Cyclists and road traffic signals...

nobbysn*ts

hugheskevi wrote: »

Just recently I've realised just how dangerous I am when cycling for pedestrians at zebra crossings.

Several times in the last couple of months, I've found that my magic cycling cloak of invisibility seems to now often extend to pedestrians waiting at zebra crossings when I pull up and stop to let them cross.

This means that when I stop, not only myself but also the pedestrians become invisible, and cars unsuspectingly drive past, blind to hazard of pedestrians waiting to cross.

I think it might be safer if I ignored zebra crossings altogether

That's the problem. You think it's a 'cloak of invisibility' we see it as ' holographic projector' when we see the cyclist carry on over the crossing, scattering the pedestrians, without any intention of stopping for the red light.

supermac9

Tilt wrote: »

I saw a "mature" cyclist today riding the wrong way along a stretch of dual carriageway today. I'm sure the HC says they shouldn't!

I think you might be right about the HC here!:rotfl:

hugheskevi

Waiting at the crossing is the key, technically you only have to give way if the pedestrian has "moved onto a crossing", Highway Code Rule 195.

Indeed, but Rule 191 states:

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

Although as they probably can't see me they are probably just applying Rule 195

Johno100

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

hugheskevi wrote: »

Although as they probably can't see me they are probably just applying Rule 195

But as is often stated, usually by cyclists explaining why they don't have to obey this or that rule or law, a bicycle isn't a vehicle.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Well if you can't tell the make of bike what else do you call them? And why the stereotyping of Audi drivers?

The point is that most motorists would object to being called drink driving pedestrian killers. Sure, some of them do drink and drive, some of them have killed pedestrians, but those motorists who don't are reasonably entitled to expect to be excluded from that group.

Similarly, not all cyclists like being tarred with the same brush as those who commit offences.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Iceweasel

Johno100 wrote: »

But as is often stated, usually by cyclists explaining why they don't have to obey this or that rule or law, a bicycle isn't a vehicle.

Ah! - but a bicycle is a vehicle.

According to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.

The UK is a signatory to this convention.

Nebulous2

I really get fed-up of being expected to justify myself when I explain I'm a cyclist. I'm also a driver who used to drive 30,000 miles a year. I've reduced that to about 8,000 and I'm doing about 4,000 by bike.

I'm causing less disruption to motorists, holding less of them up, breaking fewer rules of the road and suddenly people see me as public enemy number one?

The arguments about cyclists says far more about the angry, randomly discriminatory people who rant about them, than it does about cyclists.

I'm responsible for my own behaviour on the road, not anyone else's. I ride like a motorist and regard myself as traffic. I stop at red lights, I generally don't go through the traffic to the advanced stop line, although I'm entitled to do so.

Well designed cycle paths, as in the Netherlands are a pleasure, but shared paths are the work of the devil. The recommendation is not to go above 12 miles per hour on shared paths so I usually avoid them and go on the road. Then again as I said I see myself as traffic.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

But as is often stated, usually by cyclists explaining why they don't have to obey this or that rule or law, a bicycle isn't a vehicle.

Its not a motorised vehicle.

Johno100

Iceweasel wrote: »

Ah! - but a bicycle is a vehicle.

According to the UN's 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.

The UK is a signatory to this convention.

Wow, clutching at straws or what!

If that is correct then a lot of UK traffic laws and regulation ought to have been amended to reflect this in the last 46 years.

Nebulous2

Johno100 wrote: »

Wow, clutching at straws or what!

If that is correct then a lot of UK traffic laws and regulation ought to have been amended to reflect this in the last 46 years.

So what way round do you want it? First of all you say cyclists argue that a bike isn't a vehicle (any instances of that?) then when someone tells you that a bike is a vehicle you yourself seem to be trying to argue that it isn't.

I see a bike as a vehicle, but it clearly isn't a motor vehicle, which is what the law on speeding applies to. This an American website, so the laws discussed may not apply, but I like the diagram there which shows both motor vehicles and bicycles as subsets of road vehicles.

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page5.html