Cyclist Blocked on Pedestrian Crossing

[colonel c]

Cyclist is bang out of order. First he overtook on the zigzag lines. [Rule 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.]

Second as he did overtake on the zigzags he could not have possibly had a clear view of the whole crossing. [Rule 193. You should take extra care where the view of either side of the crossing is blocked by queuing traffic or incorrectly parked vehicles. Pedestrians may be crossing between stationary vehicles.]

As well as the pedestrian who accosted him there was another pedestrian crossing in the opposite direction. [Rule 195. you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing.]

I bet that buggered up his Strava stats.

[J4CKO]

Hol said:

Surely all cyclists are up in arms that 6ft of safe distance wasn't given.


Oh wait!. No!. That's only a good idea, when it's the cyclist that wants people to revolve around their needs.


Pistonheads - where the cyclist top trump cards have extra 000's crayoned onto the numbers.

Not saying the cyclist was right,

Six foot is the distance when there is a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle travelling at speed next to a person on a bike, when its a ped and a cyclist then six foot is probably overkill as the speed and weight are so much lower, though I would give more distance to pedestrians than he did, I dont like that attitude that some seem to get like they are on a bloody time trial or some other life and death mission, after all if time were that precious, in most circumstances you wouldnt spend the time to dress up in cycling gear and ride the slowest mode (most of the time) of transport out there.

[Captain_Chaos]

Both of them are morons. They deserve each other.

[frisbee]

Jimmyarm said:

GetCarter said:

frisbee said:

Taxi did the same thing on the other half of the crossing. Yay for double standards!

Double standards would need people to say the taxi was correct in his actions. He wasn't. Just like the bike.

Doesn't that setup count as two seperate crossings due to the island ? Technically the pedestrian wasn't on the crossing when the taxi went through...

The taxi coming the other way sailed through when the guy who moonwalked in front of the cyclist was still crossing on that half.

[vz-r_dave]

That pedestrian crossing is terrible, used to walk it on my way home daily and the cyclists are all going as fast as possible from the parliament square. They come racing through usually and it looks as tho the chap stopping the tt on the bike had seen it one to many time. Cyclists in general are impatient morons there is no doubt about it, they run lights, get in the way and in general have a massive chip on their shoulder to both cars and pedestrians.

[SteveSteveson]

Some of the anti cyclists stuff is tenuous at best, but what exactly does this have to do with cars or driving? Normally there is at least a car involved. This is just more cyclist hate.

[vz-r_dave]

Captain_Chaos said:

Both of them are morons. They deserve each other.

How is the guy stopping the cyclist a moron? At least he stood up to one of them rather than just allowing the morons to continue to race through a busy zebra crossing nearly hitting people.

[MarshPhantom]

SteveSteveson said:

Some of the anti cyclists stuff is tenuous at best, but what exactly does this have to do with cars or driving? Normally there is at least a car involved. This is just more cyclist hate.

Are you not a pedestrians?

[heebeegeetee]

jamei303 said:

That's not a valid reason in law.

Says who? for him to remonstrate with the cyclist it was necessary for him to stay on the crossing.

[jamei303]

heebeegeetee said:

Says who? for him to remonstrate with the cyclist it was necessary for him to stay on the crossing.

In doing so he remained on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.

That's an offence under section 25 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The cyclist on the other hand is entirely blameless.

[off_again]

caelite said:

Honestly I dont see a problem with this, There was ample room for him to go through, it is my understanding that on zebra crossing pedestrians have right of way and traffic must stop and allow them to pass, there was not a pedestrian in his way (until he stopped and walked backwards into him).

In my view this would be like driving up to a yield sign, going with no traffic on the junction when suddenly the traffic that has just gone past then stops and reverses into your path. Its not exactly the same as driving through a pedestrian crossing with a lighted system for road traffic.

Edited by caelite on Friday 30th September 15:32

Ah cool, so its fine for me to go through on my motorcycle then? Pedestrian has passed the part that I need, so I can go. You good with that?

[DoubleD]

I can't believe that people are trying to defend what that cyclist did. He was very much in the wrong. The guy shouldn't have stopped, but the cyclist was being an idiot. You cannot defend him.

[popeyewhite]

Naughty cyclist.

[George111]

DoubleD said:

I can't believe that people are trying to defend what that cyclist did. He was very much in the wrong. The guy shouldn't have stopped, but the cyclist was being an idiot. You cannot defend him.

This is PH where the cycling Gods prowl around in their lycra and funny hats and they believe, genuinely, that the law, any law, does not apply to them. They make it up as they go along and pick and choose what is relevant. They cite the Dutch as their template but as a poster said earlier on, the rest of the world does not have aggressive cyclists like we have who seem to use the road as a race track and f**k off to everybody else.

Hence why reasoned debate falls on deaf ears - trying to discuss anything with them is like telling a five year old he can't have another bag of sweets . . . you get the tantrums and denials, moaning and gnashing of teeth and it's just an utter waste of time and electrons.

[heebeegeetee]

jamei303 said:

In doing so he remained on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.

Says who?

An incident occurred on the crossing, the ped is under no obligation to leave the scene immediately.

[bobtail4x4]

an umbrella in the spokes would have made a better impact.

[bitchstewie]

I don't think you can defend the cyclist tbh.

I've noticed this kind of behaviour has crept so it's not just a "city" thing it's even in the little town I live in, I'll pull up at a set of lights or a pelican or zebra crossing and some bell end on a bike will just charge on through whilst the person is either crossing or waiting to cross.

I guess there's a parallel with speeding in that if a Police Officer was stood watching you know damned well they wouldn't do it so really all the argument boils down to is "fk you because I won't get caught".

[Löyly]

That cyclist got the telling off he deserved.

[FourWheelDrift]

caelite said:

That was after he stopped and turned, if he had continued on his path as a reasonable individual would have expected there would have been room for a bicycle to pass.

Pedestrians have the right to turn back for many reasons, dropped wallet/phone go back to the side they were coming from, they do not expect to be run over by changing their mind.

[heebeegeetee]

jamei303 said:

The cyclist on the other hand is entirely blameless.

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