Cyclists and Zebra Crossings

thescouselander

So, does anyone know for certain the rules on Zebra Crossings and Cyclists? My understanding is that road users are only required to stop for pedestrians and there is no requirement to stop for cyclists crossing unless they have dismounted - is this right?

arcon5

Right or not, if a cyclist is waiting at the crossing and you fail to stop you are an absolute moron who shouldn't be behind the wheel!

thescouselander

arcon5 wrote: »

Right or not, if a cyclist is waiting at the crossing and you fail to stop you are an absolute moron who shouldn't be behind the wheel!

Why so? If I'm right then there is no requirement to stop for cyclists so why should anyone do so when the cyclist should wait for a gap in the traffic.

Also I would say I pose this question as someone who cycles most weekdays - I wouldn't expect anyone to stop for me if I was attempting to cross on a bike - which of course I wouldn't because it's in contravention of the highway code.

Norman_Castle

Zebra crossings are for pedestrians so you are not required to stop for a cyclist unless they have dismounted. If they have dismounted they are a pedestrian pushing a bike and you should stop.

If you are an absolute moron ask your carer for guidance.

HappyMJ

thescouselander wrote: »

Why so? If I'm right then there is no requirement to stop for cyclists so why should anyone do so when the cyclist should wait for a gap in the traffic.

There's no requirement to stop for a cyclist approaching but if you hit a cyclist it's very unlikely a cyclist has third party insurance and you'll have to cover the damage to your own vehicle yourself...so I'd stop.

Legally the cyclist is supposed to walk across the crossing. Legally the cyclist is supposed to walk on the pavement and ride only on recognized cycle paths or the road itself. In practice though nobody in authority really cares that much and won't enforce the law.

Norman_Castle

HappyMJ wrote: »

In practice though nobody in authority really cares that much and won't enforce the law.

In practice, the law is applied sensibly and within Home Office guidelines which requires enforcement against pavement cyclists only if they are likely to cause harm.

When police and PCSOs were given the authority to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for pavement cycling in 1999 the Home Office minister Paul Boetang issued this guidance:
"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

thescouselander

HappyMJ wrote: »

There's no requirement to stop for a cyclist approaching but if you hit a cyclist it's very unlikely a cyclist has third party insurance and you'll have to cover the damage to your own vehicle yourself...so I'd stop.

Legally the cyclist is supposed to walk across the crossing. Legally the cyclist is supposed to walk on the pavement and ride only on recognized cycle paths or the road itself. In practice though nobody in authority really cares that much and won't enforce the law.

Well yes, I half agree with you there - clearly there is always a requirement to stop if you need to avoid a collision. That's not the reason for the question though - I was just asking because my wife was moaning at me for not stopping for a cyclist. My view was that I didn't have to - although I would have done in some circumstances say if the cyclist was a child or to avoid a crash). I especially don't see why I should stop for someone who's been illegally riding on the pavement.

robatwork

What a ridiculous thread.

Here are a few people who cross roads at Zebras:

pedestrian
cyclist mounted
cyclist off bike but holding it
cyclist half dismounting prepared to cross
unicyclist
wheelchair user
motorised wheelchair user
child on bike with stabilisers
someone in toy car
student being pushed in shopping trolley

You aren't able to make a split second decision that someone waiting at a zebra to cross is just one of the above.

Stop for everyone - that's never the wrong decision.

Piggywiggy

I would stop, as I would for anyone waiting/approaching to cross in front of me, not that I think they should be actually riding their bike over the crossing but who wants to deal with the hassle of an accident?

Johno100

And I've had this happen to me more than once at zebra and pedestrian crossings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AooOli_qUmk

Retrogamer

You must stop at pedestrian crossings if a pedestrian is already on it (i.e at least one foot is in contact with the crossing)
If they're waiting to cross, but not actually on the crossing there is no requirement to stop.

Although not in the highway code, i imagine in practise it would be similar for a cyclist.
I.e if a cyclist is waiting to cross you have no requirement to stop.
If they are already on the crossing strictly speaking you don't need to stop, but failing to do so may come under careless / inconsiderate driving or worse if you have time to stop, don't stop and end up hitting the cyclist.

Out of curiosity what difference is it to the motorist or what effect does it have on their travel if a cyclist cycles across a crossing vs pushes the bicycle across it?