Cyclists on Zebra Crossings

Flasheart

Am I right in thinking that I don't have to give way to a cyclist riding across a zebra crossing?
Yesterday on my first ride in about a month I was approaching a zebra crossing and there were no pedestrians in sight. The only people about were two kids on bikes riding on the pavement on the other side of the road. I was doing about 20mph as I approached the zebra crossing as there was nobody on foot to be seen. Suddenly the kids turned off the pavement and rode across the zebra crossing in front of me, causing me to hit the anchors.
I managed to avoid hitting either of them..just. I calmly said to them that they shouldn't just cross without looking and that they should get off their bikes to do it. They took it on board and appolgised (seemed like nice kids tbh) Then some guy in a Merc behind me said"You should have stopped" the fact that I had stopped was irrelivant. I turned and said to him that as they were on bikes they were cyclists like me and therefore not pedestrians and I didn't have to stop for them.

No harm was done, but who is right?

Lillywhite

Flasheart wrote:

Am I right in thinking that I don't have to give way to a cyclist riding across a zebra crossing?

No harm was done, but who is right?

I was taught that you are not allowed to ride your bike on a zebra crossing. You should dismount and then walk with your bike therefore I believe you are correct. The problem is caused by people, often kids or students, breaking the law the first instance by initially riding on a pavement and then darting across the zebra crossing with little or no warning to traffic, as in your case, approaching the crossing. :twisted:

AndyOgy

This used to annoy me too.

However - It turns out that most of the zebra crossings here in Brighton are placed to coincide with cycle lanes and there is a little picture of bicycle on a very small sign to indicate this.

I rarely use Brighton's cycle lanes in town as they are poorly thought out and very dangerous in places.

One thing that I wish pedestrians would realise is the significance of the zig zag lines leading up to the zebra crossing. The pedestrian (or cyclist) only has right of way if the oncoming vehicle has not yet reached the zig zags.

And, whilst on the subject, why do pedestrians seem to think that as long as their feet touch the zebra crossing once, they can then slowly take the most 'diagonal' route across the road.

Lillywhite

More information here, Rule 79:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

Lillywhite

More information here from the Highway Code, Rule 79:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069837

Interesting stuff here:-

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

Flasheart

No cycle lane here, and I was in the zigzag zone. Thanks guys n gals
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=pennington,+hampshire&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.675514,56.90918&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Pennington,+Lymington,+Hampshire,+United+Kingdom&ll=50.754147,-1.561443&spn=0,0.013894&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.75405,-1.561249&panoid=uJsG7hLKgc4Qz-zkRAwLcQ&cbp=12,140.56,,0,9.24

fastercyclist

Sounds like you're in the wrong to me.

You were going too fast near a zebra crossing.

Doesn't matter what the kids are on, they're kids. That's why they're on the pavement and not the road and by extension, crossing zebra crossings.

Bike, scooter, horse, areoplane...I don't care; they were crossing the zebra crossing and you nearly went into them by your own admission. Trying to construct a rationale based on them possessing bikes is just absurd.

Always give way to people on zebra crossings. You'd stop if an old person on a scooter tried to cross it wouldn't you? :roll:

I can see people waving around their highway codes but unless you're a communist bureaucrat it should be quite obvious to why kids are on pavements with their bikes. Just treat them as fast pedestrians, they don't go any faster then a jogger anyway.

Ands

Flasheart wrote:

I managed to avoid hitting either of them..just. I calmly said to them that they shouldn't just cross without looking and that they should get off their bikes to do it. They took it on board and appolgised (seemed like nice kids tbh) Then some guy in a Merc behind me said"You should have stopped" the fact that I had stopped was irrelivant. I turned and said to him that as they were on bikes they were cyclists like me and therefore not pedestrians and I didn't have to stop for them.
No harm was done, but who is right?

Are you asking if you should have stopped or carried on right into them? Of course you should have stopped if the alternative course of action was to plough into them!

Come on, they're kids, they're not road-wise and, just as you do for many other road users, you have to do the thinking for them. You told the Merc driver that you didn't have to stop because the cyclists were in the wrong. What message does that give? That it's OK to hit someone with a vehicle just because they are breaking the law? :roll:

STEFANOS4784

Shoulda plowed into them, got up, knocked out the bloke in the Merc and rode off laughing insanely :twisted:














EDIT: I always am wary round zebra crossings, bike or no bike, not worth the risk IMO

Flasheart

No Ands. I was not expecting to have top stop at a Zebra crossing as there were no pedestrians about. I did stop as I said. My point was that the motorist should have kept his opinion to himself as I hadn't done anything wrong. As stated by others and the relevant links they provided, once you get on a bike you are NOT a pedestrian and therefore have no right to use a pedestrian crossing as one and expect traffic to treat you as one. Even scooting on one pedal classes you as a cyclist apparently.
I understand that they were kids, I have 4 in total and I know they are unpredictable and do silly things at times.
There is no way I would have ploughed into them on purpose just because I was in the right.
My issue wasn't with the kids even though they were unlawful in what they did, it was the comment of the motorist that I had the problem with.

STEFANOS4784

But aren't kids aloud to ride on the pavement legally if their under a certain age? Or am i imagining this :?

How old were the wee bvggers?

