As difficult as it is my personal approach is to accept that there are people out there that are complete muppets they are quite likely to involve me in an accident if I let them and it is my job to keep out of their way.
BV, I think that is just about spot on!
|
|
Using a Highway Code rule as a defence for delibrately not stopping for a cyclist (and mowing him/her over in the process)may not be the best starting point for defending a case brought against a driver.
|
Reminds me of driver training days....
Even if you have a green light say (right of way) and someone pulls across you, they take your right of way, away from you.
Once a pedestrian places a foot on the crossing they have right of way. Yes, some cyclists do seem to take the proverbial, but at the end of the day, they will be on the crossing for less time than someone on foot.
|
www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk/vbulletin229/up...1
?Pedestrian crossings on local roads are established under section 23 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 23(1) states ?a local traffic authority may establish crossings for pedestrians on roads for
which they are the traffic authority??. . Motorists are required by law to give way to pedestrians on pedestrian crossings, and cyclists are not pedestrians unless they dismount (see regulation 25 and 26 of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997). These Regulations replaced the 1971 Regulations.
In Cranks V Brooks (1980) it was held on appeal that a woman cyclist who was hit by a car when pushing a bike across a Zebra crossing was a pedestrian. In issuing his judgment, L. Waler said that if she had been using the bike as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a foot passenger.
Rule 64 of the Highway Code states, "Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your bike across". In the event of an collision between a cyclist riding across a zebra, pelican or puffin crossing and a motorist, the motorist would be able to use the Highway Code in court to establish that liability for the accident rested with the cyclist.
If cyclists have a legitimate need to ride across a crossing point, the best course would be to ask the local authority to install a toucan crossing. An alternative which may be appropriate in some locations would be to install cycle signals which can be used for the control of vehicular traffic consisting solely of cyclists.?
I would give way anyway, who wants the greif of an accident?
|
Those red boxes for cyclists are a daft idea.
Who ever thought it was a good idea to put a bunch of slow moving vehicles at the very front of a queue of motor vehicles?
It means it takes 4 years to get away from the junction as the cyclists faff around and finally set off at speeds of up to 15mph. Fantastic.
|
Yeah, far better to squeeze them into the gutter so you can ignore them.
I can get across a junction from a standing start on my bike just as quickly, if not faster, than most cars as they are driven in rush hour. What's your hurry anyway? In 100 yards you'll be behind the next queue of traffic whilst I ride past you.
|
|
Pugugly seems to misunderstand the situation its the cyclists who are deliberately not stopping and not the law abiding motorist.
|
I think you'll find that he misunderstood nothing.
The point was that if you have had an accident with a cyclist then the statement "I could have stopped and avoided putting him in hospital but I didn't bother because the highway code said I was in the right" might not be the best way to proceed.
|
|
|
|
|
The red box is so that the cyclist can get over the junction before some idiot turns left across them,as has happened to me.They do not realise that a bike can set off quicker than a car over the first few yards.
|
And in my locality, what about the following monuments to ambiguity in terms of who gives way to whom and why:
* Ordinary road humps each side of a pedestrian "refuge" island in the middle of a broad road, just 100m away from road humps that are identical (refuge island too) other than being conventionally marked as a pedestrian crossing.
* Brick-paved shopping streets with no restrictions on access by vehicles.
* Brick-paved rectangles within the brick-paved shopping streets, the bricks laid at an angle different from the rest of the street, thereby giving the impression of being a pedestrian crossing but with no conventional markings.
What's the law on such things? I intend to ask my local authority, but perhaps someone here knows already. Everyone hereabouts seems to be confused by them and I have observed a few altercations between pedestrians and motorists.
|
|
No one has suggested that anyone deliberately runs over cyclists but if a cyclist is stupid enough to shoot across a pedetrian crossing in front of traffic then he is the one who is risking the accident. They are relying on the drivers being 100% alert having good brakes and a good diesel free road surface. If they have an accident in those circumstances then the cyclist is the only one resposible.
|
|
|
"what about the following monuments to ambiguity in terms of who gives way to whom and why:"
I'd like to add seemingly 'fake' zebra crossings on a normal road surface, linking bike tracks on either side of the road. The cyclists need to cross here to continue on their track, however as far a i know, these pretend markings hold no legal purpose whatsoever, often causing confusion as some motorists actually stop at them, and some pedestrians expect motorists to stop at them.
