No respect or consideration for pedestrian crossings

[Tim Hall]

Because you asked us to and I have some time to kill?

Besides, we are getting side tracked here. I thought the point of your original post was to highlight, quite correctly, that the van overtook you at a crossing where the presence of zigzag lines mean it is a prohibited manoeuvre?

The Zebra Pelican etc etc Regulations, rule 24 says it's only prohibited to overtake a motor vehicle. Linky

 

[benb]

Because you asked us to and I have some time to kill?

Besides, we are getting side tracked here. I thought the point of your original post was to highlight, quite correctly, that the van overtook you at a crossing where the presence of zigzag lines mean it is a prohibited manoeuvre?

You can call it a guess if you like, but it was completely obvious to me that she was going to cross.
The van driver should have stopped, partly because I had stopped, and partly because there was a pedestrian.

 

[I like Skol]

I estimate the was about 3 seconds between the lady being obvious she was to cross and the van going over the crossing.

Oooo, has anyone got a stopwatch handy to check this? I am struggling to get much past 2.5s using my uncalibrated head clock and it is further complicated by the fact that the cammer looks away just as she appears to start heading for the crossing. So even being generous and allowing for the missing footage it is still far short of 3 seconds.

He could easily have guessed she was likely to. I mean, it's not like they cover this stuff in the driving test is it?

Guessed? I also highlighted that in my previous post. We can all take guesses at what might be going to happen next but as I understand it, there is no requirement to stop at a crossing of this type if someone 'might' want to cross. I believe we are expected to stop only when it is clear someone wants to cross (i.e stands at the crossing looking up and down the road to see if it is safe to cross?).

 

[glasgowcyclist]

While it was a reasonable guess that she was going to use the crossing, that's not enough to have to yield for her before she even reaches it.

HC Rule 19
Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing.​

GC

 

[Turbo Rider]

While it was a reasonable guess that she was going to use the crossing, that's not enough to have to yield for her before she even reaches it.

HC Rule 19
Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing.​

GC

Just wondering, on that note. What part of the crossing actually constitutes the crossing? Is it the road itself or the dip in the pavement?

 

[benb]

Just wondering, on that note. What part of the crossing actually constitutes the crossing? Is it the road itself or the dip in the pavement?

It's also contradictory.
You should wait for traffic to stop before moving onto the crossing, but traffic doesn't have to stop until you have moved onto the crossing.
Anyway, her foot was on the crossing before the van got there, so he should have stopped anyway. If he couldn't, he was going too fast.

The limit is 20 there.

 

[Dan B]

While it was a reasonable guess that she was going to use the crossing, that's not enough to have to yield for her before she even reaches it.

But it's entirely enough to slow down so that you can yield in time if she does decide to use it. Otherwise you end up breaking the law (as this van driver did) when she steps onto it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It's also contradictory.

It isn't.
You put a foot on the crossing (that's you 'moved onto the crossing') and wait until traffic has stopped before you cross.
That's how it was when I were a lad and I don't think it's changed.

GC

 

[Dan B]

Guessed? I also highlighted that in my previous post. We can all take guesses at what might be going to happen next but as I understand it, there is no requirement to stop at a crossing of this type if someone 'might' want to cross. I believe we are expected to stop only when it is clear someone wants to cross (i.e stands at the crossing looking up and down the road to see if it is safe to cross?).

We are expected to stop if there is someone on the crossing. As it turned out, there was someone on the crossing when the driver went though it. The van driver could have anticipated in the 2.43525 seconds he had available to him that someone was likely to step onto the crossing and use that prediction to slow to a speed from which he could stop if they did choose to use it.

 

[Dan B]

It isn't.
You put a foot on the crossing (that's you 'moved onto the crossing') and

... get smacked in the face by a wing mirror.

 

[I like Skol]

Just wondering, on that note. What part of the crossing actually constitutes the crossing? Is it the road itself or the dip in the pavement?

I think if you have to wonder about points like that then maybe you aren't safe to go out on your own. Personally, I don't worry too much about the minute details of the rules and pay more attention to making sure I stay safe

 

[I like Skol]

... get smacked in the face by a wing mirror.

Do you have kids Dan? I have, and even they can use a ped crossing safely without knowing the legal rules, loopholes, clauses and minutiae behind its existence and use. They have been taught to stand at the crossing, a safe distance from the traffic, where they can see and be seen. Once they can see the road is clear or that the approaching traffic has stopped (and not before!), they can then proceed to cross the road, still watching in both directions for any other approaching vehicles.

It's child's play really, any idiot can do it (or not as the case may be).

 

[mr messy]

Van driver probably didn't see pedestrian, or crossing for that matter, and was too busy trying to overtake the 'tit on the bike' that had stopped in middle of road for no reason...

 

[glasgowcyclist]

But it's entirely enough to slow down so that you can yield in time if she does decide to use it. Otherwise you end up breaking the law (as this van driver did) when she steps onto it.

The van is about a car's length away from the crossing (18s) when the ped still has both feet on the pavement. Putting a foot on the crossing will not overcome the laws of physics.

GC

 

[Dan B]

The van is about a car's length away from the crossing (18s) when the ped still has both feet on the pavement. Putting a foot on the crossing will not overcome the laws of physics.

Exactly! Which is why he should have been going slower