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

Where was the 'shocking footage' I was expecting a proper dust up, bag o'shite.

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.

This is also third hand, but I saw a screenshot of this on Twitter yesterday. Can't find the tweet now, of course, but I remember it being credible. It's difficult to Google, as most hits refer to the legality of using the crossing by bike.

Meanwhile, the drivers of HGVs and other motorised vehicles continue to maim and kill in huge numbers while cyclists kill and maim almost nobody.

The interpretation of 'giving precedence' is a new one on me - I was always taught that I had to let peds clear the crossing completely before driving through. All these years I could have just waited for the old biddies to get 2/3rds of the way across then motor through.

Given the total unpredictability of pedestrians around here, I wouldn't want rely on them keeping going to claim the spare metre behind them. Vehicles, including bikes, passing close to sheep-like peds on crossings is always a bad idea.

The interpretation of 'giving precedence' is a new one on me - I was always taught that I had to let peds clear the crossing completely before driving through. All these years I could have just waited for the old biddies to get 2/3rds of the way across then motor through.

IIRC, motorised vehicles [i]do[/i] have to wait until the crossing is clear before moving off. It's bicycles that don't have to.

Given the total unpredictability of pedestrians around here, I wouldn't want rely on them keeping going to claim the spare metre behind them. Vehicles, including bikes, passing close to sheep-like peds on crossings is always a bad idea.

Which is why the cyclist in the video was in the wrong; they were too close behind the pedestrian, and going too fast. But, it's a judgement call. As pointed out on the first page, in the video a taxi does exactly the same to a pedestrian on the other carriageway and nobody blinks.

I can't see any differentiation between motorised and non-motorised vehicles in the regulation quoted above. I wonder what bit of the regulations the police spokesman is referring to?

The bloke was probably a bit miffed that the taxi had just gone past him when he was still on the crossing and then saw the cyclist coming and thought "**** this they're all out to get me......"

I think the taxi and the cyclist were both in the wrong and should have waited longer. Just as all the other cyclist's and the van in the video did.

I'd have called him a **** (rhymes with bat, no not cat....) in a slightly raised voice.

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.

I once got shouted at by a pedestrian for not slowing down for a zebra crossing which I went through just after he'd stepped onto the kerb. Wonder if it was the same bloke.

See how many people's day one dickhead in a suit can effect! By stepping back in to the cyclist, he delays all the people who stop to see what's going on, and now, I've been stopped from looking at something slightly more interesting to comment on what a pillock he was.

thecaptain - Member
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 consideration". 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.

I like this interpretation. All the time on a bike, you [i]time[/i] things so you can keep your momentum - even more so when trying to make progress in a busy city. Imagine if everyone stopped and confronted you - pulling out close behind a car on a roundabout - he stops and backs into you "You're supposed to GIVE WAY!" Cyclist was doing normal cyclist things, bloke in suit was a moron. And I won't be persuaded otherwise 😛

Pedestrian was in wrong as well - "No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch"

[url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19/made ]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19/made[/url]

I can't see any differentiation between motorised and non-motorised vehicles in the regulation quoted above. I wonder what bit of the regulations the police spokesman is referring to?

Possibly reg 24 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/24/made

The interpretation of 'giving precedence' is a new one on me - I was always taught that I had to let peds clear the crossing completely before driving through.

And that's the right thing to do - there's very rarely enough space to comfortably pass a pedestrian on a crossing in a car without being uncomfortably close. On a bike it's a bit different - you can give a load of space (which this rider didn't do - though he was going slow enough to stop).

Lawyer [url= https://twitter.com/MartinPorter6/status/782184360002875392 ]Martin Porter[/url] notes that precedence is a flexible concept but basically 'have not impeded'. Cyclist didn't impede ped stepping onto crossing from left and wouldn't have impeded guy who obstructed.

Laws, laws, laws....

How about just common decency, why can't we all just get along.........

Hippy.

😀

he would be perfectly entitle to change his mind half way across.

Indeed. Cyclists and in particular drivers should be aware that small children tend to do this fairly often. Also parents when they inevitably drop one of the million things they're trying to carry.

he would be perfectly entitle to change his mind half way across.

Indeed. Cyclists and in particular drivers should be aware that small children tend to do this fairly often. Also parents when they inevitably drop one of the million things they're trying to carry.

That would be in breach of [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19/made ]regulation 19 of section IV of The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions, 1997[/url]: "[i]No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.[/i]". Pedestrians, especially parents, should be aware that cyclists might be, perfectly legally, riding behind them.

Doing something like stopping suddenly to turn around is illegal. As is grabbing hold of somebody in a threatening manner.

😉

Doing something like stopping suddenly to turn around is illegal

We can argue over the fine detail of the law, or we can do what is prudent and courteous.

I'll stick with giving pedestrians plenty of space.

We can argue over the fine detail of the law, or we can do what is prudent and courteous.

I'll stick with giving pedestrians plenty of space.

It's not prudent or courteous to suddenly grab a moving cyclist, is it?

