[Closed] Bikes on zebras

Entitled how? Riding across a zebra is a grey area I think, but fairly sure the laws on stopping for people on zebras don't apply to cyclists riding across them. Though what were you going to do, not brake and run her down?

Was it a zebra or was it a tocan or puffin

Yes, the law clearly states you can run cyclists over who are using zebra crossings.

[img] [/img]

It's specifically a pedestrian crossing, legally.

But she can dismount and instantly become a pedestrian, so I figure it's essentially the same thing, I don't see any practical or common sense reason why she should hop off to become a ped, cross then hop back on when it makes no difference to you or anyone else whether she's on the bike or not...

And if they were a pedestrian? Not sure I understand the OPs question.

You don't have a Highway Code handy, yet you do have STW.
How does that work?
https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code

But she can dismount and instantly become a pedestrian, so I figure it's essentially the same thing, I don't see any practical or common sense reason why she should hop off to become a ped, cross then hop back on when it makes no difference to you or anyone else whether she's on the bike or not...

I think this is another case of riding appropriately. If the cyclist approaches the crossing too fast, or not clear in their intended actions then there is less time for the the driver to react.

It does mean that the rider in most cases is riding on the pavement, up to, and after the crossing.

Seen it often cause problems in London town.

Yes, technically you're probably not legally allowed to ride a bike over a pedestrian crossing. Now, I always get off my bike and wheel it to cross the zebra that links up two sections of towpath on my commute home. I've always feel a bit daft doing it, though, so thank you, OP, for demonstrating that there really are people sufficiently small-minded and pissy to give an actual **** about whether or not I wheel my bike over.

Jesus. 🙄

I don't see any practical or common sense reason why she should hop off to become a ped, cross then hop back on when it makes no difference to you or anyone else whether she's on the bike or not..

I would probably have said the same before this morning, but she didn't really pause when she suddenly turned onto the crossing from the pavement and crossed at a speed greater than a (walking) pedestrian. Most pedestrians tend to stop/pause and look before setting foot. She certainly could have taken more care, for everyones sake... [unjustified-speculation]but then again she was probably more interested in the music from her headphones.[/unjustified-speculation]

I thought this was going to be similar to the 'Bikes on a Porsche' thread. Disappointed.

so thank you, OP, for demonstrating that there really are people sufficiently small-minded and pissy to give an actual **** about whether or not I wheel my bike over or not.

Not at all pissy or small-minded actually, just curious as to what the legalities were. On another day it could have ended up a collision. It helps if all follow the same rules and play nicely. 😀

I would probably have said the same before this morning, but she didn't really pause when she suddenly turned onto the crossing from the pavement and crossed at a speed greater than a (walking) pedestrian. Most pedestrians tend to stop/pause and look before setting foot. She certainly could have taken more care, for everyones sake... [unjustified-speculation]but then again she was probably more interested in the music from her headphones.[/unjustified-speculation]

Whatever the law/Daily Mail says, if she continues to ride around without looking where she's going and without risk assessment before making a manoeuvre into the road then sooner or later she'll get hit...

I'm against compulsory cycling training but very, very pro cycling training when I hear/see riding of this quality...

I thought this was going to be similar to the 'Bikes on a Porsche' thread. Disappointed.

Reeled you in. 🙂

[b]I'm against compulsory cycling training[/b] but very, very pro cycling training when I hear/see riding of this quality...

Why Brooess?

IME even good riders gain something from training, shirley, it's better if riders all have a standard to aim for.

she didn't really pause when she suddenly turned onto the crossing from the pavement

If she was riding on the pavement, she was breaking the law to start with unless it was a shared-use area. I'm not sure that THC covers this eventuality; by extension, presumably she shouldn't be using a pedestrian crossing either. Clue's in the name.

However, you shouldn't just shoot through the crossing either. THC195 states "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing" and tells you to look out for pedestrians who may be about to cross. It doesn't mention cyclists because, well, see the previous paragraph.

As for who would be in the right in the event of a collision; neither of you, would be my best guess.

Cougar, I think you nailed it there. Thank you. 🙂

I was told to dissmount whilst on a ZCrossing in Town a few weeks back, never been asked to do it before, but then I was asked by Plod holding a submachine gun on Regents Park....
Didn't stop about 20 others, never seems to, but I think it's a very Grey area this. If I need to I will use the crossing if theres loads of traffic..

I think the crux of the dismount thing is, it forces you to slow down and look.

For the purposes of actually crossing, it doesn't make a fig of difference. But if it stops you suddenly changing direction without thinking and throwing yourself under the nearest passing vehicle, it isn't without merit.

Plus for the benefit of [s]small-minded and pissy forum members[/s] insurance companies and lawyers, you're legally a 'pedestrian' rather than a cyclist and thus have legal protection when using the crossing.

Why Brooess?

IME even good riders gain something from training, shirley, it's better if riders all have a standard to aim for.

