On the other hand
I'm not so sure a rickshaw counts as a cycle anyway. Not if it's like one of those enormous fucking things that you get in London.
(username failed moderation, Tue 21 May 2013, 17:31, 3 replies)

It's a bit of a touchy point
I think the only thing that would make them vehicles is their size. After all, nobody with half a brain would argue that a tandem is a vehicle, although it's bigger than a standard bike and can carry two people. My position is that the size is irrelevant and it's the way they are powered that makes a difference. I know for a fact that whatever the case in other parts of the world, all the rickshaws in Edinburgh are entirely human-powered.

Edit: These are what we use.
( MatJ LOOK, Tue 21 May 2013, 17:50, closed)

Speaking as a nobody with half a brain
I would happily argue that a tandem is a vehicle and it's an argument I'd win.

ve·hi·cle (v-kl)
n.
1.A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance
(unclestinky, Tue 21 May 2013, 19:50, closed)

And a rollerskate?

( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Tue 21 May 2013, 19:52, closed)

two
to escape from the Gendarmes when covered in the blood of your children
(unclestinky, Tue 21 May 2013, 20:03, closed)

I don't know which I enjoy more:
A tricycle isn't a cycle, or a cycle isn't a vehicle.
Classic /qotw.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 22 May 2013, 8:43, closed)

How did you get that?
My opinion is that a rickshaw is a form of bicycle and that a bicycle is not a vehicle under standard legal definitions, but a class of its own.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 22 May 2013, 18:40, closed)

Your opinion is wrong on all counts...
Anything with other than two wheels is, by definition, not a form of bicycle.

Also, a bicycle is definitely a vehicle, as is a rickshaw.
(Kyzia was here on, Wed 22 May 2013, 21:38, closed)

My point
(As also made by benzyl, below) is that the law views bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles identically, and views them as a separate group from motor vehicles. Some of the same laws apply in that a cyclist is propelling a something on the highway, but my point is:

In law, cycles and motorised vehicles are treated differently.

In law, it doesn't matter how many wheels it has. It's all the same.
( MatJ LOOK, Thu 23 May 2013, 3:59, closed)

Maybe. I always thought
the idea of cycle lanes etc is to avoid mixing vulnerable vehicles (?) with cars and trucks.

Allowing cyclists into a pedestrian area kind of implies they are small and light enough not to be any significant danger to people walking about, so it would seem to me a relatively large vehicle like that rickshaw wouldn't count. You could certainly say it is vulnerable though, simply because it moves much slower than other traffic.

Having said that, if a copper was happy for you to be there in a rickshaw, they must qualify.

By the way - is it true that some cheeky rickshaw drivers have been caught with electric motors hidden away under the cab?
(username failed moderation, Wed 22 May 2013, 8:52, closed)

It's called electric assist
We don't have it here partly because if anyone did, they would be able to undercut the rest of us. I think some of the London rickshaws do, and in Amsterdam too.

There's a story that a London rickshaw cyclist, used to flat roads and electric assist, came up here to work a few years ago. After one night, he quit over the phone from the train back to London.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 22 May 2013, 18:37, closed)

Can you take it down a cycle lane? No.

( drimble he'd been white, he'd been black, Tue 21 May 2013, 19:46, closed)

Yes
I frequently have to.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 22 May 2013, 6:31, closed)

Not mechanically propelled = not a vehicle under construction and use I'm pretty sure. Mind you I did hear that if you strapped a parasail motor on your back and blew up the street it was you and not the trolley that was propelled and you should be able to get away with it (and almost certainly wouldn't).
(Benzyl, Wed 22 May 2013, 23:24, closed)