Zebras!

[Davidsw8]

The OP is right. If there's an island it counts as two crossings. If the island is a small one though you need to be very sure the pedestrian knows Highway Code rule 195 as well. If the pedestrian is on the pavement and heading for the crossing you should be ready to stop.

Taxi driver tried to give me a bollocking last month for failing to stop for two peds on the kerb. I'd actually eyeballed them and seen they were chatting (and then heard, they were speaking French) and not even about to step out. He was still insistent I should have stopped.

I lose count of the people stood on the edge of the kerb looking like they're about to cross but they're chatting with someone or on the phone, or quite often just staring at the view. It's especially bad when they lurk right by a zebra crossing and you stop but they have no intention of crossing. gah!

 

[gaz]

This precedence thing:

"Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings25. (1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/25/made

That doesn't state that there is anything different for cyclists.

 

[Davidsw8]

That doesn't state that there is anything different for cyclists.

Fair enough. I (wrongly) read somewhere that a car has to wait for the ped to be clear of the crossing whereas the cyclist is ok to go behind the ped even if they're still on it.

 

[Venod]

You use of "correct" is ambiguous: In terms of the highway code it is not correct, but in terms of politeness in might be - which did you mean

From my post, for correct read polite, as has been pointed out you don't have to stop until someone steps on the crossing, thinking about why I would behave differently on the bike. its probably a subconscious thing to keep momentum.

 

[Davidsw8]

I should also say that some of this slight confusion on my part arose a few months ago when I came to a zebra crossing outside Cambridge Station. I was at the edge of the crossing and a cyclist rode through it, I said 'You're supposed to stop!', he shouted over his shoulder 'I don't have to!'.

I guessed later that even though I was one pace away from the crossing, obviously intending to cross, I wasn't ON it and so he wasn't legally obliged to stop for me.

 

[StuartG]

There is a difference between a car and a bicycle in what is required for precedence. A car normally commands most of the carriageway so the only way precedence can be given is to stop. Whereas a bicycle takes very little. Hence as long as the bicycle and the pedestrian do not conflict then both can cross the crossing at the same time.

I rarely stop (as a cyclist) for a non-continuous group of people in that you can usually slow and pass behind them if they are already on the crossing. They smooth flow rather than interrupt it like light controlled crossings where you have to stop and start again even if there would have been no conflict.

 

[RedRider]

Two pages about the subtleties of zebras and here's me thinking they were a black and white subject.

 

[lukesdad]

What precedence thing?

No one has to stop until a pedestrian is on the crossing - read rule 195 quoted above.

Strictly, by the law, if i am stood at a zebra crossing no none is required to stop until I claim priority by putting a foot on the crossing

Unless you are prepared to stop, it ll probably be too late by the time the ped has started to cross, but rules is rules innit.

 

[boydj]

There is a difference between a car and a bicycle in what is required for precedence. A car normally commands most of the carriageway so the only way precedence can be given is to stop. Whereas a bicycle takes very little. Hence as long as the bicycle and the pedestrian do not conflict then both can cross the crossing at the same time.

I rarely stop (as a cyclist) for a non-continuous group of people in that you can usually slow and pass behind them if they are already on the crossing. They smooth flow rather than interrupt it like light controlled crossings where you have to stop and start again even if there would have been no conflict.

That's not what the Highway Code says! Passing between pedestrians on a crossing can be intimidating for the pedestrians. No wonder cyclists get a bad name if this kind of thinking is commonplace.

 

[StuartG]

That's not what the Highway Code says! Passing between pedestrians on a crossing can be intimidating for the pedestrians. No wonder cyclists get a bad name if this kind of thinking is commonplace.

I think you missed the words non-continuous. So no passing between as you claim. The point is to give precedence and to do it clearly so no intimidation is given or received. It is easier to do that without stopping on a bicycle as opposed to driving.

That is in compliance with the highway code and a courtesy to the pedestrian. If you re-read I hope you will agree that you are mistaken and creating an issue where there is none.

 

[PK99]

I think you missed the words non-continuous. So no passing between as you claim. The point is to give precedence and to do it clearly so no intimidation is given or received. It is easier to do that without stopping on a bicycle as opposed to driving.

That is in compliance with the highway code and a courtesy to the pedestrian. If you re-read I hope you will agree that you are mistaken and creating an issue where there is none.

I might pass behind a pedestrian on a Zebra crossing but NEVER in front

 

[Buddfox]

There is a difference between a car and a bicycle in what is required for precedence. A car normally commands most of the carriageway so the only way precedence can be given is to stop. Whereas a bicycle takes very little. Hence as long as the bicycle and the pedestrian do not conflict then both can cross the crossing at the same time.

I rarely stop (as a cyclist) for a non-continuous group of people in that you can usually slow and pass behind them if they are already on the crossing. They smooth flow rather than interrupt it like light controlled crossings where you have to stop and start again even if there would have been no conflict.

Can you provide a link to some legislation or other official guidance that confirms this? The legislation quoted above (Regulation 25, and on which the Highway Code rule 195 is based) makes reference to the limits of a zebra crossing, which in the context means the entire zebra crossing. So if a pedestrian is on a zebra crossing, a cyclist should not enter it, whether behind or in front of them. I'm not disagreeing with you (necessarily) but I've just not been able to find anything that differentiates between a car and a bike here, or indeed that defines the "limits" of a zebra crossing as anything other than the entire crossing.

 

[PK99]

Can you provide a link to some legislation or other official guidance that confirms this? The legislation quoted above (Regulation 25, and on which the Highway Code rule 195 is based) makes reference to the limits of a zebra crossing, which in the context means the entire zebra crossing. So if a pedestrian is on a zebra crossing, a cyclist should not enter it, whether behind or in front of them. I'm not disagreeing with you (necessarily) but I've just not been able to find anything that differentiates between a car and a bike here, or indeed that defines the "limits" of a zebra crossing as anything other than the entire crossing.

The regulation you refer to (see given text) says (pedestrian) ".. shall have precedence...", the wording does not say that a cyclist cannot pass behind a pedestrian. In fact, it does not forbid a car passing being a pedestrian eg pedestrian crosses from left hand kerb, when they are beyond the middle of the road traffic can move behind them.

 

[Buddfox]

View attachment 34200

The regulation you refer to (see given text) says (pedestrian) ".. shall have precedence...", the wording does not say that a cyclist cannot pass behind a pedestrian. In fact, it does not forbid a car passing being a pedestrian eg pedestrian crosses from left hand kerb, when they are beyond the middle of the road traffic can move behind them.

I think I interpret "precedence" differently - is that term defined 'officially' anywhere?

 

[Tyke]

There is a difference between a car and a bicycle in what is required for precedence. A car normally commands most of the carriageway so the only way precedence can be given is to stop. Whereas a bicycle takes very little. Hence as long as the bicycle and the pedestrian do not conflict then both can cross the crossing at the same time.

I rarely stop (as a cyclist) for a non-continuous group of people in that you can usually slow and pass behind them if they are already on the crossing. They smooth flow rather than interrupt it like light controlled crossings where you have to stop and start again even if there would have been no conflict.

Lad at work did that a few years ago, she suddenly turned around and walked into the side of his bike resulting in him coming off and breaking an arm.