Zebra crossing - Rage

MonkeyMonster

Greg T wrote:

"You ride your way - I'll ride mine"

The way your ride is like a cock and I'll tell you so.

Only problem with that is him riding his way affects how people see how you (and us) ride regardless of your law abidement.

bobinski

not on.
only a week or so ago i slowed and stopped for a woman to cross at the Zebra on Effra road Brixton. new year cyclist-i suspect- carries on through, braking and swerving as he does so he can get around her. i shout at him.
unfortunately for him guy in fancy jeep who has also stopped at the crossing is a copper, blue light on and pulls him over. suspect he may stop in future.

kurako

Origamist wrote:

Kurako wrote:

Bobbygloss wrote:

Not on.
However, if they are crossing from your side, is it ok to set off once they have cleared your side of the road?
What if there is an island in the middle?

I think technically, if the crossing goes straight across it is treated as one conituous crossing irrespective of an island. It's in the Highway Code somewhere....
.

If there's an island in the centre of a zebra crossing it's treated as two separate crossings as Greg intimated earlier.

Well I'll be damned. A zebra crossing with an island is 2 seperate crossings. A pelican crossing with an island is 1 crossing. Stupid highway code :oops:

Gussio

If there are no additional traffic lights, pedestrians always have right of way on a zebra crossing. In countries such as the United Kingdom, zebra markings are used only where pedestrians have permanent right of way.

Black and white. If you pardon the pun.

thecrofter

There must be hundreds of threads of this sort all over the net, and they almost exclusively relate to road use in London. Now I'm not having a go at London road users per se, it probably happens in all large cities. But it seems to me that the busier roads get the more a**holes inhabit them. I think it must be down to a basic human instinct to guard your own space, or something.

It seems to me to apply to humans in all circumstances, the more crowded shops or pavements become the less courteous the humans become. The busier the motorway, the more dangerous and impatient the drivers.

I just hope this lack of consideration for our neighbours, on this planet, doesn't become the norm. Although I have little doubt it will.

mybreakfastconsisted

When I caught up with a chap who had ignored a zebra and got an earful from the lady using it he said "Sorry! I have no brakes!"

kelsen

Nearly 200,000 members on this forum and not one person has admitted to regularly jumping zebra crossings, yet many will happily admit to jumping red lights.

I think we have found a way to decrease incidences of RLJing. Replace all traffic light junctions with zebra crossings!

Stevo_666

Greg T wrote:

forcing Mum and kid to stop.

That's the key - if they had to pull up sharpish then it's not on.

I'm sure plenty of us have gone over a zebra with someone on it when it's clear you have plenty time to get across without the ped having to stop or change speed, and you've made eye contact so you both know the score.

Drysuitdiver

notsoblue wrote:

Drysuitdiver wrote:

thats the sort of nobber cyclunt who gives Clarkson, rayner etc all the ammunition they need.

Gah! Really? You must have missed Orgamist's video. Here it is again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE1PkWhXUck

I bet Clarkson would go anti-car after seeing that?

most useless post ever.

you know they will never be anti car no matter how much bad driving they see.

Jay dubbleU

Not on - I wait even if no-one's on it - rules are rules

kelsen

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Not on - I wait even if no-one's on it - rules are rules

How do you ever get anywhere?...oh...I get you :oops:

Jay dubbleU

kelsen wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Not on - I wait even if no-one's on it - rules are rules

How do you ever get anywhere?...oh...I get you :oops:

AaaaaaaaaaH!

jedster

I HATE that behaviour and I do generally have a word if I can. Often it's no more constructive than "you pr1ck" I'm afraid.

By the way. I try really hard NOT to cross the Zebra before the peds have stepped off it. I don't really see why steering safely around a ped when they are still on the crossing is different to safely going through a red light - they are both a bit obnoxious and lack class IMO.

The other issue with "safely" going behind a ped on a crossing is that you should think about how people respond to the signalling effect of watching you do that. Two aspects:
a) peds get the message that they cannot rely on cyclists to keep off zebras and this contributes to the frustrating "after you. no after you" stuff. I think it also worries quite a few elderly people
b) more seriously, other road users make judgments about what is going on from watching other road users. Sometimes they leap to assumptions, so watching a cyclist pull across a zebra could be taken as indicating that the zebra is clear... Obviously if an accident resulted then it would not be the cyclists fault per se but I would still feel sh1tty.

itboffin

Must I do ALL the fecking work?

You've all missed the point, which is... was the MILF hot?

GT you used to be so cool

pastryboy

The rules on this are very clear - if someone is crossing or about to cross you must stop and wait for them. If there's an island it's treated as two separate parts. Anyone who doesn't follow this is way out of order as there has to be somewhere for pedestrians to be able to cross roads without fear of being squashed.

I went across one the other day and realised a girl was waiting to cross on my far left - although I was nowhere near her (I took the far right of the lane) I said sorry to her because she was hot and I'm a gent.

Dudu

Dangerous and illegal.

I once stopped at a zebra to let a lady across. She didn't seem to believe me and needed persuading to move. And when she got halfway across a RAV4 came along the road at more than the speed limit and had to screech to a halt with smoking tyres when the driver realised why I was just sitting there.

Jonny Fortnight

Gussio wrote:

Annoying, yes, but all the more reason to be extra alert at crossing. Always expect people to do stupid things.

+1.

You won't be disappointed very often.

walkingbootweather

Forgive me I have sinned.

On my way in this morning I am approaching a zebra crossing on a pretty quiet road. Not another vehicle or person around for 200m except one old flat cap wearing fella dawdling along the pavement. I'm cruising along at about 20mph. He sees me then speeds up to get to the crossing first (I can almost hear the cogs turning in his mind thinking - I'll make that bike stop). I could have jumped on the brakes and stopped in time, but then if he hadn't changed pace I would have been through and he could have crossed behind me without stopping.

