Zebras!

[sidevalve]

The pedestrian has precedence end of story. If you want to argue that you can ride behind or in front then do so but if as above one suddenly decides to run back or whatever you are the wrong doer. You are a a vehicle on the road - if you don't want to follow the [very simple] rules that do apply to cyclists then buy a bus ticket.
The divided crossing is a tricky one only because it depends on the size of the refuge. If it is a full scale stop and turn 90% refuge for the ped then you have two seperate crossings if not then really it is classed as one.
The pedestrian almost always has priority. as a driver/rider it is up to YOU to be aware of possible dangers and drive/ride accordingly. The "Oh it wasn't my fault I'm on a bicycle" attitude is one of cyclings worst problems.
In the OP the lorry driver shouldn't have assumed you were going to stop but then you shouldn't have assumed the pedestrian wasn't suddenly going to run out.

 

[Tanis8472]

The pedestrian has precedence end of story. If you want to argue that you can ride behind or in front then do so but if as above one suddenly decides to run back or whatever you are the wrong doer. You are a a vehicle on the road - if you don't want to follow the [very simple] rules that do apply to cyclists then buy a bus ticket.
The divided crossing is a tricky one only because it depends on the size of the refuge. If it is a full scale stop and turn 90% refuge for the ped then you have two seperate crossings if not then really it is classed as one.
The pedestrian almost always has priority. as a driver/rider it is up to YOU to be aware of possible dangers and drive/ride accordingly. The "Oh it wasn't my fault I'm on a bicycle" attitude is one of cyclings worst problems.
In the OP the lorry driver shouldn't have assumed you were going to stop but then you shouldn't have assumed the pedestrian wasn't suddenly going to run out.

Not tricky at all. Its treated as 2 separate crossings. Simples
Does anyone know what the actual boundaries are for a crossing?
Just the zebra painted bits or also the zigzag lines either side?

 

[Frood42]

Not tricky at all. Its treated as 2 separate crossings. Simples
Does anyone know what the actual boundaries are for a crossing?
Just the zebra painted bits or also the zigzag lines either side?

19 and 20 show zebra crossings, the crossing will be the black and white striped area, the little squares denote where the buffer zone starts, the zig zags are there to keep the crossing area clear.
The zig zags are not part of the crossing, but part of the overall road design to make it a safer place to cross and to make sure views of approaching traffic or crossing pedestrians is not obscured by parked cars. The buffer zone is there to add a bit of extra space in case a car gets rear ended or is late braking, that sort of thing.

https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/crossings-18-to-30
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199
.

 

[CopperBrompton]

As others have said, what you did was perfectly legal, but I consider it courteous to stop when a pedestrian is approaching a zebra with a clear intent to cross (as is the case in the situation you described).

As for passing behind pedestrians, I would think it legal, but as a pedestrian on the crossing is perfectly entitled to do a 180, I would suggest caution.

 

[clockman]

I'm confused by some of the comments on this thread. If a pedestrian is on the zebra crossing you are supposed to stop, doesn't matter if you can go behind then. You would have to be physic to know that they wouldn't suddenly turn around. It happens.
As a cyclist or motorist, you should anticipate a pedestrian approaching or leaving a crossing and be able to stop safely.
This whole thread brings to mind the argument about red traffic lights, either at a junction or at pedestrian crossings. Read, digest and abide by the rules in the highway code. Don't break the law!

 

[PK99]

I'm confused by some of the comments on this thread. If a pedestrian is on the zebra crossing you are supposed to stop, doesn't matter if you can go behind then. You would have to be physic to know that they wouldn't suddenly turn around. It happens.
As a cyclist or motorist, you should anticipate a pedestrian approaching or leaving a crossing and be able to stop safely.
This whole thread brings to mind the argument about red traffic lights, either at a junction or at pedestrian crossings. Read, digest and abide by the rules in the highway code. Don't break the law!

you are missing the point: the law does not say stop. there is no stop line there is a give way line.

Nowhere does the law say the once a pedestrian enters a crossing all traffic must stop until they exit the crossing.

 

[Tyke]

you are missing the point: the law does not say stop. there is no stop line there is a give way line.

Nowhere does the law say the once a pedestrian enters a crossing all traffic must stop until they exit the crossing.

I agree that it does not say stop but you would fail a driving test if you passed behind someone on the crossing.

 

[clockman]

I agree that it does not say stop but you would fail a driving test if you passed behind someone on the crossing.

Unfortunately, you cannot be more wrong on this assumption. You would only fail for going behind a pedestrian on a crossing if the pedestrian does a 180 and goes back while you are on the crossing.
Maybe, this will help you understand why the standard of driving is so poor.

 

[clockman]

I agree that it does not say stop but you would fail a driving test if you passed behind someone on the crossing.

I will say though, that if you tried to drive through a crossing as a pedestrian stepped onto, putting a foot onto the crossing you would not be get a driving licence at the end of that test.
And, I would hope that the examiner had used the dual brake and stopped the car.

 

[Tyke]

Unfortunately, you cannot be more wrong on this assumption. You would only fail for going behind a pedestrian on a crossing if the pedestrian does a 180 and goes back while you are on the crossing.
Maybe, this will help you understand why the standard of driving is so poor.

That`s not what I was told on the Driving Instructors course I was on. It was a long time ago so maybe things have changed but you are right about the poor standard of driving these days.

My post above shows what can happen when they do a 180. would you want to be there, and in a car you would probably run over someone. It might not say stop but how long does it take and it will still be faster than waiting for the Ambulance.

 

[clockman]

Not many people know how give proper arm signals nowadays. Inappropriate ones, maybe!

 

[clockman]

That`s not what I was told on the Driving Instructors course I was on. It was a long time ago so maybe things have changed but you are right about the poor standard of driving these days.

My post above shows what can happen when they do a 180. would you want to be there, and in a car you would probably run over someone. It might not say stop but how long does it take and it will still be faster than waiting for the Ambulance.

What you are told while training to be an instructor and what is accepted on a test, unfortunately, are two completely different things.
Once again, explaining why the standard of driving displayed on our roads us so lamentable!

 

[gaz]

What you are told while training to be an instructor and what is accepted on a test, unfortunately, are two completely different things.
Once again, explaining why the standard of driving displayed on our roads us so lamentable!

Doesn't help that we have practicably no enforcement as well.

 

[PK99]

Apologies if unclear. The regs are quite clear that the pedestrian has precedence, whilst on the carriageway within the boundaries of the crossing. My personal opinion is that this should be extended to include the intention to be on the carriageway, to accommodate those who are less assertive about setting foot on the crossing. I accept that defining this might be tricky.

In the op examples, whilst I agree it may have been polite to stop, it didn't appear required.

I will often stand close to a Zebra crossing with a single car approaching, but not step out to allow them to pass, but is there is a stream of cars, I will put a foot on the crossing to stop the traffic.

 

[Twelve Spokes]

The lorry driver cant make assumptions that any vehicle, be it bike, car, lorry will stop at the crossing, so he was wrong to pull out.

He can because he did.