Cyclists and zebra crossings - could you all stop please?

[detective-boy]

Strict reading of the rules would imply that the ped must be completely off the road before I pass then (as I would assume 'The Limits' to be the strip accross the road painted in stripes), correct? Or does 'precedence' have a special meaning in traffic law, that has to do with intersecting vectors and things

I can see no specific definition of precedence in the regulations and, so far as I know, there is no other related law which defines it, so a court is likely to give it it's dictionary meaning.

So far as I understand it, precedence means priority, which means allow to go first as opposed to wait for something else.

I would have thought that would be the outcome, and it certainly my recollection of the approach of the courts from may days when I did dabble with traffic offences, but I am not an expert in traffic case law.

I certainly would not expect anyone to report or even notice any such incident (with the earlier proviso that the pedestrian is well past and there is no attempt to harrass them or speed them up by voice or actions).

 

[Crispy]

You're so damned thorough , db

 

[detective-boy]

Hence my personal opinion that all road users should have at least 3rd pty insurance (and by the way - before anyone says it - I don't include pedestrians as road users)

If you are wise, you would have some form of liability insurance nowadays anyway - in a public place in any context you have a variety of duties of care which you may breach and be liable in civil law. In this increasingly litigious society you are more and more likely to be sued if you have any assets worth suing for. Home insurance policies are increasingly including it.

 

[GoneCoastal]

Insurance

...... Home insurance policies are increasingly including it.

I didn't know that - thanks

P

 

[lighterthief]

I think members of the London Cycling Campaing (LCC) also get free 3rd party cover thrown in with their membership.

 

[tommers]

I think members of the London Cycling Campaing (LCC) also get free 3rd party cover thrown in with their membership.

correctomundo.

 

[Crispy]

correctomundo.

Think I might join...

 

[pogofish]

I can see no specific definition of precedence in the regulations and, so far as I know, there is no other related law which defines it, so a court is likely to give it it's dictionary meaning.

The traffic officers involved with/advising the M/C training course that I used to be involved with were pretty adamant that a pedestrain held the right of way for as long as they were on the crossing & that riders/drivers should always give way until they were completely across, or had reached a refuge/traffic island or the central reservation on a dual carrageway.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

The traffic officers involved with/advising the M/C training course that I used to be involved with were pretty adamant that a pedestrain held the right of way for as long as they were on the crossing & that riders/drivers should always give way until they were completely across, or had reached a refuge/traffic island or the central reservation on a dual carrageway.

The thing is that if I got angry with everyone who moved off behind me once I had passed them, cars and bikes, I'd give myself a heart attack!

As I said, what gets on my tits are the vehicles which carry on regardless in front of you even though you've given them ample stopping distance.

 

[pogofish]

As I said, what gets on my tits are the vehicles which carry on regardless in front of you even though you've given them ample stopping distance.

Oh yes, complete & utter cunts, whatever they are in/on.

 

[T & P]

Regarding third party insurance, I would certainly make pedestrians get one. I'm sure most two-wheeled road users would agree with that.

 

[tommers]

Think I might join...

do it. you also get 10% off parts at most bike shops (for example brixton cycles) and it costs about £27 a year or something.

and you get magazines about cycling in london, which contain a letters page almost exclusively containing arguments about whether cyclists should go through red lights or not.

 

[George & Bill]

There's also the point that just because cars are more dangerous than cyclists doesn't mean it's OK for cyclists to invoke that comparison whenever they're asked to play by the rules.

maybe that point would have more weight if cyclists weren't subject to such a disproportionate amount of critisism!

 

[T & P]

I'd imagine they are at the receiving end of more criticism because they are the only road users who get away with breaking just about every rule in the book they feel like, and then actually claim they should have the right to do as they please if someone dares mention it

 

[Major Tom]

I think members of the London Cycling Campaing (LCC) also get free 3rd party cover thrown in with their membership.

It's not free - about 35 squid a year.

 

[Major Tom]

I'd imagine they are at the receiving end of more criticism because they are the only road users who get away with breaking just about every rule in the book they feel like, and then actually claim they should have the right to do as they please if someone dares mention it

Sounds like the Association of British Drivers' manifesto to me.

 

[detective-boy]

The traffic officers involved with/advising the M/C training course that I used to be involved with were pretty adamant that a pedestrain held the right of way for as long as they were on the crossing & that riders/drivers should always give way until they were completely across, or had reached a refuge/traffic island or the central reservation on a dual carrageway.

If they provided a court decision to that effect, then I would believe it. If there were, then I would have expected it to be mentioned in Blackstone's Police Manual Roads Policing ... and it isn't.

If any of the lawyers on here have access to any of the on-line legal databases perhaps they could look it up.

If they simply are stating an opinion, I would argue that they are wrong (not many traffic officers have a law degree and there is no input on the judicial interpretation of law in police training). I can see no logical reason why the courts would interpret "precedence" (which is the word in the regulation) in any other than it's normal way (i.e. allow to go first)