Boris' backie

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Boris' backie

Post by TonyR »

Illegal here but is it that heinous a crime? Its very common to see them in the Netherlands but I don't recall an excess of backie induced deaths and injuries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33681509
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by Bicycler »

P-poor journalism as per usual. Still searching for the "1998 Road and Traffic Act" :roll:

But, yeah, I totally agree it's another of those things which is not dangerous https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... dangerous/
User avatar
Heltor Chasca
Posts: 3016
Joined: 30 Aug 2014, 8:18pm
Location: Near Bath & The Mendips in Somerset

Re: Boris' backie

Post by Heltor Chasca »

I really have gone off the BBC. I'm no politician or conservative supporter but I've always liked Boris. He knows how to have fun and I guess so does his wife! Good on him for being so restrained with all those interfering, controlling numpties...b
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Boris' backie

Post by mjr »

My Dutch bike's rack is rated to carry the weight of a person as long as they're not too heavy and doing so is mentioned in the maker's advertising ("Perfect for pannier bags, shopping and most importantly: the Dutch way of giving your mates a lift!"). Anyone know if that would count as constructed to carry two people in the sense of the RTA?

London hire bikes are even heavier than my Dutchie, so it seems like they could easily double the system's user capacity if they put a sturdy rear rack on them! :)
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by Bicycler »

I'd have thought the manufacturer's claim of suitability should be good enough. Maybe you should go the whole hog and get a seat http://www.cyclechicrepublic.com/27-bac ... t-cushions :wink:

The RTA says "constructed or adapted". I'd say that's adapted :D
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by thirdcrank »

If I've read the linked BBC article correctly, the suitability or otherwise of the rack isn't an issue

It shows Ms Wheeler sitting on the saddle, without a helmet, holding her handbag as her husband stands on the pedals.


You couldn't make it up. He's claiming ignorance of the law about cycling while giving a saddle to a barrister called "Wheeler."

It's the silly season. :lol:
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by TonyR »

thirdcrank wrote:If I've read the linked BBC article correctly, the suitability or otherwise of the rack isn't an issue

It shows Ms Wheeler sitting on the saddle, without a helmet, holding her handbag as her husband stands on the pedals.



Have we got to the state now where saddles are expected to wear helmets too? :roll:
iviehoff
Posts: 2411
Joined: 20 Jan 2009, 4:38pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by iviehoff »

What is dangerous is relative and depends upon conditions. I have seen people sharing Boris-bikes on a few occasions, but on observing them doing it while going the wrong way up a busy one-way street, it is the latter that worries me more for the riders' safety. But again, these things are relative. I am, at the moment, routinely using a 10yd stretch of temporary 1-way street (due to construction works) in the wrong direction, as do many other cyclist passing there, as we have tried the alternatives and they are worse. You can just wait until there's nothing coming and it's Not A Problem.

About 12 years ago I saw BoJo cycling up the Strand while talking into a hand-held mobile phone. At the time, the road, in his direction of travel, was entirely full of standing traffic. Such is the narrow width of the lanes on the Strand, it is very challenging to cycle at all on the Strand when it is so full of standing traffic - you usually can't get past a bus in such conditions without leaving the carriageway. Indeed, even though I worked on the Strand, I used to avoid cycling on the Strand if it could at all be avoided - my usual routes avoided it entirely. But to be attempting it while talking on a hand-held mobile was a challenge indeed.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Boris' backie

Post by Stevek76 »

"Not more than one person may be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/24

Been wondering this since the story broke but the press are just unquestioningly parroting the story so no hope there. The bit I've bolded would suggest this law only applies to electric bikes etc? I know the law can be a little obtuse at times but it's rarely so daft it acually means the opposite of what it is written.

The alternative would mean that this does not apply to electric bikes???
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Boris' backie

Post by Vorpal »

I believe that it applies to bicycles which are not mechanically propelled; that is most pedal cycles.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Electric bikes are not considered mechanically propelled.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Stevek76
Posts: 2085
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Boris' backie

Post by Stevek76 »

Ah, makes sense, mis understood what was meant by 'mechanically propelled', misread it as manually propelled.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Boris' backie

Post by bovlomov »

Stevek76 wrote:"Not more than one person may be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person."


A prize for the person who can make that clearer! The two 'not's don't help ; 'propelled by mechanical power' seems clumsy, but I can't think of anything better at the moment; the person 'carried' could be construed as a passenger.

How about:
A human powered bicycle may carry one person only unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person.
?
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Boris' backie

Post by [XAP]Bob »

How about - why he hell is this in the statute books?

All bikes are built for two, one on the saddle, one on the pedals.

Note I Don't include handlebar sitting...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Boris' backie

Post by bovlomov »

[XAP]Bob wrote:How about - why the hell is this in the statute books?

Parliament had been twiddling its collective thumbs, and seized this opportunity to right an historic wrong and make the world a better place to live in?
Post Reply