Cyclist Blocked on Pedestrian Crossing
Discussion
Could this be a new "thing"?
Like the ridiculous vigilante cyclists who go looking for problems and who deliberately put themselves in the worst position possible to ensure small issues become major ones? Before shouting the registration number and "you're on camera / youtube" ?
plenty of pedestrians are very frustrated with cyclists riding aggressively so it really could happen.
Like the ridiculous vigilante cyclists who go looking for problems and who deliberately put themselves in the worst position possible to ensure small issues become major ones? Before shouting the registration number and "you're on camera / youtube" ?
plenty of pedestrians are very frustrated with cyclists riding aggressively so it really could happen.
jamei303 said:
Where does the Highway Code or the law say to "wait"?
Bloody hell, it's just 2 posts above yours. Rule 195 says you must give way when a pedestrian has moved on to a crossing. They put the word 'must' in bold.
Is there anything ambiguous or hard to understand about that? I can't see how there can be any interpretation. There are two pedestrians on the crossing and the cyclist must give way to both of them.
I can't see how it could be explained more clearly.
delta0 said:
Cyclists or cars can not move across a pedestrian crossing whilst a pedestrian is on it. As soon as a pedestrian places 1 foot on that crossing any vehicle crossing it can be prosecuted. Once there are no pedestrians on any part of the crossing vehicles can move again.
Is this a new rule, or am I due a parrot?heebeegeetee said:
jamei303 said:
Where does the Highway Code or the law say to "wait"?
Bloody hell, it's just 2 posts above yours. Rule 195 says you must give way when a pedestrian has moved on to a crossing. They put the word 'must' in bold.
Is there anything ambiguous or hard to understand about that? I can't see how there can be any interpretation. There are two pedestrians on the crossing and the cyclist must give way to both of them.
I can't see how it could be explained more clearly.
I would put good money on a lot of people moaning about the cyclist going doing the same on a full width zebra crossing when the pedestrian has got to the other side of the road.
Edited by SteveSteveson on Sunday 2nd October 09:15
Yes, the cyclist should not have gone, and the pedestrian should also not have done that. But this is just yet another excuse to attack cyclists. If consistent logic were applied across PH we should be saying how pedestrian crossings are a danger and roads are for cars, just the same as any time cars passing too close to cyclists comes up.
One rule for cyclists and one for everyone else as ever. And as usual the pro-cyclist lot trot out the same nonsense about car driving standards being worse etc etc. Cars have insurance and tend to get prosecuted when caught doing a misdemeanour, cyclists not so much. Plus like with motorbikes, the percentage of riders that ride like knobs is seemingly much higher.
Cyclist was a knob, pedestrian did the right thing....nobody was hurt apart from Lycra mans pride. He'll no doubt do it again but maybe he'll learn?
Cyclist was a knob, pedestrian did the right thing....nobody was hurt apart from Lycra mans pride. He'll no doubt do it again but maybe he'll learn?
heebeegeetee said:
Bloody hell, it's just 2 posts above yours. Rule 195 says you must give way when a pedestrian has moved on to a crossing.
They put the word 'must' in bold.
Is there anything ambiguous or hard to understand about that? I can't see how there can be any interpretation. There are two pedestrians on the crossing and the cyclist must give way to both of them.
I can't see how it could be explained more clearly.
Precisely. They put the word 'must' in bold.
Is there anything ambiguous or hard to understand about that? I can't see how there can be any interpretation. There are two pedestrians on the crossing and the cyclist must give way to both of them.
I can't see how it could be explained more clearly.
Also, as a matter of logic, it's highly dangerous.
I honestly think if we all started more consistently confronting this sort of behaviour (by which I mean embarrass the cyclist, not start a punch up!) we'll start to correct the behaviour. We need to make it socially unacceptable like drink-driving.
I think simply calling it out will be effective because actually most people who ride like this are not the white-van driving type who will come over and start a fight, they're mostly arrogant white collar professionals.
I put them in the same bucket as the lawyers and bankers who've been caught evading train fares in recent years.
Last week for example, on St Martin's Le Grand after dark, the lights went red at a busy crossing and many people, including me, stepped into the road from both sides. Meanwhile, one cockwomble on an expensive two-wheeler decided he was entitled to scythe through the middle of the pedestrians (just behind me and in front of others). At least half a dozen other cyclist stopped.
He was close enough to me and going fast enough to startle me and he could easily have smashed into someone he hadn't seen who was perhaps running across in dark clothing or something.
