[Closed] Have we done the angry zebra crossing man?

Both idiots (as seems to be normal in these videos)

Hmmm, cyclist was being a bit of a cock but if the pedestrain guy had kept going (rather than go back for a confrontation), there actually would've been a gap for him to pass through before the ped from the LHS got over there.

Cyclist was being a tool.

It's not anti cyclist to say that people who can do most damage, or can effect the outcome of an accident the greatest should be the most responsible.

agreed [s]bob[/s],

and you just know the phrase "I missed you didn't I ?" was on its way

Er, that looks set up to me!

Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.

That's an interesting point wwaswas. If it isn't a set up, it shows how people's preconceptions work.

Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.

Anyway, pedestrian is clealry wearing a flat cap or possibly even beret, so I'm oot

The cyclist was going too fast too furious.

...and giving everyone else a bad name...

He's not giving me a bad name.

+1

It's never a them versus us that's the sort of "outrage" that the media love.

Lucky someone caught this shocking event on cam.

Please can someone edit that with a cut to some Benny Hill or Police Academy Pink Flamingo music as they 'dance'....

[quote=wwaswas ]Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.

THIS

Both were foolish cyclist should have slowed walker should not have stepped back into danger

Pedestrian wanted the confrontation and the cyclist was going too fast

Cyclist mainly responsible for it all but pedestrians ignorance of one and rant at the other is interesting

Er, that looks set up to me!

+1

Watch the taxi do exactly the same thing to the {[b]same[/b]} bloke on the other side of the crossing. He doesn't react at all.

Wins the Krypton Factor observational round! 😉

Would hardly call it shocking footage. Just a daily altercation. I have been involved in worse with cars and pedestrian crossings. I would rather be hit by a bike than a car so maybe we should be concentrating on cars here but the media aren't going to do that are they...

'Shocking', 'Angry', 'Confrontation'.

You bloody southerners sure are a sensitive bunch.

walker should not have stepped back into danger

Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.

of course I am aware of how they work as a pedestrian you cross them rather than stop direction and then go backwards into danger. Why what do you do on them?

Are you suggesting that if he had not stopped and reversed his movement they would have met each other?
I am not NOT blaming the cyclist here i am simply stating that the pedestrian saw him and then purposefully went backwards to make sure they hit each other/met. He did not do this with a taxi mind.

Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.

Did you even read the article?

Not sure it quite rated as "shocking" really did it?

Too much bloody helmet/dash cam footage floating around these days, who really gives a flying **** about half this crap anyway? Piss poor click-bait 1/10...

The cyclist clearly wasn't going to hit the pedestrian, but it was very much tool-ish behaviour (both against the rules, and it's not fun to have people whizz close by you, even on a bike).

That said, it is absolutely 100% routine for motor vehicles to do this where I live (admittedly not the UK - a northern European country - but I imagine it's not that rare in the UK either, given that a taxi does exactly the same thing in the very same video, as others have pointed out). Not in a "this happens to me at least once a day" way - it's absolutely standard for cars to pass like this pretty much every single time I cross the road in the presence of a car. They either keep going without slowing if they decide that they're going to just miss you, or if they are forced to stop when you cross, they then rev up and scrape by you as soon as you're a micrometer out of the way, even when you're still very much on the crossing. I've had people do it when my small son is crossing the road holding my hand, nearly hitting him; I've had a large lorry do it to me while pushing me son in a pram across the road.

If people did what the pedestrian in this video did to all the motor vehicles acting like the cyclist, they wouldn't get a lot of outraged sympathetic media attention, they'd probably be taken away by the men in white coats. Yet it is incredibly prevalent and far more dangerous.

(The cyclist was still a tool though).

Seriously? Are you aware of how a crossing works? Traffic stops until the pedestrian is clear of the crossing.

I believe it is acceptable/legal/safe for cyclists to pass at a sensible speed* behind the final pedestrian on a zebra crossing. Only motorised vehicles are required to remain stationary until the pedestrian has cleared the crossing**.

*which this cyclist didn't do
**which most drivers don't do

Love the pathetically righteous and silly legalistic responses from the usual wasters on this forum.

The cyclist does nothing wrong here, the pedestrian is probably a member on this forum. The moron is lucky he didn't try and stop me like that, because he wouldn't have pushed me like that.

Reading things like this really makes me feel like screaming and putting a saucepan on my head and banging it with a loud spoon.

If people did what the pedestrian in this video did to all the motor vehicles acting like the cyclist, they wouldn't get a lot of outraged sympathetic media attention, they'd probably be taken away by the men in white coats. Yet it is incredibly prevalent and far more dangerous.