I check over my shoulder, pull over onto the other side of the road and keep going. We hit the crossing at about the same time but I'm yards away from him.

Didn't feel particularly proud of myself afterwards and would behave differently next time.

Yes I knew he intended to cross and I ought to have stopped, but doesn't he also have some responsibility to cross when it is safe to do so, and to respect other road users?

_Brun_

Poll was looking a bit one sided so I evened it up a little out of sympathy.

Gussio

_Brun_ wrote:

Poll was looking a bit one sided so I evened it up a little out of sympathy.

DonDaddyD

Passing through a zebra when in use is, in my opinion, worse than RLJing where there is no one on or using the crossing (excluding junctions)).

There is clear and present danger (a ped) right in front of you. You may as well ride on the pavement. It's not on.

I've had words, but I've found cyclist like to admit fault less than many motorists I've encountered. I've had full blown arguments with a few cyclists in my time.

walkingbootweather

^ Define in use.

Clearly if someone is on the crossing it is in use, but what about people loitering on the pavement who may or may not intend to cross?

If I'm a ped I don't mind waiting a few seconds until there is a natural break in the traffic before venturing on to the crossing. It seems a bit daft to me to step onto the crossing while traffic is moving even if it is within your rights so to do.

_Brun_

Edit - wrong f#*king thread :oops:

Origamist

walkingbootweather wrote:

^ Define in use.

Clearly if someone is on the crossing it is in use, but what about people loitering on the pavement who may or may not intend to cross?

If people are in close proximity to a zebra crossing you simply need to be cautious - keep an eye on them, consider wiping off some speed, change your road postion etc.

rich_e

I'm going with 'Not On' also.

Zebra Crossings are such an odd one anyway.
I get the impression that most motorists who commute in London loathe them, because at some of them, Pedestrians will just keep coming.

At the sametime though, while I do stop for Zebra Crossing, I got shouted at and called a dick by somebody a couple of weeks ago. I had already slowed a bit as I approached the crossing. I saw one guy who was walking away from me (direction I'm traveling) who didn't look and turned to go to cross the moment I was going over it.

I think that's part of the problem... although it's a right of way for pedestrians, you can't just expect people to know you are going to cross it if it doesn't look like you are.

When I'm on foot I always look to see if traffic is coming before going over it, just like how you wouldn't step out into a road without looking first.

Origamist

Rich_E wrote:

I'm going with 'Not On' also.

At the sametime though, while I do stop for Zebra Crossing, I got shouted at and called a dick by somebody a couple of weeks ago. I had already slowed a bit as I approached the crossing. I saw one guy who was walking away from me (direction I'm traveling) who didn't look and turned to go to cross the moment I was going over it.

I think that's part of the problem... although it's a right of way for pedestrians, you can't just expect people to know you are going to cross it if it doesn't look like you are.
When I'm on foot I always look to see if traffic is coming before going over it, just like how you wouldn't step out into a road without looking first.

How about anticipation, hazard perception, forward planning etc. It's really not that difficult to second guess that someone walking towards a zebra crossing might actually want to use it - irrespective of whether they're providing more obvious visual cues.

Chewy Cheeks

If i see owt similar I'll have a word nothing too exiting but feel that we have to try and do the right thing.

I'd feel much more agitated about it when crossing the road with the kids.

DonDaddyD

walkingbootweather wrote:

^ Define in use.

Clearly if someone is on the crossing it is in use, but what about people loitering on the pavement who may or may not intend to cross?

If I'm a ped I don't mind waiting a few seconds until there is a natural break in the traffic before venturing on to the crossing. It seems a bit daft to me to step onto the crossing while traffic is moving even if it is within your rights so to do.

Aside from arguing the semantics to define "in use"

I think we agree.

walkingbootweather

Sorry DDD - didn't intend to be pedantic.

I do find traffic flows interesting - I know I ought to get out more. An ideal situatiuon if presumably one in which the amount of traffic passing a particular point is a maximum and the average (and maximum) waiting times are kept to a minimum. Properly phased traffic lights seek to achieve this. Other types of crossing (Pelican, puffin, touchan and pegasus - hands up who knew what a pegasus crossing was), are programmed to allow a maximum allocation to the secondary traffic flow.

The problem with manual crossings (zebra and lollipop) is that the secondary user can potentially dominate which leads to un-necessary delays for the primary (road) user. A year or so ago I noticed that a lollipop lady on my route was allowing only a single vehicle to pass in each direction before each stop of the traffic. This was inefficient because there was lots of time wasted while the lollipop lady was walking out into the road, and back but no traffic (road traffic or peds) was actually moving. By having longer but less frequent right of way, letting say 3 or 4 vehicles pass at a time the total traffic flow would have been increased.

If we all used zebra crossings properly I'm sure it would be safer and quicker for everyone and fools like me wouldn't be racing to be the first to the crossing.

rich_e

Origamist wrote:

How about anticipation, hazard perception, forward planning etc. It's really not that difficult to second guess that someone walking towards a zebra crossing might actually want to use it - irrespective of whether they're providing more obvious visual cues.

I think you misunderstood me.

In this particular case, the guy was not walking towards the Zebra Crossing, he was walking in the direction as to travel past it, he did not look like he was going towards it. He was not near the crossing as I went towards it and as I pointed out, I did slow down on anticipation that there might be somebody wanting to cross.

Are you suggesting that anyone on a cycle or otherwise should slam on the brakes, thus risking causing an accident, the second somebody randomly decides to cross with no obvious intention? That's why as I pointed out, when I'm on foot I make it obvious I want to cross by looking. Yes its a right of way for a Pedestrian, but there is an onus on the Pedestrian to ensure they cross in the proper manner.