I'm VERY pro the training (did it myself last year after 36 years of riding), but like helmets, I take the view that making it compulsory will act as a brake to the mass takeup of cycling that we want and will overall make it safer. Plus, how do you enforce it?

I would be in favour of finding ways to encourage people to take training without making it compulsory - which could still ensure that most cyclists have been trained - like the recent auto-enrolement into pensions for e.g.

And that's leaving aside the stats which show most collisions between drivers and cyclists are the fault of he the driver, so if we're going to focus our training effort on any one group, training drivers would have a more beneficial impact overall...

I would be in favour of finding ways to encourage people to take training without making it compulsory

Free training with every new bike purchase, factor it into the cost price of a bike. Given it'll be a smaller percentage who take up the offer, it should cost buttons overall.

Interestingly,

I posed this question just now to a friend, only substituting 'car' for 'bike' in the OP. He's told me about this.

http://www.pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&t=529753

Near-identical thread from the Other Side, as it were.

windowshopper - Member

said the same before this morning, but she didn't really pause when she suddenly turned onto the crossing from the pavement and crossed at a speed greater than a (walking) pedestrian. Most pedestrians tend to stop/pause and look before setting foot.

Though, they're not required to- it's the motorist's responsibility to watch for peds.

Agree though that the cyclist's behaviour is the most important here, you [i]could[/i] ride across a zebra in a manner that's basically identical to a pedestrian but she didn't. So fundamentally what she's done is ridden in front of you.

Kunstler - Member
I thought this was going to be similar to the 'Bikes on a Porsche' thread. Disappointed.

+1 🙁

Though, they're not required to- it's the motorist's responsibility to watch for peds.

She's not a pedestrian.

[b]Brooess[/b] - I feel the benefits of compulsory training are much higher than any negatives.

If the standard of riding on the road was seen to be more consistent then the helmet debate could, hopefully, disappear and drivers would, usually, have more of an idea of what to expect in traffic with riders.

If we could achieve most cyclists behaving in a similar manner at pinch points, junctions, roundabouts and zebra crossings too, accidents would be reduced, ignoring who is at fault.

As for enforcement, I propose that cycle training would be a compulsory category on the driving licence:

Voluntary at school with accreditation carried over.
Completion is a condition of holding a provisional driving licence.
Refresher course when completing your first successful pass.
Refresher course to renew licence every 10 years.
More frequent for commercial drivers, every 2 years, minimum.

Training sessions organised at places of work and health centres for those that don't drive.

Anyone who is caught committing a illegal cycle riding offence, for the first offence only, receives free training course if unlicensed, or a paid for refresher course rather than a fine.

Neil - I agree with you wholeheartedly on the benefits of the vast majority of cyclists being given training, I just don't think making it compulsory will achieve mass takeup - it's quite likely to put people off buying the bike in the first place = fewer cyclists.

Plus, when the danger is proven to come mainly from lousy and aggressive driving, it won't necessarily resolve the issue of cyclists getting hurt. For e.g. I ride primary around parked cars and through pinch points and twice in a month I was tailgated to the point of getting myself off the road because I was scared I was going to get run over - the training of the cyclist did nothing to help me keep safe - training of the driver to know why cyclists ride primary and to keep hold of their own anger, would have avoided the danger 100%.

Better to find other ways of persuading people to get training than compulsion IMO. e.g. Cougar's suggestion above. Also, UK Government are doing a lot of work with Behavioural Science to encourage people towards more legal and healthy behaviours which avoids compulsion but can still lead to mass changes in behaviour (like pension auto-enrolement), by changing the way the choice is presented to people.

I'd 100% agree with attaching it to the driving test - but that's about improving driver behaviour around cyclists (which would be a major step forward with c40% of people who'd like to cycle not doing do because they think the roads are too dangerous) - it's not about compelling cyclists to ride to a higher standard.

when im towing the kids to nursery in the trailer I cycle over a zebra, but the traffics usually at a standstill anyway

Brooess - I can totally see all of your points above.

For e.g. I ride primary around parked cars and through pinch points and twice in a month I was tailgated to the point of getting myself off the road because I was scared I was going to get run over - the training of the cyclist did nothing to help me keep safe - training of the driver to know why cyclists ride primary and to keep hold of their own anger, would have avoided the danger 100%.

It could be possible that if 9 out of 10 riders were in primary in this situation, rather than (my estimate) 1-3 out of 10, then the driver would be more likely to expect a cyclist to be there rather than in the door zone or the gutter.

If it became a compulsory part of the driving test and licence renewal then within 10 years the majority of the public would have received training, some may even be encouraged to ride more and drive less.

also we have a lot of pelican crossings with these, despite them not being on cycle paths, but at busy A road junctions etc

[img] [/img]

As for enforcement, I propose that cycle training would be a compulsory category on the driving licence:

So a driving licence is compulsory for cycle riding on the roads? Are we banning the under 17s?

