bright enough and light over a large enough arc that I can see the light on the road behind me, and even in the hedgerows on dark lanes.

Archive

  • Patron: Her Majesty The Queen
  • President: Jon Snow
  • Chief Executive: Paul Tuohy
  • Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee, registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

 

Terms and Conditions