To add to the danger of this ambiguity, they are 50 yards from a school.
|
I think this thread began with "Who has precedence" not "Is it ok to knock a cyclist over on a pedex if he/she is riding a bike on it"
I believe the question has been answered a couple of times. I don't believe that anyone is taking the stance that it would be OK for a motorist to run a cyclist over.
Common sense dictates that it would be wrong & stupid to have an accident simply because you have right of way (as a motorist/cyclist/pedestrian) We have had this discussion before when someone asked who had right of way when a vehicle is pulling out of a junction whilst a pedestrian is crossing the road the motorist is pulling into.
There is a technical and legal answer that should satisfy.
|
I think this thread began with "Who has precedence" not "Is it ok to knock a cyclist over on a pedex if he/she is riding a bike on it"
Quite.
As the original author of this thread, I have been fascinated - amongst other emotions - to read some of the very aggressive responses that BRers have posted.
If some people are this aggressive with a keyboard, what are they like on the road?
Don
|
I just reread this thread and the posts I typed up are, well,
are pretty well removed from the usual me and that got the old cerebrum ticking over.
The only explanation I can offer is this: Imagine you are stood in the street and a total stranger hits you across the back with a stout piece of wood. You pick yourself up, clutching your bruised ribs and wiping some blood from your forehead, and spot the attacker. He's wearing a blindfold and is marching down the street at quite a rate of knots whilst flailing about him with the aforementioned length of timber.
You approach the chap, calling out to alert him to your presence. He stops, removes the blindfold and flatly denies hitting anyone with the wood he still holds in his hands. You point to the scrap of your shirt stuck on a splinter at the end of the stick and he becomes aggressive, continuing to deny responsibility whilst pointing the stick at you. He takes another swing, but you manage to avoid this and see a chance to kick this nutter in the shins before legging it.
Now repeat this scenario about once a month, with varying degrees of stupidity, aggression and incompetence levelled at you.
Now I hope you understand the passion this subject raises in me.
|
"Now repeat this scenario about once a month, with varying degrees of stupidity, aggression and incompetence levelled at you."
I would seriously think about moving somewhere else, if I were you!
|
ah....yes. I have seen this guy quite often. Sometimes he is driving a car. But, sometimes, he is riding a bike!
Doesn't change the tenet of the piece though. The question is...who has precedence? The pedestrian. Even if a pedestrian crossed against the red man, wouldn't give you the right to mow him down. Wouldn't give you the right to mow down a cyclist. The green man doesn't give the pedestrian the right to leap in front of a car as soon as he sees the lights go from amber to red.
People get aereated and hot under the collar with their petty possessive behaviour. We see it in all walks of life. Trolley rage, parking rage, mobile phone rage, slow walking rage, stone cladding rage! I get it, (well, more hump than rage) I try not to. But, in the end, common sense, self preservation and, probably, a sense of "don't be a twonk" wins out in the end; As with most people.
|
"Even if a pedestrian crossed against the red man, wouldn't give you the right to mow him down. Wouldn't give you the right to mow down a cyclist."
Absolutely true.
HOWEVER, if you were unable to stop in time when they did this, and ended up mowing them down, it is then not your fault, as you did nothing wrong.
My personal concerns are that on these 'pseudo' crossings that are currently popping up everywhere, mostly in order to direct cyclists and/or pedestrians across the road and back onto the off-road cycle path they were using, if they do choose to cross in front of a car, they are effectively crossing 'against the red man' - although they may not realise it.
Therefore if someone crosses the road on one of these, and i am unable to avoid hitting them, then it is still not my fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