Unimaginatively, I shouted after him just "red light, you
". He looked round with genuine surprise on his face. Didn't stop or waive an apology of course. I wouldn't advocate swearing at people though, it was just instinctive. But it would be good if more people would call out the tts or even, if they're going slow enough, stand in front of them and tell them to stop and move back behind the crossing.Edited by boz1 on Sunday 2nd October 10:13
heebeegeetee said:
having come back from a few days in Germany and Holland, I must say that British cycling seems to be totally different from over there. I didn't see a single commuter dressed like that,
[...]
What's wrong with the comfortable, practical, more-suitable utility cycles and cars?
There are some of us about. I ride every day, and my bike has an upright position, mudguards, lights, a rack, and a basket (yes, a basket, dammit! It looks like the sort of bike your Mum would have ridden in the 1970s [...]
What's wrong with the comfortable, practical, more-suitable utility cycles and cars?
. But that basket is so useful.) Utililty bikes should have all that IMO, and chainguards and internal gears and preferably internal brakes too. No one would buy a car with the gearbox exposed to the elements! But I went into a major cycle shop the other day and among the miles of mountain bikes and Tour de France wannabe road bikes, I counted one, just one bike that had internal hub gears. And that was one of those girly Pashleys with a flowery paint job.
I don't understand people who use bikes for commuting but have none of the practical features above. They have nowhere to put luggage, so carry stuff on their back, making them top-heavy. They have no mudguards or chainguards, and ride so fast that they must work up a sweat, so have to have a change of clothes when they get to their destination. Makes no sense.
It's not just the UK. Lycra rules in the US and other places too (except they call it Spandex.) Holland/Denmark/Germany (to some extent) are the exceptions. If you have poor cycling infrastructure, you get an aggressive, very male cycling culture like we have, with more knobbish riders like the one in the video.
Moonhawk said:
A cyclist did this to us yesterday - but on a pelican crossing (so they ran a red as well as not giving way on a crossing).
That is something entirely different. On a pelican they weren't required to give way but to stop. It's like comparing someone entering a roundabout after you with running a red at a traffic light controlled crossroads.SteveSteveson said:
That seems to be where everyone is attacking the cyclists, but it does not say wait until they have crossed, just give way. What about a roundabout? That says you must give way to cars already on the roundabout? Do you feel drivers should wait until cars have left the roundabout? How may accidents would happen if cars just stopped in front of lanes to block cars from moving on to the roundabout?
I would put good money on a lot of people moaning about the cyclist going doing the same on a full width zebra crossing when the pedestrian has got to the other side of the road.
The rule for roundabouts is that you should give priority to traffic approaching from the right, so completely different. I would put good money on a lot of people moaning about the cyclist going doing the same on a full width zebra crossing when the pedestrian has got to the other side of the road.
Edited by SteveSteveson on Sunday 2nd October 09:15
thecremeegg said:
One rule for cyclists and one for everyone else as ever. And as usual the pro-cyclist lot trot out the same nonsense about car driving standards being worse etc etc. Cars have insurance and tend to get prosecuted when caught doing a misdemeanour, cyclists not so much. Plus like with motorbikes, the percentage of riders that ride like knobs is seemingly much higher.
Cyclist was a knob, pedestrian did the right thing....nobody was hurt apart from Lycra mans pride. He'll no doubt do it again but maybe he'll learn?
To be fair to cyclists there are possibly more uninsured cars on the road than cyclists, and motorists do not 'tend' to get prosecuted, they/we very much tend to get away with it all. Cyclist was a knob, pedestrian did the right thing....nobody was hurt apart from Lycra mans pride. He'll no doubt do it again but maybe he'll learn?
Even drivers who kill tend to get away with it, especially when the deceased was on two wheels.
thinkofaname said:
heebeegeetee said:
having come back from a few days in Germany and Holland, I must say that British cycling seems to be totally different from over there. I didn't see a single commuter dressed like that,
[...]
What's wrong with the comfortable, practical, more-suitable utility cycles and cars?
There are some of us about. I ride every day, and my bike has an upright position, mudguards, lights, a rack, and a basket (yes, a basket, dammit! It looks like the sort of bike your Mum would have ridden in the 1970s [...]
What's wrong with the comfortable, practical, more-suitable utility cycles and cars?