For clarity: I think the cyclist was a dick, but I also think the pedestrian was a dick, and the taxi driver on the other side of the road was a dick.

All the media outlets who ran the story but treat dangerous driving as "just something that happens" are dicks too.

It's not prudent or courteous to suddenly grab a moving cyclist, is it?

1)I don't recall arguing that it was.
2)The incident would not have occurred had the cyclist given the pedestrian a more appropriate amount of space.

The incident would not have occurred had the cyclist given the pedestrian a more appropriate amount of space.

Absolutely true.

I will use this as a defence when I smash up the car belonging to a driver who passed me too closely.

The pedestrian was lucky it wasn't the dude [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-you-only-watch-one-video-of-a-man-having-a-tantrum-today ]This Thread[/url] that he decided to turn on.

I'm pretty surprised the pedestrian didn't get chinned, he was looking for trouble whether he was in the right or not. I'd have been well pissed off if he'd done that to me and dunno how I would have reacted with the adrenaline pumping.

Absolutely true.

I will use this as a defence when I smash up the car belonging to a driver who passed me too closely.

I'm not sure why you're so keen to set up a strawman.

Anyway, you'd think that close passes would make cyclists more aware of the need give pedestrians adequate space.

I've just watched the video again:

The pedestrian is slowing down and looking toward the cyclist as he enters the frame. Had he continued walking at his original pace, he'd have taken another couple of steps and the cyclist would have been a metre or so behind him at the point he passed. That's more than the typical car-bike overtake, with a much smaller speed/mass difference.

The cyclist was able to stop before he hit the pedestrian, implying that his speed of approach was low enough for the manoeuvre he was attempting.

I'd also not spotted previously that it was the same pedestrian who was almost hit by the taxi on the other side of the road, but doesn't react.

I'm not sure why you're so keen to set up a strawman.

I'm not, I'm being facetious.

Anyway, you'd think that close passes would make cyclists more aware of the need give pedestrians adequate space.

See above. The cyclist was going to give adequate space.

See above. The cyclist was going to give adequate space.

The cyclist was relying on the pedestrian continuing at the same pace in order to make the gap. Which is really stupid.

The pedestrian is slowing down and looking toward the cyclist as he enters the frame.

Had he continued walking at his original pace, he'd have taken another couple of steps and the cyclist would have been a metre or so behind him at the point he passed. That's more than the typical car-bike overtake, with a much smaller speed/mass difference.

The cyclist was relying on the pedestrian continuing at the same pace in order to make the gap. Which is really stupid.

How do you merge with traffic coming off a motorway slip road?

The cyclist stopped before hitting the pedestrian so they allowed an adequate safety margin.

How do you merge with traffic coming off a motorway slip road?

The cyclist stopped before hitting the pedestrian so they allowed an adequate safety margin.

Yes, I always feel safe crossing the road if a car or bike doesn't hit me thanks to an emergency stop.

To continue with my car overtaking bike example: if as a car was preparing to overtake me on my bike I suddenly swerved to the right and stopped, I'd be very happy that the car stopped before hitting me. I'd have done something silly, and the car driver would have been in the right.

I doubt that a video of this happening would have made the Huffington Post after going viral on social media. There then probably wouldn't be drivers on a driving forum blaming the driver.

Cyclist clearly in the wrong, did the equivalent of a punishment pass.
Just because he didn't hit the ped doesn't make it ok, he should have slowed down earlier, anticipated, and not be so close as startle the ped.

Sound like a familiar compliant cyclists have about cars overtaking them?

Pedestrian then proceeded to act like a dick, but it wasn't exactly unprovoked.

I like how it's described as "Shocking Footage" 😕 No it isn't.

[i]did the equivalent of a punishment pass.[/i]

You've watched a different video to me havent you?
Did the equal of timing a gap. Nothing like a punishment pass. Of course he anticipated, just not that the ped was going to be a self-righteous plonker. And the bloke wasn't startled! 😆

Nope, I've watched it a few times, that's my opinion. Ok the suit was probably more incensed than startled.

There's no reason the cyclist couldn't have slowed a bit, been a bit more courteous and there would have been no issue.

I'm not defending the actions of the pedestrian, but the siuation was created by the cyclist.

Elsewhere, the was a [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lucky-escape-for-driver-who-flattened-bus-stop-after-attempting-risky-overtake-in-north-london-a3359241.html ]lucky escape for Volvo driver who flattened bus stop in north London[/url].

Compare and contrast the reporting.

That report beggars belief, as if the bus stop ever stood a chance, never mind anyone who may have been waiting for a bus.

The report suggests the volvo was avoiding a collision by plowing into a bus stop, but that's conjecture as typically there's precious little context in the report.

context. that crossing is just after parliament square where the new light system holds you for HOURS. it then releases you across the junction which doesn't have a pedestrian crossing at the other side but a 100 foreign tourists all looking the wrong way step out in front of you anyway. So the cyclist will have just had 47 near misses just like this one 10 seconds before getting here and will have a heart rate of 210bpm. Really that pedestrian is lucky he wasn't murdered.