Cyclist Blocked on Pedestrian Crossing

[jamei303]

heebeegeetee said:

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)

191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing

• * or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. ***

Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28

The ban on overtaking the vehicle nearest the crossing only applies to motor vehicles

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

[heebeegeetee]

jamei303 said:

The ban on overtaking the vehicle nearest the crossing only applies to motor vehicles

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

The law might make that distinction but the highway code doesn't appear to. The highway code isn't law but can be used in evidence. The cyclist should have followed the highway code. He's also failed to accord precedence by passing unsafely, too closely, too quickly.

[RichB]

Byker28i said:

Standard London issue isn't it?
The cyclists are trying to beat their best time, hop on and off pavements, don't stop for red lights, through zebras whilst people are crossing.
Take the big city selfishness, everyone out for themselves, then stick that person on a bike.

The cyclist was surprised as he thought London rules applied.

Well done the pedestrian, kept his hands down, stayed on the crossing. You'd hope the cyclist might think about his road craft in future, but secretly we all know thats the type who think they are right and will keep doing it.

Can't believe anyone thinks this is anything but the cyclist in the wrong and the ped pointing it out to them.

[skinnyman]

Cyclist was a nob, fair play ped.

End.

[Hugo a Gogo]

popeyewhite said:

numtumfutunch said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

cyclist is a nob, but pedestrian didn't seem bothered by the black cab that did the exact same thing to him from the other direction

Good point

Not really, the pedestrian was x3 further from the cab than the pushbike when it passed, it also approached his blindside.

the bike would have passed him by the same distance, but he stopped

[popeyewhite]

Hugo a Gogo said:

popeyewhite said:

numtumfutunch said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

cyclist is a nob, but pedestrian didn't seem bothered by the black cab that did the exact same thing to him from the other direction

Good point

Not really, the pedestrian was x3 further from the cab than the pushbike when it passed, it also approached his blindside.

the bike would have passed him by the same distance, but he stopped

You must be watching a different clip.

[g7jhp]

Finlandia said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpSQLYcw68M

The pedestrian was at fault on this because they didn't check it was safe to cross, ran into the road and weren't on the crossing when they were hit.

They could have stopped before the car but chose to try and outrun it. It almost looks like someone looking to get hit for a claim!

[TheInternet]

Byker28i said:

Standard London issue isn't it?
The cyclists are trying to beat their best time, hop on and off pavements, don't stop for red lights, through zebras whilst people are crossing.

Don't lump them all in together, in the OP clip all the cyclists on both sides of the road stopped for the crossing, just the one bellend didn't. Unfortunately a lot of people only remember the bellend.

[heebeegeetee]

g7jhp said:

The pedestrian was at fault on this because they didn't check it was safe to cross, ran into the road and weren't on the crossing when they were hit.

They could have stopped before the car but chose to try and outrun it. It almost looks like someone looking to get hit for a claim!

It was discussed to death on the Abby Road thread imo. I can't remember if the ped was under 18 or not.

I didn't blame the teenager for behaving like a teenager, I did blame the driver for very poor driving which resulted in someone getting hurt. Some said the black car obscured the view of the silver car, but that just means that driver should take more care.

I certainly never cross a zebra unless I can see it is clear to do so.

[Mave]

popeyewhite said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

popeyewhite said:

numtumfutunch said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

cyclist is a nob, but pedestrian didn't seem bothered by the black cab that did the exact same thing to him from the other direction

Good point

Not really, the pedestrian was x3 further from the cab than the pushbike when it passed, it also approached his blindside.

the bike would have passed him by the same distance, but he stopped

You must be watching a different clip.

The pedestrian would have been just over 2 zebra crossing stripes away if he'd carried on walking. The taxi was just over 2 zebra stripes behind him. Nowhere near 7 or 8.

I think the cyclist was being a bit of a knob, but let's not pretend everyone else was perfect.

[g7jhp]

heebeegeetee said:

g7jhp said:

The pedestrian was at fault on this because they didn't check it was safe to cross, ran into the road and weren't on the crossing when they were hit.

They could have stopped before the car but chose to try and outrun it. It almost looks like someone looking to get hit for a claim!

It was discussed to death on the Abby Road thread imo. I can't remember if the ped was under 18 or not.

I didn't blame the teenager for behaving like a teenager, I did blame the driver for very poor driving which resulted in someone getting hurt. Some said the black car obscured the view of the silver car, but that just means that driver should take more care.

I certainly never cross a zebra unless I can see it is clear to do so.

Hadn't seen the thread, just responding to the clip. But yes I agree!

[saaby93]

g7jhp said:

heebeegeetee said:

g7jhp said:

The pedestrian was at fault on this because they didn't check it was safe to cross, ran into the road and weren't on the crossing when they were hit.

They could have stopped before the car but chose to try and outrun it. It almost looks like someone looking to get hit for a claim!

It was discussed to death on the Abby Road thread imo. I can't remember if the ped was under 18 or not.

I didn't blame the teenager for behaving like a teenager, I did blame the driver for very poor driving which resulted in someone getting hurt. Some said the black car obscured the view of the silver car, but that just means that driver should take more care.

I certainly never cross a zebra unless I can see it is clear to do so.

Hadn't seen the thread, just responding to the clip. But yes I agree!

It was a long thread
But looking at the video again now - it looks even more as though the runner was trying to have a collision, almost as if it was a set up job for a video

[popeyewhite]

Mave said:

The pedestrian would have been just over 2 zebra crossing stripes away if he'd carried on walking.

If, lol. The taxi was 4 away when it entered the crossing and the cyclist 1. Go and have another look.

[jamei303]

popeyewhite said:

If, lol. The taxi was 4 away when it entered the crossing and the cyclist 1. Go and have another look.

But all the armchair traffic law experts here have been telling us that to accord precedence means to stop while a pedestrian is on the corssing and that the distance from the pedestrian doesn't come into it.

[Oilchange]

I'm wondering what would have happened had the cyclist passed an unmarked copper like that.
Would pc have pulled him over?

[heebeegeetee]

jamei303 said:

and that the distance from the pedestrian doesn't come into it.

That's pretty much what you've been saying. I guess you're one of those that the West Mids bib were thinking of when they had to explain what passing a cyclist safely means.

[Carlton Banks]

That's on Millbank near where I live and on my walk home from Westminster station it is amazing how many near misses there are between pedestrians and cyclists.

[popeyewhite]

jamei303 said:

popeyewhite said:

If, lol. The taxi was 4 away when it entered the crossing and the cyclist 1. Go and have another look.

But all the armchair traffic law experts here have been telling us that to accord precedence means to stop while a pedestrian is on the corssing and that the distance from the pedestrian doesn't come into it.

I was addressing the comment that the pedestrian 'wasn't bothered' about the taxi, when in reality he simply didn't notice it because it was on his blindside, and further away. But I always understood no vehicle was to enter the crossing while there were pedestrians present.

[Hugo a Gogo]

taxi crosses the line without stopping here in first pic
bike crosses line in second pic
bike is slightly closer, but has more room to go round behind the bloke

(to repeat, the cyclist is still in the wrong)

[CaptainMorgan]

Hugo a Gogo said:

taxi crosses the line without stopping here in first pic
bike crosses line in second pic
bike is slightly closer, but has more room to go round behind the bloke

(to repeat, the cyclist is still in the wrong)

I think they're talking about the other side of the road with the same guy that stopped the bike?