Do I have to stop at a pedestrian crossing for a cyclist?

fred246

boliston wrote: »

Green does not simply mean "go"
It means "go if the way ahead is clear"

I was watching the traffic carefully. I have a feeling the Subaru driver thought he was at the start of a Grand Prix waiting for the lights to go green and then foot to the floor. It was an easily preventable collision. I just can't imagine that he would ever be held totally responsible as he went through a green light whereas the other driver went through on red. Am I wrong?

Retrogamer

fred246 wrote: »

I was watching the traffic carefully. I have a feeling the Subaru driver thought he was at the start of a Grand Prix waiting for the lights to go green and then foot to the floor. It was an easily preventable collision. I just can't imagine that he would ever be held totally responsible as he went through a green light whereas the other driver went through on red. Am I wrong?

The Subaru driver wouldn't be held fully responsible, but would likely be held partially liable

Norman_Castle

glennevis wrote: »

basill said "my old Dad used to say that you don`t have to stop for cyclists at crossings, unless they pick the bike up and become a pedestrian carrying a bike."

He probably read the same book I did. Many years ago a prominent judge, Lord Denning, wrote books on law. In one case a woman pushed her bike across a zebra crossing and the long and the short of it was that she was not a pedestrian because she was pushing the bike, I think.

I think if you are next to the bike you are a pedestrian pushing a bike but if you are astride it you are a cyclist even if you are not using the pedals.

ERICS_MUM

I take the easy option and stop to let anyone cross (only those who want to of course !!). I can't be bothered trying to decide whether or not to stop.

custardy

Retrogamer wrote: »

There is no requirement to stop for pedestrians waiting to use the crossing either. It's just wise to.



It's upset a lot of people that one. It was obviously an accident but a lot of people think it was deliberate.

I wouldn't cal it an accident. wholly preventable.

Retrogamer

custardy wrote: »

I wouldn't cal it an accident. wholly preventable.

Aren't virtually all accidents?

custardy

Retrogamer wrote: »

Aren't virtually all accidents?

Well shades of grey.
That video is a glaring example of easily avoided.

Aretnap

glennevis wrote: »

He probably read the same book I did. Many years ago a prominent judge, Lord Denning, wrote books on law. In one case a woman pushed her bike across a zebra crossing and the long and the short of it was that she was not a pedestrian because she was pushing the bike, I think.

This isn't correct. In fact the exact opposite is true. The High Court dealt with precisely this question in 1980 in a case called Crank v Brooks, and found that a person pushing a bike across a pedestrian crossing is to be treated as a pedestrian. Lord Justice Waller observed

In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand.

A High Court judgement creates a legally binding precedent. Lord Denning's thoughts in a book - even if you're remembering them correctly - don't.

[Deleted User]

No I don't stop for cyclists at zebra crossings. Same how cyclists don't stop for red lights at puffin crossings.

custardy

Deleted_User wrote: »

No I don't stop for cyclists at zebra crossings. Same how cyclists don't stop for red lights at puffin crossings.

Ahhhhhhh there it is.
Satisfying.