Legal question

"Sue White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by the
stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to have
lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem? Arguably
you are not fully in control of either bike.

It's absolutely ages 35+ years since I last saw a bike being led.

Sue White said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along
by the stem (on your near side of course) are both machines
required to have lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

I think it's illegal regardless of the lighting.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"vernon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Sue White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by
the stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to have
lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem?
Arguably you are not fully in control of either bike.

It's absolutely ages 35+ years since I last saw a bike being led.

It's a lot more than that since I last did it, but I never had any
difficulty with doing that.

Alan

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Sue White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by the
stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to have
lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem? Arguably
you are not fully in control of either bike.

I think it's pretty safe to say that it's illegal.

Quoted message said:

It's absolutely ages 35+ years since I last saw a bike being led.

I've done it much more recently than that. :-)

Illegal to lead I'd say. I once saw a guy get stopped by Plod for pushing two bikes across Richmond Green. It was quite fun (for me) to watch this perfectly respectable guy try and explain that he hadn't stolen either bike but his girlfriend had fallen off on a charity ride and had to be carted off to hospital and he was taking the bikes back to the car.

Mr Plod held him there 'til they verified his story....which took about two pints of Pride.

Sue White said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by
the stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to
have lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

Sue White wrote on 07/04/2007 20:08 +0100:

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by
the stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to
have lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

(7) Where a broken-down vehicle is being drawn by another vehicle-

(a) regulations 18 and 23 shall not apply to the broken-down
vehicle between sunrise and sunset, and

(b) between sunset and sunrise those regulations shall apply to
the broken-down vehicle only in respect of rear position lamps and
reflectors.

Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Sue White" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by
the
stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to have
lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem?
Arguably
you are not fully in control of either bike.

I think it's pretty safe to say that it's illegal.

Why?

Alan

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Sue White wrote on 07/04/2007 20:08 +0100:

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by
the stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to
have lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

(7) Where a broken-down vehicle is being drawn by another vehicle-

(a) regulations 18 and 23 shall not apply to the broken-down
vehicle between sunrise and sunset, and

(b) between sunset and sunrise those regulations shall apply to
the broken-down vehicle only in respect of rear position lamps and
reflectors.

Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

But the bike isn't being drawn by another vehicle, it's being drawn by a
cyclist who has compromised control of his bicycle.

Rob Morley wrote on 08/04/2007 14:00 +0100:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Sue White wrote on 07/04/2007 20:08 +0100:

Quoted message said:

When riding on a bus route at night, and leading another bike along by
the stem (on your near side of course) are both machines required to
have lights, or only the one that's being ridden?

(7) Where a broken-down vehicle is being drawn by another vehicle-

(a) regulations 18 and 23 shall not apply to the broken-down
vehicle between sunrise and sunset, and

(b) between sunset and sunrise those regulations shall apply to
the broken-down vehicle only in respect of rear position lamps and
reflectors.

Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989

But the bike isn't being drawn by another vehicle, it's being drawn by a
cyclist who has compromised control of his bicycle.

Would be one way of interpreting it which would mean the second bicycle
would have to have full lights. The other is that the cyclists is
acting as no more than a tow rope to connect the two vehicles together.
The former would require more lights than the latter. I doubt
though that any "compromised control" would cross the boundary into
illegality.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Alan Holmes said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem?
Arguably
you are not fully in control of either bike.

I think it's pretty safe to say that it's illegal.

Why?

Like he says. You are not in proper control of either bike.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Would be one way of interpreting it which would mean the second bicycle
would have to have full lights. The other is that the cyclists is
acting as no more than a tow rope to connect the two vehicles together.
The former would require more lights than the latter. I doubt
though that any "compromised control" would cross the boundary into
illegality.

How about "You MUST NOT hold on to a moving vehicle or trailer"?
I couldn't easily find text of the relevant RTA sections to see what the
actual wording is.

Phil Cook wrote on 08/04/2007 14:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem?
> Arguably
> you are not fully in control of either bike.
I think it's pretty safe to say that it's illegal.

Why?

Like he says. You are not in proper control of either bike.

The "proper control" offence is only in relation to being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol (Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 30)

The other offences could be careless or dangerous cycling but it is very
doubtful they would apply.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Rob Morley wrote on 08/04/2007 14:51 +0100:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Would be one way of interpreting it which would mean the second bicycle
would have to have full lights. The other is that the cyclists is
acting as no more than a tow rope to connect the two vehicles together.
The former would require more lights than the latter. I doubt
though that any "compromised control" would cross the boundary into
illegality.

