Arrogant cyclists

Tilt

I think you will find (despite how you interpret it) that the rules about stopping to allow pedestrians to cross a zebra crossing (when they are within the limits of the crossing and they put one foot on the crossing) apply to all road vehicles which includes 2 wheeled ones.

Norman_Castle

From here http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/ZPPPCRGD-1997.pdf

Interpretation,
"driver" in relation to a vehicle which is a pedal cycle refers to the person riding the vehicle.

I think ukcyclerules are wrong. The rules are the same as for motorists.

Only_a_ginger

From point 3.1 here (I realise this isn't actually law) http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/cyclists-use-of-zebra-crossings.pdf seems to agree with my initial point.

Norman_Castle

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...-crossings.pdf

This relates to cyclist using and sharing crossings with pedestrians as part of the route, not encountering crossings on a highway.

Bongles

Tilt wrote: »

I think you will find (despite how you interpret it) that the rules about stopping to allow pedestrians to cross a zebra crossing (when they are within the limits of the crossing and they put one foot on the crossing) apply to all road vehicles which includes 2 wheeled ones.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I think ukcyclerules are wrong. The rules are the same as for motorists.

Is there some misunderstanding here? I don't think there's anything incorrect or controversial in the rules described on the ukcyclerules page. I don't see anything in the ukcyclerules page claiming that the rules are different for bicycles than for any other vehicle on the road.

As I read that page, ukcyclerules are explaining the rules from the point of view of cyclists not because they think the rules are different for cyclists, but simply because the intended readership is specifically cyclists.

They refer to the relevant legislation which confirms that the requirement (regardless of what type of vehicle you're on or in) is as they say: you do not have to stop, you have to accord precedence to the pedestrian. If you can do that without stopping, you aren't required to stop, whether cycling or driving.

Weird_Nev

There was this nightmare cyclist in London a couple of days back. Thought he owned the bloody road! Tooling along well in excess of the speed limit, none of the pedestrians could cross the road for fear of him hitting them, and he was even holding up a BMW which was clearly faster. It caused absolute traffic chaos!

Weird_Nev

lcharm wrote: »

You can't compare pedestrians to cyclists that have to a cyclist that are required to use the same roads that motor vehicles cycle on! Pedestrians should only ever be on a road to cross it!.

All i'm saying is there are still plenty of cases where accidents are the fault of the cyclists and so cyclists and drivers alike should stop passing fault on eachother and just take more responsibiluty!

You've got that completely !!!! about face!

Pedestrians have a complete "right" to the road. If they are crossing then any other vehicle must stop to give way.
You don't need anythign to be a pedestrian. Apart from legs.
Cyclists at least need a bike and are bound by certain laws (red lights, one way, etc) but not others (speeding for example). There is no legisaltive requirement regarding insurance or documentation to ride a bike.
Motorists of course need the whole gamut of licence, insurance and other documentation, and of course a sound understanding of laws and how they apply.

Saying that someone "hsouldn't be on the road" smacks of a very self centred approach to road use.

As you say though, it's shared space and a bit more give and take (and a minority of cyclists paying attention to the bloody rules) would help everyone get along a bit better.

Cyclist casualties are on the rise at a slower rate than the number of miles cycled, so those stats need to be looked at carefully so as not to scaremonger. It's a great time to cycle.

Norman_Castle

Is there some misunderstanding here? I don't think there's anything incorrect or controversial in the rules described on the ukcyclerules page. I don't see anything in the ukcyclerules page claiming that the rules are different for bicycles than for any other vehicle on the road.

I agree there may be a misunderstanding, caused by ukcycles starting the sentence, " If you’re on a bicycle, you have to accord precedence to a pedestrian who is within the limits of the crossing before you are.(ZPPPCR reg. 25(1))"

Skinto_7

IMO the roads arent designed to cater for Motor vechiles and Bicycles together, and until they are i personally think cars should stick to the roads and Bikes to the cycle tracks.

That said, i always give a wide berth to any bike i pass, even if they are cycling in the middle of the road for no apparent reason.

We all know there are thousands of idiot drivers on the roads that probably shouldnt be, but there are also lots of idiot bike users aswell, and the arrogance of some of them seems to be growing.

unsure

As a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist I have some sympathy with several points of view expressed.

Bad drivers and bad cyclists both of whom ignore the rules are equally at fault and should be condemned. Both also know that enforcement of traffic law is now so lax/non-existent that they'll probably get away with it. The difference is that bad drivers are much more dangerous to others. Last time I looked there was only one recorded case of a cyclist causing death of a pedestrian. Bad drivers cause vastly more death and injury to pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers.

Many drivers seem not to have read the highway code and don't know how to approach a bike and seem to wrongly assume that the cyclist can and should simply get out of the way. Treat it like another vehicle, give it the same space and wait for the opportunity to overtake.

The problem is that the differing speeds, size and capabilities of cycles and motor vehicles don't make them ideal travelling companions, especially on narrow, busy roads.

What's really required is a better system of bike paths/lanes - real ones: segregated from the motor traffic as they have in countries such as Holland and Denmark where the uptake is consequently much higher to the benefit of the population and the environment (and even drivers!).

Note to planners: a one foot wide strip bordered by paint and a picture of a bicycle at the edge of the road is not a useful bike lane...it's just a waste of paint and a way to pretend that some provision has been made.