. But that basket is so useful.) Utililty bikes should have all that IMO, and chainguards and internal gears and preferably internal brakes too. No one would buy a car with the gearbox exposed to the elements! But I went into a major cycle shop the other day and among the miles of mountain bikes and Tour de France wannabe road bikes, I counted one, just one bike that had internal hub gears. And that was one of those girly Pashleys with a flowery paint job.
I don't understand people who use bikes for commuting but have none of the practical features above. They have nowhere to put luggage, so carry stuff on their back, making them top-heavy. They have no mudguards or chainguards, and ride so fast that they must work up a sweat, so have to have a change of clothes when they get to their destination. Makes no sense.
It's not just the UK. Lycra rules in the US and other places too (except they call it Spandex.) Holland/Denmark/Germany (to some extent) are the exceptions. If you have poor cycling infrastructure, you get an aggressive, very male cycling culture like we have, with more knobbish riders like the one in the video.
Let me explain why.
1. Cycling to work is an alternative to the gym. The point is that it keeps me fit so if I wasn't working hard I wouldn't be getting a decent workout.
2. My route is hilly so on any bike I'm going to break a sweat and need to shower. Honestly it would be awful trying to get home on a bike on my normal work atire.
3. I carry a limited amount of luggage on my back. Most stuff is taken to work in the car on the one day a week I drive. I'm normally just carrying my lunch and clean underwear so weight is not an issue.
4. I could fit mudguards but I shower anyway.
5. One of the hills mentioned in 2 is a beast and I wouldn't want to try and do it on a big old utility bike.
I agree that without a decent cycling infrastructure you tend to put off normal cyclists and it is mainly the enthusiasts who end up riding. I also agree that enthusiasts are more likely to be competetive and perhaps exhibit knobbish behaviour, I've certainly experienced some from other riders on my commute. It's an interesting point though especially if you extend it to all road users. Would you say the enthusiast drivers are more likely to be of the knobbish variety? They are certainly more likely to drive vehicles not optimised for commuting and given some of the views expressed on this site I get the impression that there is certainly a very poor attitude amongst many.
[squote=Devil2575]Would you say the enthusiast drivers are more likely to be of the knobbish variety?
[/quote]
I think that by and large motor enthusiasts tend to be the better drivers on the road because they take an interest on driving, doing track days and generally maintaining their cars leads to better driving standards. The problem with the Mamils is that becasue a bicycle is man-powered they don't want to stop. To them every journey is a training ride and understandably slowing down or stopping is a waste of energy. I used to run a lot and slowing down even momentarily breaking one's stride at a road junction was a pain in the ass, I guess it's the same for cyclists. Unfortunately this translates into some poor road manners. However, as we're always reminded, it's the cyclist who comes off worse in the event of a collision so motorists take the brunt of the blame.
[/quote]
I think that by and large motor enthusiasts tend to be the better drivers on the road because they take an interest on driving, doing track days and generally maintaining their cars leads to better driving standards. The problem with the Mamils is that becasue a bicycle is man-powered they don't want to stop. To them every journey is a training ride and understandably slowing down or stopping is a waste of energy. I used to run a lot and slowing down even momentarily breaking one's stride at a road junction was a pain in the ass, I guess it's the same for cyclists. Unfortunately this translates into some poor road manners. However, as we're always reminded, it's the cyclist who comes off worse in the event of a collision so motorists take the brunt of the blame.
RichB said:
I think that by and large motor enthusiasts tend to be the better drivers on the road because they take an interest on driving, doing track days and generally maintaining their cars leads to better driving standards.
I'd be amazed if this was actually the case to be honest.Devil2575 said:
RichB said:
I think that by and large motor enthusiasts tend to be the better drivers on the road because they take an interest on driving, doing track days and generally maintaining their cars leads to better driving standards.
I'd be amazed if this was actually the case to be honest.As a cyclist , he should have stopped, simple. I do despair at the amount of rule flouting and law breaking cyclists do, my current bug bear is them not being equipped with lights now that autumn is here.
Most of the culprits I see are the usual low life, followed by hipsters (and get this, the original hipsters are long gone, all hipsters now are fashion victims) on their vintage Peugeot bikes and believe it not, ppl you think should know better, older city gents and ladies!
There are still twunts in cars though with no spatial awareness or playing on their phones.
Most of the culprits I see are the usual low life, followed by hipsters (and get this, the original hipsters are long gone, all hipsters now are fashion victims) on their vintage Peugeot bikes and believe it not, ppl you think should know better, older city gents and ladies!
There are still twunts in cars though with no spatial awareness or playing on their phones.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff