A question of etiquette/traffic law ...

[benborp]

Remember that the highway code is basically a digest of the relevant legislation. To work out exactly who can pass whom you would have to read all of Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28 to see which aspects apply to vehicles (including pedal cycles), and which apply to motor vehicles (excluding pedal cycles). This is one of the areas in which the rules are not the same for all road users.

 

[Sara_H]

I got pipped at today (as a ped) for committing the sin of still being on the crossing when the lghts changed.

Of course, this made me walk very s-l-o-w-l-y whilst glaring at the driver and informing him that he was a t****r, a bit self defeating on his part!

 

[BalkanExpress]

Monty

the proof was actually very simple: if they stopped then you had made eye contact; if they ran you down then "obviously" you hadn't made eye contact (as they would have stopped if eye contact had been made!)

 

[jds_1981]

Read through the three traffic acts. Still not convinced that the operator of a vehicle has to wait until a pedestrian has cleared a zebra crossing to procced. The operative bit is giving 'precedence' to a pedestrian who is on the crossing. I can't see 'precedence' being clearly defined anywhere.

 

[RedRider]

I'm another who brings their judgement to bear for each case...if the person is elderly, infirm or very young I'll stop with the relevant nod of the head and smile but if it looks as if the crosser may potentially have driven a BMW or 4x4 in the city at any point in the near past or future I'll zip by so close and fast it'll feel like Ayrton Senna swept over their grave.

 

[RedRider]

And an elderly ex BMW driver?

Somewhere inbetween...like Bernie Ecclestone passing their final resting place after he's put a sprint on for a tall girl.

 

[Thomk]

Read through the three traffic acts. Still not convinced that the operator of a vehicle has to wait until a pedestrian has cleared a zebra crossing to procced. The operative bit is giving 'precedence' to a pedestrian who is on the crossing. I can't see 'precedence' being clearly defined anywhere.

I agree with this. When I was an ADI I preached waiting until ped's had cleared the crossing (in support of defensive driving practice) and I believe most ADI's still do. But I don't think the literature supports this stance and I'm not aware of any case law to support it either.

 

[subaqua]

Read through the three traffic acts. Still not convinced that the operator of a vehicle has to wait until a pedestrian has cleared a zebra crossing to procced. The operative bit is giving 'precedence' to a pedestrian who is on the crossing. I can't see 'precedence' being clearly defined anywhere.

there are lots of words in the acts that are not defined in the acts. I beleive the oxford english dictionary is the standard used by legal beagles to obtain the definition of words not defined within said SIs.
precedence is the order of Priority so , to me at least , it would seem to be that pedestrian has priority whilst on the crossing. or in other words- if a ped is on the crossing then a car shouldn't be. can't find any case law to back this up either way .

wonder if Patrick would do a pro bono test case

 

[Norm]

I agree with the interpretation up to this bit...

or in other words- if a ped is on the crossing then a car shouldn't be.

Giving priority doesn't mean not sharing, IMO.

When I want to pull onto a roundabout, I give priority to vehicles already on there but that doesn't mean you can't get two, or more, vehicles using the same roundabout.

Giving precedence, in road terms, means that you shouldn't cause those to whom you have to "give way" to have to change their direction or speed, or something like that.

 

[benb]

I don't think anyone would defend buzzing close to pedestrians' heels as soon as they have cleared your lane, but if it is a large crossing, is there really a problem with slowly continuing once they are well clear of you - at least 2m - and still moving away from you?

 

[summerdays]

I guess the problem is that some people's interpretation of 2m and slow is different. One particular time that I remember I was crossing a zebra crossing with one of my children and a car passed both behind and in front of me (and no there wasn't an island in the middle). The minute a car passes behind someone they become less clear on the zebra crossing whereas the stopped traffic helps to alert traffic coming the other way to the fact that someone is on the crossing. Or to the car behind the first one.

 

[clarion]

Meh. What harm does it do to wait a moment?

 

[benb]

I guess the problem is that some people's interpretation of 2m and slow is different. One particular time that I remember I was crossing a zebra crossing with one of my children and a car passed both behind and in front of me (and no there wasn't an island in the middle). The minute a car passes behind someone they become less clear on the zebra crossing whereas the stopped traffic helps to alert traffic coming the other way to the fact that someone is on the crossing. Or to the car behind the first one.

Excellent point - I wouldn't go through, even if the pedestrian was fully on the oncoming lane, if there was oncoming traffic.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I don't think anyone would defend buzzing close to pedestrians' heels as soon as they have cleared your lane, but if it is a large crossing, is there really a problem with slowly continuing once they are well clear of you - at least 2m - and still moving away from you?

I can't yell down from my moral high horse on this one, because I've done that myself. But the issue is not whether there's 'really a problem' with it.

There isn't 'really a problem' with remaining seated on a train when an elderly person has no seat. There isn't 'really a problem' with going through a door with a closer and letting it swing in the face of the person behind you.... Lots of people do both and it isn't 'really a problem'.

The thing is that it's discourteous or may appear so and the advantage gained by not waiting is trifling.

Yesterday a driver (also a cyclist, I'm guessing) waited behind me and my soon as we 'wound down' after a 10-mile piece of work. We were climbing a long hill, so this driver waited behind us at 9-ish mph for about 3/4 of a mile. I dropped back to give him a chance to pass us in two bites, but he just sat there.

In truth, he could have passed but it might have been a little close. When he did, I got a toot and a (nice) wave and I waved my thanks. Alongside that sort of courtesy (lovely but unexpected), waiting for 89-year-old Iris with her new hip to make it over a crossing is little to ask.

Just be lovely to everyone and the planet will seem a nicer place.

 

[benb]

I can't yell down from my moral high horse on this one, because I've done that myself. But the issue is not whether there's 'really a problem' with it.

There isn't 'really a problem' with remaining seated on a train when an elderly person has no seat. There isn't 'really a problem' with going through a door with a closer and letting it swing in the face of the person behind you.... Lots of people do both and it isn't 'really a problem'.

The thing is that it's discourteous or may appear so and the advantage gained by not waiting is trifling.

Yesterday a driver (also a cyclist, I'm guessing) waited behind me and my soon as we 'wound down' after a 10-mile piece of work. We were climbing a long hill, so this driver waited behind us at 9-ish mph for about 3/4 of a mile. I dropped back to give him a chance to pass us in two bites, but he just sat there.

In truth, he could have passed but it might have been a little close. When he did, I got a toot and a (nice) wave and I waved my thanks. Alongside that sort of courtesy (lovely but unexpected), waiting for 89-year-old Iris with her new hip to make it over a crossing is little to ask.

Just be lovely to everyone and the planet will seem a nicer place.

I can't argue with that.