Is a bicycle a vehicle?

[danfoto]

Can anyone please refer me to the legislation which defines whether or not, according to English law, a bicycle is a vehicle? I was always under the impression that generally it is not, although for the purposes of some Acts it is, but I am led to believe that nowadays that is not the case.

I would be interested to see what the relevant law actually says.

[GrahamNR17]

It's a vehicle as far as the English language is concerned, certainly according to the three dictionarys I have at hand. On that basis alone you'd be hard pushed to consider it not a vehicle, under most circumstances.

I gather, though don't know for sure, that the Road traffic Act considers it a vehicle, though it has several categories of vehicles.

Anyway, what have you done wrong?

[beachcomber]

I don't remember a legal definition for a vehicle. I would suggest that it may include any conveyance made or adapted for the carriage of persons or goods. Not an animal, but a conveyance pulled by an animal could be a vehicle.
Motorvehicles are covered by the term mechanically propelled vehicles.I think this also covers such things as an electrically propelled delivery cart (as used in the past by the Royal Mail) where the operator walks whilst steering and operating the machine by handle.
As there are often new inventions which come along such as the Sinclair C5,electrically assisted cycles, Segway etc the law regarding what is a vehicle is often open to legal interpretation.
In a nutshell I would say that a cycle if definately a vehicle.
Perhaps if you give more details, forum members would be able to give a more enlightened answer.

Over to you TC.

[byegad]

IIRC a bike is a carriage not a vehicle in law. What differences this makes is a question for a lawyer.

[broadway]

The highway code says that a no vehicles sign, red circle with no vehicles, means "no vehicles except bicyles being pushed".

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /index.htm

"signs giving orders"

The rules for cyclists also talk about it being a vehicle.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070304

[Wilburtron]

To further confuse things I believe all motorbikes go down as 'bicycles' on the V5C registration form...

[snibgo]

A bike is a vehicle and a carriage. See thirdcrank here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=46809&p=385552&hilit=Taylor+v+Goodwin#p385552

There is (it seems to me) confusion about a bike being pushed, because then the person is a pedestrian (not a cyclist), and the bike becomes magically not a vehicle.

[stewartpratt]

There is (it seems to me) confusion about a bike being pushed, because then the person is a pedestrian (not a cyclist), and the bike becomes magically not a vehicle.

If the Highway Code defines the "no vehicles" sign as meaning "no vehicles except bicycles being pushed" then this implicitly defines a bicycle as a vehicle regardless of whether it is being ridden or pushed.

(FWIW it's my understanding that a bicycle is, at all times, a vehicle both linguistically and legally - though of course IANAL.)

[Anglian]

Can anyone please refer me to the legislation which defines whether or not, according to English law, a bicycle is a vehicle? I was always under the impression that generally it is not, although for the purposes of some Acts it is, but I am led to believe that nowadays that is not the case.

I would be interested to see what the relevant law actually says.

A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator.

More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle#Legal_requirements

In any reasonable definition, it is hard to argue that a bicycle, a machine for transporting people, is not a vehicle.

Regards.
Anglian.

[kwackers]

In any reasonable definition, it is hard to argue that a bicycle, a machine for transporting people, is not a vehicle.

Roller skates, skateboard, old chair on castors...

When does something with 'wheels' become a machine? Does it need pedals? If so could I legally remove the drive chain from my bicycle and propel myself with impunity by kicking?

It all seem fairly arbitrary to me...

[snibgo]

It is somewhat arbitrary, because Acts of Parliament are examined closely by expensive people in wigs, but only when mucho money is involved.

"Riding a bike" includes freewheeling, and scootering along with one foot on a pedal. But a scooter isn't a bike, because it doesn't have pedals.

If you removed your pedals (and chain), I reckon it wouldn't be a bike. But don't quote me.

[kwackers]

If you removed your pedals (and chain), I reckon it wouldn't be a bike. But don't quote me.

I think you're right.

Turns out the definition of a machine is quite simple:-

A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form.

So basically if you can't apply mechanical energy (i.e. the pedals no longer drive the wheel) then it's not technically a machine and thus you simply become a pedestrian.
Handy to know if your chain snaps!

I'm off to find a hill and traffic lights for a bit of legalised RLJ'ing. Send cake (and a file)

[Mick F]

If you removed your pedals (and chain), I reckon it wouldn't be a bike. But don't quote me.

That's the way I look at it too.

Yonks ago when I did JOGLE, I took the train from Glasgow to Wick via Inverness. My bike was in a bag, and therefore "luggage" so I didn't have to worry about not being allowed on the Wick train.

A bike is a vehicle, but only if it's complete and rideable and therefore capable of being a vehicle. Take bits off and it ceases to be a viable form of transport.

[danfoto]

Can anyone please refer me to the legislation which defines whether or not, according to English law, a bicycle is a vehicle? I was always under the impression that generally it is not, although for the purposes of some Acts it is, but I am led to believe that nowadays that is not the case.

I would be interested to see what the relevant law actually says.

A bicycle is a vehicle according to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The UK is a signatory of this convention. The same convention considers that the person controlling a bicycle, whether riding or not, is an operator.

More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle#Legal_requirements

In any reasonable definition, it is hard to argue that a bicycle, a machine for transporting people, is not a vehicle.

Regards.
Anglian.

Thanks Anglian, that's the answer AFAIC. I've always been under the impression that whether a bicycle was a vehicle as far as English law is concerned was down to which Act(s) were relevant to the circumstances, and I knew that legally it is/was a "carriage", but it occurred to me that I had no idea what the definitve legislation is. Hence the question

[stewartpratt]

If you removed your pedals (and chain), I reckon it wouldn't be a bike. But don't quote me.

So a child's balance bike (or an antique hobby horse) is not a bike...? It's debatable, but personally I would disagree - it's a bike, it looks like a bike and quacks like a bike, it just has force applied in a different way.

A bike is a vehicle, but only if it's complete and rideable and therefore capable of being a vehicle. Take bits off and it ceases to be a viable form of transport.

Ridability does not require completeness, though (see above). Take one or both wheels off and I agree with you, it's no longer a vehicle any more than the box of bits that Westfield deliver when you order one of their cars is. But changing the motive mechanism, I would argue, doesn't cause it not to be a vehicle. If you took the engine out of a car, put a hole in the floor and scooted it along Flintstone-style, I think it's clearly still a vehicle.