That in not what the highway code says.
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That in not what the highway code says.
Profpointy
Legendary Member
it does say "who have started crossing" in both cases. Does that mean that if cars just zoom through then you daren't start crossing, hence cars never have to give way ?
Still not impressed by the might is right attitude I'm seeing on a cycle forum of all places
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Not impressive, but also not surprising: most cyclists are also motorists, so a significant minority of them are likely to be crap motorists, sadly. Some will also be crap cyclists, pulling stunts like overtaking other cyclists on the left at speed without warning or mounting the kerb recklessly... but I'd still rather they were cycling on the pavement than driving tons of metal along it... and motorists do often hurtle onto pavements because they think they can squeeze past someone waiting to turn right, only to panic if they discover the pavement's occupied:
Jody
Stubborn git
Or dismounting the kerb recklessly, off the pavement (which he shouldn't have been cycling on), into a T junction, without slowing or looking sufficiently and expecting not to get hit. The motorist wasn't blameless but the guy on the bike was a tool.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Can I correct this?
He's just hit a car. This is lizard brain response. Logic doesn't come into it.
Rohloff_Brompton_Rider
Formerly just_fixed
Maybe I'm being simple here, but a human being was nearly squished by a another human not paying enough attention when turning left.
Now let's replace the full grown hairy human with a child on a scooter, or an elderly person on a mobility scooter, or a mother running with a pram.
Would you all be so quick to jump to the driver's defence then? Hopefully not and in that context, a human is a human is a human.
Ergo the driver is the one in the wrong, I don't remember the Highway Code stating its ok not to look where you're turning.
Now let's replace the full grown hairy human with a child on a scooter, or an elderly person on a mobility scooter, or a mother running with a pram.
Would you all be so quick to jump to the driver's defence then? Hopefully not and in that context, a human is a human is a human.
Ergo the driver is the one in the wrong, I don't remember the Highway Code stating its ok not to look where you're turning.
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
Do you not remember the green cross code?
Tanis8472
Guru
So by that logic, you would never get across if there is a constant stream of traffic.
winjim
Smash the cistern
Leaving aside the nobbery from both cyclist and motorist, in a strict legal sense does the footway not extend across the junction, giving priority to those travelling along it, over those turning across it? If so, it's about time our junction design was changed to reflect that.
Regarding the incident, nobber cyclist meets nobber motorist. Nobber motorist is more of a nobber as he's in control of the more dangerous vehicle and nobber cyclist is the vulnerable road user. It looked to me like the nobber motorist's nobbery was deliberate, and I don't think it can be excused by the nobbery of the nobber cyclist.
@summerdays where does this cyclist lie on your safe / unsafe spectrum?
Regarding the incident, nobber cyclist meets nobber motorist. Nobber motorist is more of a nobber as he's in control of the more dangerous vehicle and nobber cyclist is the vulnerable road user. It looked to me like the nobber motorist's nobbery was deliberate, and I don't think it can be excused by the nobbery of the nobber cyclist.
@summerdays where does this cyclist lie on your safe / unsafe spectrum?
PhilDawson8270
Veteran
I may be making it up, but I THINK pedestrians have ultimate right of way regardless of where they are. However, is this cyclists classed as a "pedestrian"?
Apart from he's not a road user, he's illegally cycling on a footpath.
What if there was somebody pushing a pram coming around the corner on the footpath in front of the cyclist? If he was going too fast to stop for the road junction, would he have stopped for them too?
I would like to think as a car driver I would have anticipated it, and it does to me feel somewhat like the driver did but turned anyway? However, the 'fault' here is the cyclist.
The only person doing anything wrong was the cyclist. On the pavement. Entering the road without paying proper attention.
The driver was perfectly entitled to assume that the cyclist would continue round the bend in the pavement or stop at the junction.
No. The footway goes round the bend of the junction it absolutely does not continue across the junction. There is another footway on the other side or the road across the junction.
glenn forger
Guest
So if a pedestrian is in the road and a cyclist sees them and sounds the horn
then rides into them it's the ped's fault?
That is a hypothetical totally unrelated to the event at issue.
But, if a pedestrian is in the road any road user has a duty of care to avoid them.
If a pedestrian steps off a pavement and hits a cyclist, the pedestrian is at fault.
If a cyclist rides off a pavement and hits another road user, the cyclist is at fault.
winjim
Smash the cistern
Probably not, but my question was about the legal definition of a footway, not the behaviour of those using it.
@mjray this strikes me as the sort of thing you might know.
He is using the road. Badly, but he's using it. And just because he's illegally pavement cycling doesn't make it alright to turn a car into his path.
There wasn't.
- Status