How about "You MUST NOT hold on to a moving vehicle or trailer"?
I couldn't easily find text of the relevant RTA sections to see what the
actual wording is.

Neither applies since the second bike is not a motor vehicle or trailer
and you are not holding on to it to be towed or carried.

26.
— (1) If, for the purpose of being carried, a person without lawful
authority or reasonable cause takes or retains hold of, or gets on to, a
motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an
offence.
(2) If, for the purpose of being drawn, a person takes or retains hold
of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of
an offence.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook wrote on 08/04/2007 14:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
> [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

>> one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem?
>> Arguably
>> you are not fully in control of either bike.
> I think it's pretty safe to say that it's illegal.
Why?

Like he says. You are not in proper control of either bike.

The "proper control" offence is only in relation to being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol (Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 30)

The other offences could be careless or dangerous cycling but it is very
doubtful they would apply.

"You should
keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or
changing gear
ride in single file on narrow or busy roads"

combined with
"You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner"
suggests to me that you could be prosecuted in some situations even if
you weren't riding badly.

Rob Morley wrote on 08/04/2007 16:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Phil Cook wrote on 08/04/2007 14:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Alan Holmes wrote:

> "Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>> In article <[email hidden]>, vernon
>> [email hidden] says...
>>> one also has to ask: Is it legal to lead another bike by the stem?
>>> Arguably
>>> you are not fully in control of either bike.
>> I think it's pretty safe to say that it's illegal.
> Why?
Like he says. You are not in proper control of either bike.

The "proper control" offence is only in relation to being under the
influence of drugs or alcohol (Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 30)

The other offences could be careless or dangerous cycling but it is very
doubtful they would apply.

"You should
keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or
changing gear
ride in single file on narrow or busy roads"

combined with
"You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner"
suggests to me that you could be prosecuted in some situations even if
you weren't riding badly.

As has been said many times before, the Highway Code is not the law but
a set of simplified advice. You have to go back to the original legal
text to find out what the law really requires. Otherwise you might
believe that 30mph speed limits apply to bicycles.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Rob Morley wrote on 08/04/2007 16:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

combined with
"You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner"
suggests to me that you could be prosecuted in some situations even if
you weren't riding badly.

As has been said many times before, the Highway Code is not the law

Except where it says MUST NOT in red capitals.

As it happens, that same rule has "You MUST NOT ... hold onto a
moving vehicle", which could cover pulling one as well as being
pulled by one.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote on 08/04/2007 17:19 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Rob Morley wrote on 08/04/2007 16:27 +0100:

Quoted message said:

combined with
"You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner"
suggests to me that you could be prosecuted in some situations even if
you weren't riding badly.

As has been said many times before, the Highway Code is not the law

Except where it says MUST NOT in red capitals.

As it happens, that same rule has "You MUST NOT ... hold onto a
moving vehicle", which could cover pulling one as well as being
pulled by one.

Is the wrong answer. Where is says MUST NOT it is referring to a legal
requirement but the Highway Code only provides a very brief précis of
what the law says and can be highly misleading. Thus taking your
holding on to a moving vehicle example, as you say as written in the
Highway Code it could include pulling one. But go to the law referenced
and you will find it is only an offence if you are being pulled along by
a motor vehicle or in a trailer, none of which is mentioned in the
Highway Code. So I repeat, the Highway Code is not the law and is at
best a simplified and sometimes misleading precis of the law mixed with
advice.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Ian Smith wrote on 08/04/2007 17:19 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Rob Morley wrote on 08/04/2007 16:27 +0100:
> combined with
> "You MUST NOT ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner"
> suggests to me that you could be prosecuted in some situations even if
> you weren't riding badly.

As has been said many times before, the Highway Code is not the law

Except where it says MUST NOT in red capitals.

Highway Code. So I repeat, the Highway Code is not the law and is at
best a simplified and sometimes misleading precis of the law mixed with
advice.

So how do you plan on getting out of RTA 1988 section 29? Riding a
bike while pulling another one (without some appropriately designed
thingummy to ensure both remain controlled) looks pretty careless,
not to say reckless.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith wrote on 08/04/2007 19:37 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So how do you plan on getting out of RTA 1988 section 29? Riding a
bike while pulling another one (without some appropriately designed
thingummy to ensure both remain controlled) looks pretty careless,
not to say reckless.

It depends whether it falls significantly below the standards expected
of a careful and competent cyclist. I certainly wouldn't consider it so
and its not difficult to do, unless you are unable to cycle one handed.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell