Cyclists on Zebra Crossings..

[snorri]

[QUOTE 2949383, member: 30090"]If I biked across a zebra crossing I would expect traffic to stop.[/quote]

So would I, but if a vehicle ran in to me and injured me or damaged my bike I would not expect to get any sympathy from the driver or his/her insurance company.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2949408, member: 259"]Honestly, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Nobody gives a toss about cyclists crossing on pedestrian crossings anywhere else, and I'm certainly not going to get piles worrying about it causing mayhem in the UK.[/quote]
Fascinating logic. Or rather the lack of any.

 

[Arjimlad]

[QUOTE 2949383, member: 30090"]If I biked across a zebra crossing I would expect traffic to stop. If a bike or car threatened me in any way and then proceeded to babble on about how I was breaking the RTA then I would be having a word make no mistake.

Nothing more annoying then some dickhead acting pious when the cause and effect is zero. Different of course if I was forcing peds to move out the way when crossing.[/quote]

So, you expect me to stop for you, lose all my momentum and have to start off again, when I'm cycling on the road and your Mum won't let you ?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2949524, member: 259"]In which way? Why is letting cyclists use pedestrian crossings so bad?[/quote]
You need to make the case for why it is ok.

 

[summerdays]

So, you expect me to stop for you, lose all my momentum and have to start off again, when I'm cycling on the road and your Mum won't let you ?

I would expect a cyclist to stop, if I'm a pedestrian and it's safe to do so I will wave the cyclist across or delay reaching the crossing till after they get across. Loads of pedestrians do that for me as a cyclist so I like to return the favour.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2949561, member: 259"]No, I think you need to make a case for it being wrong, as you feel so strongly about it. I'm not going to try to defend normal behaviour.[/quote]
You are advocating a change from the current status quo, whereby cyclists may not licitly use pedestrian only crossings when cycling, therefore it is for you to justify the change you advocate.

using a slightly stronger argument than forenz do it, as per post #18, please.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 2949572, member: 259"]No, I'm saying you're talking bollocks.[/quote]
Oh well. That sweeps all before it. So long sucker.

 

[clockman]

Can someone please explain to me, without being snide, why certain amongst us feel that they are entitled to break the rules laid in the highway code when it suits them! When they quite obviously want motor vehicle drivers too bay the same rules!

 

[clockman]

[QUOTE 2949612, member: 30090"]Cause and effect.[/quote]
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[QUOTE 2949618, member: 259"]Well, people like Greg will have different explanations, but in most EU countries, it's fine to use ped crossinghs, but:

• in many countries, like Germany, NL, Belgium, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Iceland, bikes can cross on the same lights as pedestrians.
• In many countries, bike can cross on bike lights
• in many countries, bike can cross on red lights if it is safe to do so

[/quote]
The last time I opened my eyes, we lived in the UK. None of these other countries. As such, we as cyclists are subject to the rules laid down by a UK parliament. As yet we haven't given the European Parliament these powers.

I will ask again, politely, why do some people chose to disregard rules when it doesn't suit them!

 

[Dan B]

Can someone please explain to me, without being snide, why certain amongst us feel that they are entitled to break the rules laid in the highway code when it suits them! When they quite obviously want motor vehicle drivers too bay the same rules!

Rules are made for reasons which (we hope) are apparent from the rule, to discourage people from doing things that are rude, antisocial or may cause harm to others. Depending on how carefully they are drafted they may also make it illegal to do these things in circumstances where they are none of these three things. For example, the law against cycling on pavements is to make the pavements safer for pedestrians, but repeated Government advice has been that cycling on the pavements is OK despite being illegal when it is not causing danger or distress to the said peds.

I hope this is sufficiently non-snide for you

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Rules are made for reasons which (we hope) are apparent from the rule, to discourage people from doing things that are rude, antisocial or may cause harm to others. Depending on how carefully they are drafted they may also make it illegal to do these things in circumstances where they are none of these three things. For example, the law against cycling on pavements is to make the pavements safer for pedestrians, but repeated Government advice has been that cycling on the pavements is OK despite being illegal when it is not causing danger or distress to the said peds.

I disagree. Ok, it is a subtle disagreement but I think an important one...

Govt advice is that police should NOT prosecute or issue FPN's if a specific set of circumstances apply to the pavement rider's behaviour. The advice relates only to the application of the law, it does not say pavement cycling is OK.

 

[snorri]

[QUOTE 2949470, member: 30090"]Really? Is a ped crossing really that black & white (pardon the pun) regarding who and how it should be used.
. [/quote]

Yes, that is my understanding of UK road traffic law.

 

[clockman]

[QUOTE 2949696, member: 259"]I will ask again, politely, why do some people chose to disregard rules when it doesn't suit them

Because the rules might be silly?[/quote]

So, because you think it is silly, it gives you the right to ignore, disregard and break that law?
If you want to change a law you think is silly, why don't you start a campaign to change it? Try to get 100,000 people to sign a petition, so you have to have a question answered in parliament.
Until you can get the law/rule changed, obey it and stop putting other road users at risk.

 

[clockman]

Good for you, but why are you pontificating from afar!

I'm not going to get upset, I'll just feel that we'll just have to agree to dis-agree. You've got your perfectly valid opinion, just as I've got mine. I don't think we will ever be able to agree, so I'll leave it there.

Enjoy your cycling utopia. I'm only sorry that I'm not able to join you there.

 

[Markymark]

So, because you think it is silly, it gives you the right to ignore, disregard and break that law?
If you want to change a law you think is silly, why don't you start a campaign to change it? Try to get 100,000 people to sign a petition, so you have to have a question answered in parliament.
Until you can get the law/rule changed, obey it and stop putting other road users at risk.

It is illegal to enter an ASL unless through the broken line. Entering from the right side would be an offence. Would you ignore that law?

Ps I don't.cross zebra crossings on my bike.