-
The whole 'propelling a vehicle' clause is there to combat the silly ways you think you could get away with RLJ-ing, even in cars. Does 'driving' include:-
I think the problem with all those scenarios is the ability of a driver to instantaneously become a foot passenger. The fact that you have dispowered your car does not remove your responsibility for it and it clearly still is a vehicle. A bike is sufficiently small that it can be pushed or carried like an item of luggage/pram (which a car generally cannot), which renders its status as a vehicle questionable (and it's certainly not a vehicle being propelled in its normal way), even though you're still responsible for it.
IA(absolutely)NAL though so my ramblings here are of little value.
I'm not sure of this one. When it has come up elsewhere some people claim that the stop line should 'obviously' extend to include the pavement.
In doing the above, and getting nabbed by the police for it, I'm sure they'd just go with an inconsiderate cycling charge.
That's what The Cycling Lawyer thinks would be legal. The subsequent ride through the junction might get you an caseless/reckless/dangerous/inconsiderate cycling charge though.
I'm saying the bike remains as 'a vehicle being propelled', which is then specifically worded for in other laws.
The whole 'propelling a vehicle' clause is there to combat the silly ways you think you could get away with RLJ-ing, even in cars. Does 'driving' include:-