Overtake on a pedestrian crossing

[Goto10]

Road safed him, 1st part of vid shows the ped waiting at crossing - the 2nd part of the vid shows how close he was to me. I caught & passed him about 30 seconds later anyway!
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOwDak184JE

 

[scouserinlondon]

what a pillock, hope he gets charged and glad you didn't get smacked like the other chap on here did in a similar situation.

 

[BSRU]

Although WVM was a muppet he did nothing illegal, assuming the pedestrian was not actually on the crossing.

The pedestrian must have at least one foot on the crossing in order for that to be illegal as you MUST give way to anyone on the crossing.

 

[BSRU]

I should add it is only illegal for WVM to overtake another motorised vehicle in the controlled area, zig zags, it is legal for WVM to overtake anything else.

 

[Dan B]

I should add it is only illegal for WVM to overtake another motorised vehicle in the controlled area, zig zags, it is legal for WVM to overtake anything else.

Unbelievable but (mostly) true : Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997

24. Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings

(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called 'the approaching vehicle') or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it :-

(a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

(2) In paragraph (1) :-

(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and

(b) the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

So you can overtake a moving cyclist but not a stopped one. Why was this not picked up when the bill was drafted? Morons

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Unbelievable but true
So you can overtake a moving cyclist but not a stopped one. Why was this not picked up when the bill was drafted? Morons

But I think the cyclist may have been stationary when the van went past.

 

[Dan B]

And while I'm on the pointless inconsistencies kick: a zebra crossing with an island in the middle is treated as two separate crossings, but a pelicon crossing is considered as a single unit unless staggered. Logical? Not obviously.

 

[Dan B]

But I think the cyclist may have been stationary when the van went past.

Hmm, yeah. Stopped or very nearly so.

 

[her_welshness]

What a bloody tosser, I do hope that the Police have a word...

 

[guitarpete247]

Whatever the exact point of the law WVM obviously was driving with little regard for the pedestrian or other road users. If he hadn't seen the guy about to cross he needs his eyes testing. And if he had he needs to think that if another road user has stopped for ped then he is likely to take this as their chance to cross safely. A second later and he would have been under the van.

 

[BSRU]

Unbelievable but (mostly) true : Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997

So you can overtake a moving cyclist but not a stopped one. Why was this not picked up when the bill was drafted? Morons

The pedestrian has to be on the carriageway for overtaking a stopped cyclist to be illegal, from the video it looked like the pedestrian saw WVM coming and stayed on the pavement.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

The pedestrian has to be on the carriageway for overtaking a stopped cyclist to be illegal.

Where does it say that? I can't find it in the quoted text from the ZPPPCR above.

 

[BSRU]

Where does it say that? I can't find it in the quoted text from the ZPPPCR above.

It's the bit about precedence, the pedestrian only has precedence once on the crossing and that would mean the cyclist was stopped to obey the precedence part, then it would be illegal for WVM to overtake.

It would have been better just to make all overtaking in the controlled area illegal, far more simple.

 

[Dan B]

It's the bit about precedence, the pedestrian only has precedence once on the crossing and that would mean the cyclist was stopped to obey the precedence part, then it would be illegal for WVM to overtake.

I see your point but I think it's a little grey. The text is "stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26": even though the pedestrian is not yet on the crossing, the cyclist has probably stopped for that purpose (anticipating that the ped will cross). Otherwise it would be illegal (sections 20 and 21, "Prohibition against the stopping of vehicles in controlled areas") to stop within the controlled area unless the pedestrian is on the carriageway already, which means that on a narrow road the poor bloke never gets to step off teh kerb at all ...

guitarpete has it right: the law is a mess and the wvm is an ass.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/contents/made if anyone else wants to play at amateur lawyering

 

[BSRU]

guitarpete has it right: the law is a mess and the wvm is an ass.

+1

I sure the WVM is not up on the nuances of the law.