Flasheart

12 or 13 I think and no according to the links on the post above. They just won't be prosecuted or fined for doing so, even though it is unlawful.
*quoted from link*
The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children's cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution

STEFANOS4784

Oh yeh you're right, was just reading this;

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php


Bit of a mine field really. Just ignore the nosy get in the Merc, he's obviously a pillar of the community whos perfect in every way so has the right to stick his nose in :roll:

alfablue

CAN CHILDREN CYCLE ON PAVEMENTS?

According to the Department for Transport (DfT), the maximum fine for cycling on the pavement from the courts is £500. However it is more usually enforced by way of the Fixed Penalty Notice procedure (FPN) which carries a £30 fine if pleading guilty. However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

"The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all but the police can show discretion to younger children cycling on the pavement for whom cycling on the road would not be a safe option."

The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on pavements without fear of redress.

http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycli ... he_law.php

Ian.B

AndyOgy wrote:

One thing that I wish pedestrians would realise is the significance of the zig zag lines leading up to the zebra crossing. The pedestrian (or cyclist) only has right of way if the oncoming vehicle has not yet reached the zig zags.

I've never heard of this before, I though the zig zag lines only meant no parking at any time?

Flasheart

Nope me either till today.

The road conditions were almost identical to the google map link I posted previously apart from the two kiddies tearing down the pavement on the opposite side of the road (faster than I've ever seen anyone jog btw). No other traffic except the Merc behind me that had pulled out of the convienience store 50 yards back.
I wasn't riding too fast for the conditions but if I hadn't been alert to the kids there would have been a collision.

alfablue

Ian.B wrote:

AndyOgy wrote:

One thing that I wish pedestrians would realise is the significance of the zig zag lines leading up to the zebra crossing. The pedestrian (or cyclist) only has right of way if the oncoming vehicle has not yet reached the zig zags.

I've never heard of this before, I though the zig zag lines only meant no parking at any time?

I don't think this is true (right of way thing). The zig zags mean no parking and no overtaking. Cars must stop if a pedestrian is on the crossing (therefore, they have right of way), regardless of where the car is in relation to the zig zags. If they are standing on the kerb the cars don't need to stop.

Ands

Flasheart wrote:

No Ands. I was not expecting to have top stop at a Zebra crossing as there were no pedestrians about. I did stop as I said. My point was that the motorist should have kept his opinion to himself as I hadn't done anything wrong. As stated by others and the relevant links they provided, once you get on a bike you are NOT a pedestrian and therefore have no right to use a pedestrian crossing as one and expect traffic to treat you as one. Even scooting on one pedal classes you as a cyclist apparently.
I understand that they were kids, I have 4 in total and I know they are unpredictable and do silly things at times.
There is no way I would have ploughed into them on purpose just because I was in the right.
My issue wasn't with the kids even though they were unlawful in what they did, it was the comment of the motorist that I had the problem with.

Then if I have misinterpreted you post, I am sorry.

I guess we should be thankful that the motorist didn't say "you shouldn't have stopped" :shock: .

Flasheart

No sweat matey
Maybe I didn't explain myself enough initially

Porgy

Motorists can be aggravating when they get righteous.

On Tooley Street last year a ped walked out in front of me without looking and talking on their phone, so I made all appropriate noises to try to get them to look at me coming towards them (and all the other cyclists behind me) but he studiously ignored me and kept walking. I was going to pass around him, but he saw me, panicked and stepped back into my path. I stopped and said "try paying attention - look where you're going, mate" to a blank face; wherupon a nearby taxi driver piped up, "if you hadn't been going so fast you'd have been able to stop in time".

Er....I did stop in time and since when has 15mph been "so fast" - it was the same speed as him going along side me as it happens.

Grrrrr :evil:

I then proceeded to have a row with the taxi driver. :oops:

macondo01

Hmm - makes me think about getting that air horn from the LBS again for my commute...

http://www.foldingbikes.co.uk/accessories_bells.htm

ubiquitous

Some rules / advice from the Highway code for Peds:

18. At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on zebra, pelican or puffin crossings.

19. Zebra crossings. 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. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

A cycle is not a pedestrian and should not ride across the crossing, it is a "footway".
64. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across

65. Toucan crossings. These are light-controlled crossings which allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross at the same time. They are push button operated. Pedestrians and cyclists will see the green signal together. Cyclists are permitted to ride across.

A pedestrian should assume that it is dangerous to cross until it is obvious that it isnot. A motorist/road user should be prepared to stop approaching a crossing.

It does not say anything specifically about Once on the Zig Zags, road users haveright of way but common sense sees that as an interpretation of para 18. Once in the controlled zone it would be difficult to stop.

Personally it has happened to me before where a youth on a bike just shot out in front of me with no indication of crossing. Somehow managed to avoid him. In that situation it would have been no different to someone stepping out into the road into your path. We are expected to be as observant as possible but psychic we are not!

careful

AndyOgy wrote:

One thing that I wish pedestrians would realise is the significance of the zig zag lines leading up to the zebra crossing. The pedestrian (or cyclist) only has right of way if the oncoming vehicle has not yet reached the zig zags.

I dont believe this is true. I couldn't find anything in the Code on it.
The zig-zags indicate:
no parking
no overtaking

Motorists have to stop only when someone has stepped onto the crossing, but should take reasonable care to look out for people who are about to do this, and drive accordingly. Pedestrians should allow vehicles reasonable time to stop before attempting to cross (but no reference to zig-zags).