Voluntary at school with accreditation carried over.
Completion is a condition of holding a provisional driving licence.
Refresher course when completing your first successful pass.
Refresher course to renew licence every 10 years.
More frequent for commercial drivers, every 2 years, minimum.

Who's going to pay for all that? If we've surplus resources to be throwing at retests, we should be starting with motorists.

I agree with the sentiment, but it seems impractical to me. Plus, those most likely to benefit are arguably the most likely to ignore it.

we have a lot of pelican crossings with these

That's not a pelican crossing, it's a toucan crossing.

If it became a compulsory part of the driving test and licence renewal then within 10 years the majority of the public would have received training, some may even be encouraged to ride more and drive less.

Agreed - compulsory for drivers (which will in effect mean most of UK adults) but optional (whilst encouraged) for non-drivers (kids + the bulk of new cyclists in London and other urban areas.

So we could achieve mass take-up of cycling training without the negative message of 'you're not allowed to cycle without a licence' + the benefit of driver education - win win win!

Who's going to pay for all that?

The driver - I paid for my lessons and for my test, I pay VED and insurance, why not training to ensure I don't kill other road users?

The cyclist, you mean?

If you made paid-for training mandatory, one of two things will happen.

1) people will ignore it and ride anyway. Cf. RLJing.

2) people will think 'stuff that' and not ride.

Aren't we supposed to be encouraging people, not adding barriers to entry?

Wait,

You're saying it's compulsory for cyclists who also drive, but not for ones who don't? Or are you just talking about additional training for motorists?

We must be at cross purposes here, surely.

Just for clarity! I think:
a) the driver should pay for the cycling training that Neil proposes - on the basis that drivers are proven to be the cause of collisions with cyclists most of the time (c 70%) - as a driver I pay for all the other measures put in place to pay for my disproportionate damage to the world around me (ie: VED re pollution, lessons and test re killing people, insurance re damaging other people's property)

b) that would cover off most people who want to ride. For those cyclists who don't drive and would therefore not receive training we should encourage but not make it compulsory e.g. your idea about it coming with every bike purchase...

Pretty much.

I think society can afford to cover free training for those who don't drive.

Those who do drive, have to pay for, and pass cycle training, whether they ever want to ride a bike or not.

Therefore all drivers are cycle trained.

My original point still stands, that many experienced riders could still do better, would fly through the course, learn something and present a more consistent roadcraft.

I would be happy if drivers had refresher courses too.

a) the driver should pay for the cycling training that Neil proposes

I'm sure most motorists will leap at the chance of paying for something they don't use, and it'll help make cyclists even more popular than we already are! Result!

I think society can afford to cover free training for those who don't drive.

If that's true, I'd rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

Those who do drive, have to pay for and pass cycle training, whether they ever want to ride a bike or not.

Therefore all drivers are cycle trained.

Including the disabled? How's that going to work?

If she was riding on the pavement, she was breaking the law to start with unless it was a shared-use area.

Which is possible http://goo.gl/maps/SM5lT is a crossing I sometimes ride across (on a unicycle, which is a whole different grey area) - the bit on the left is a shared use path, so it's certainly legal to ride up to the crossing.

I'm sure most motorists will leap at the chance of paying for something they don't use,

I don't use my insurance but I still pay for it because I don't have the choice - simple 🙂

Agreed there are pragmatic considerations but there's some very strong factual evidence which demonstrates that when I drive I'm far more of a risk to cyclists than I am when I ride... and therefore the burden of responsibility rests on me more as a driver than a cyclist...

I'm sure most motorists will leap at the chance of paying for something they don't use, and it'll help make cyclists even more popular than we already are! Result!

They would not have a choice when it's compulsory. What cost for <8 hours cycle training compared to gaining a driving licence. If it convinces 10 out of 100 drivers to use a bike to go to the local shops, I'd be happy.

If that's true, I'd rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

No argument there but a lot of wasted money could be rained in, in a lot of places.
What's the cost to tax payers for RTCs including cyclists?

Including the disabled? How's that going to work?

Really? Stabilisers obviously.................

If that's true, I'd rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

Except that this sort of thing should be at worst a cost neutral thing. You could even not charge drivers for theirs and that still be the case - though it does all depend how you do your accounts.

Including the disabled? How's that going to work?

I imagine you could allow some exceptions for those truly incapable - when was the last time a registered disabled driver killed a cyclist?

Cougar - Moderator

If that's true, I'd rather it went to child protection, or healthcare, or helped combat poverty.

Reducing road deaths and injuries saves money on healthcare, protects children, and reduces poverty.

when was the last time a registered disabled driver killed a cyclist?

I don't know. Do you? You're implying it doesn't happen; I wouldn't like to speculate on statistical variance.

Reducing road deaths and injuries saves money on healthcare, protects children, and reduces poverty.

Bastard. (-: