TonyEnjoyD
Guru
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
I must apologise for boring everyone with legal blurb.
A question of etiquette/traffic law ...
- Thread starter Rafters
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
But surely "give way" is only applicable to a path conflict situation? If the pedestrian has crossed in front of the cyclist and is now on the other side of the road moving away from the cyclist then there is no path conflict.
TonyEnjoyD
Guru
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Grey area
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
In other words, your interpretation is just that, and no more.
I completely see your point, and to some degree I'd say it is completely valid.
However, let's see what the Highway Code says about zebra crossings:
"Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing.
A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings"
Give way imho translates as "do not go over the crossing if there are pedestrians on it" - you can wriggle all you like, but I think we all agree we'd be well peeved at a car driver who started driving behind our grandmothers, but while they were still on the crossing. Why then would you think YOU are exempt from the same rule?
You may argue that it is a legal grey area, and you're probably right. That, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't matter. The real litmus test for me is whether or not it is a moral grey area, and to me it is morally crystal clear: don't go onto the crossing while there are pedestrians on it.
Ultimately, I believe, we cannot on the one hand point out the errors of drivers, using the argument that they can do more damage, while in turn we treat pedestrians in much the same way. In the end, to my mind, the most vulnerable road users must enjoy the most protection. That automatically places pedestrians first, and cyclists second. I shake my head sadly every time I hear a cyclist rant about pedestrians in the same manner as Jeremy Clarkson rants about cyclists.
Now I cannot prove to you in a scientific manner that my opinions on this matter are legally and factually correct, in the manner in which I can prove that 1 + 1 = 2, and I therefore present my opinions as exactly that: opinions. You are of course free to disagree, in which case we'd have to agree to disagree.
Of course, crossing behind a pedestrian isn't anywhere near the level of sheer stupidity and arrogance shown by that small minority who choose to barrel through a crossing full of pedestrians, even a lights-controlled one that shows a green man to the pedestrians and a red light to crossing traffic.
Those idiots, far more than cyclists that jump normal red lights, give us all a REALLY bad name.
an old guy i knew in Acton was killed on a zebra crossing doing just that - he helped an old lady across and turned just before he reached the kerb
Well if my grandmother was on the opposite side of the road when the driver started moving again, assuming it was legal, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with that as my grandmother, if she was still alive, wouldn't notice in the slightest.
Just to be clear I'm talking about the situation where the cyclist has stopped at the crossing and then set off again when the pedestrian is well clear of their path, not the case where a cyclist blasts through a crossing without stopping. In the former case I don't see how a cyclist can cause a problem to the pedestrian. However if it is a legal requirement then that trumps everything as far as I am concerned.
doug
Veteran
My interpretation is that "Give Way" means "Allow to pass without let or hindrance", once the pedestrian has passed, even whilst they are still on the crossing, you may proceed if it is safe. Give Way does not mean "wait until they have cleared the crossing", although you may have to if it would be unsafe to proceed otherwise.
How would you prove that 1+1=2?
Indeed.
1 + 1 = 10 without any logical concerns and, when it comes to looking after your own kids, 1 + 1 = 11.
Indeed.
1 + 1 = 10 without any logical concerns and, when it comes to looking after your own kids, 1 + 1 = 11.
Correction: 0000 0001 + 0000 0001 = 0000 0010 in binary notation. 1 + 1 is quite clearly decimal or hexadecimal notation. As for looking after the kids, I thought 1 + 1 = arguments? :-)
TonyEnjoyD
Guru
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
It's about the burden of proof. In law it must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the crime was committed.
There is a lot of grey area which is often dependant on circumstance. For instance, if a pedestrian has crossed beyond your path but still on the crossing and you drive past them, they get a fright causing them to stumble and results an injury, it could be taken that the driver is at fault as the ped did not expect a vehicle to move whilst they were still crossing and caused the accident.
TonyEnjoyD
Guru
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Basically, if here's someone crossing, give them the courtesy to get all the way across before pulling away.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
You're making it up, sunbeam. There comes a dividing line between pushing past too quickly, and passing behind the pedestrian on the crossing in a perfectly considerate manner with loads of room, no intimidation, and no chance of getting in the way of a ped changing their mind and turning back.
TonyEnjoyD
Guru
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
BentMikey, If you add "I thought" at the beginning then "your honour" at the end...
I suppose it depends on the rider - assuming not a motorist here - who is usually in around secondary position so around 1.5 metres from the kerb.
The bar width prob around 500mm so nearer 1.2m -1.25m around 2 paces for a ped... Let them cross.
Again, this is all assumptions and too many variables to Make any real judgement.
Almost anyone here could give a different opinion.
Finally, I would respectfully ask anyone that is going to start a patronising response (I can't see any poster here called Sunbeam) that they at least reference who they are responding to.
I suppose it depends on the rider - assuming not a motorist here - who is usually in around secondary position so around 1.5 metres from the kerb.
The bar width prob around 500mm so nearer 1.2m -1.25m around 2 paces for a ped... Let them cross.
Again, this is all assumptions and too many variables to Make any real judgement.
Almost anyone here could give a different opinion.
Finally, I would respectfully ask anyone that is going to start a patronising response (I can't see any poster here called Sunbeam) that they at least reference who they are responding to.