Or of course by an ambulance, as you might well be seriously hurt/dead. I still think the cyclist was very much in the wrong, but the fact that the pedestrian was able to block him without being hurt or even hit, or without the cyclist coming of his bike, shows that the bike really wasn't going very fast. If I tried the same thing to many of the cars that routinely whizz by me as I cross the road, I'd be in hospital or the morgue.

Stupid to walk in front of a road user that obviously isn't going to stop.
Better to hang back and give them a boot as they pass. 🙂

Clearly the cyclist was going to pass behind the pedestrian, it's very much a judgment call on whether he was actually doing anything wrong legally, as the police comment indicates for anyone who actually bothered to read what they had to say about it.

The pedestrian clearly assaulted the cyclist, of course. There's no doubt at all about that.

On the legal front this has been done to death on Twitter with input from a lawyer.

The law is that traffic must " give precedence" to pedestrians which both the taxi and cyclist did. Both were too close and aggressive but not actually illegal.

Crossing law is crap. Pedestrians are told not to start crossing until traffic has stopped. Traffic doesn't have to give way until a ped has stepped onto the crossing.

The pedestrian clearly assaulted the cyclist, of course. There's no doubt at all about that.

By being on the crossing in front of the cyclist??? You know the bed has right of way don't you?

This forum cracks me up sometimes.

Using the road (159 to 203)
The Highway Code rules for using the road, including general rules, overtaking, road junctions, roundabouts, pedestrian crossings and reversing.

Rule 195

you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

Unless we're going to redefine the meaning of "give way" the cyclist was in the wrong. End of.

Cyclists are allowed to pass freely behind pedestrians on zebra crossings, which is what would have happened if the pedestrian hadn't stopped and pushed/grabbed the cyclist.

See: The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regulations 25(1)

Arguably, the cyclist was cutting it a bit fine and should have slowed and allowed more room. That's my judgement but others (including a court) might disagree with it.

The pedestrian clearly assaulted the cyclist, of course. There's no doubt at all about that.

By being on the crossing in front of the cyclist??? You know the bed has right of way don't you?

This forum cracks me up sometimes.

Have you actually watched the video?

I think I would have tutted.

Unless we're going to redefine the meaning of "give way" the cyclist was in the wrong. End of.

I think you're redefining the meaning. Had the pedestrian not deliberately turned around, the cyclist had given way by aiming to pass behind him. Give way doesn't mean stop.

Give way doesn't mean stop.

No, but it does mean, don't ride into them. I think you failed giving way if you ride into someone.
I mean, it doesn't really matter that pedestrian turned around to be confrontational, he would be perfectly entitle to change his mind half way across. Or, what about where someone slipped and fell back into the path of the cyclist. Or if a jogger suddenly started crossing at speed behind the first pedestrian, having seen traffic give way as it should.
Cyclist didn't give way like he as required to do.

Northwind - Member
I think I would have tutted

thecaptain, you'll have to help me out.

25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.

This says as long as the pedestrian is on the crossing (any part of the crossing) he has precedence. Where is your reference for cyclist being able to pass behind pedestrians on crossings?

Very disappointing. A far cry from Ronnie Pickering standards.

Zebra crossings would be infinitely improved by the random deployment of real Zebras.

Wrong thread

Passing behind is the standard interpretation of giving precedence. Even the policeman quoted in the original article states it. You did read the article didn't you?

Here, let me quote the police spokesman for the hard of understanding:

"A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration)"

The issue is not simply riding over the crossing when there is a pedestrian on it (which the law has no problem with), it's whether the cyclist was too fast and close to be giving "due care and onsideration". He was clearly going to ride behind the ped who would not have been impeded in any way had he just continued walking in a normal manner rather than deliberately setting out to confront the cyclist. Note that he didn't actually ride into or knock down the pedestrian even after the latter's unanticipated behaviour.

BTW are you prepared to acknowledge that the pedestrian assaulted the cyclist?

W@nker meets W@nker sums that video up doesn't it?

Standard "this is the law" response from a Sargent, that is the minimum rank in the police that actually knows anything about the law, response.

Course they only respond to events of VERY serious crime, or situations from which they can extort money from someone, anything else gets a reference number.

Arguably, the cyclist was cutting it a bit fine and should have slowed and allowed more room. That's my judgement but others (including a court) might disagree with it.

I doubt it. No consideration at all from guy on the bike attempting to pass through a tiny gap at speed.

Personally I don't think the letter of the law should be applied to cyclists. Quite happy to see laws being bent when it's done considerately. But that wasn't, and the guy was well within his rights to confront him.

Even the policeman quoted in the original article states it. You did read the article didn't you?

Yes, which is why I know it was Met Spokesman and not policeman as you have incorrectly written. It also says for the that information was obtained by the Mail Online. So it's at least 3rd hand and no one was credited.

I don't trust that source and want you to show me where it is written that cyclist can pass behind someone on a crossing, but you can't.