Am I being mean to pedestrians by not letting them cross?

davmaggs

I've recently had a spate of not giving way to pedestrians and I thought that I'd post the two frequent scenarios and see if I should moderate my cycling technique.

There's a couple of ASLs on my route that are large and give me a reasonable start over the traffic (such as Brixton), but because of the road layout ahead I want to be off from the lights really quickly to avoid the cars behind me doing something silly. However despite the lights changing to green several pedestrians decide to cross anyway because the ASL gives them the illusion of time. I have the choice of stopping or sprinting off and forcing them to stop in the middle of the road, by which time the cars are nearly on them. I nearly always make them stop by moving off on green as they seem to me to be the 'I don't care, you have to give way brigade' as they deliberately walk slowly with no pace. In short I think that I'm pulling away as normal because a) I really do want to be clear of the cars b) the attitude annoys me and stuff them*

The second scenario is people who can't be bothered to use a nearby crossing and have become trapped in the middle of the road. I've come along in what would be the lull in cars for them to cross or I'm coming up the bus lane and they have to stop on the thick white line near the line of traffic, but I don't want to stop dead in the middle of a road. I leave them there.

Am I a meany grump?



*I wouldn't do this to a mum or elderly person, but they don't seem to do it

jonny_trousers

No. They're wankers. If you can slap 'em as you ride by then all the better.

clarkey cat

the guys who decide to leg it across the road as the lights are turning green and then stop in the middle of the road (usually in front of you) like a scared rabbit because the traffic has started cannoning towards them annoy the hell out of me.

Origamist

In short, it sounds as though you should show more consideration to pedestrians, even if their behaviour frustrates your plans at traffic light controlled junctions.

Scenario 1: I wait for pedestrians to cross. If you are worried about losing your head- start at the lights, slot into traffic about 4-5 cars behind the ASL.

Scenario 2: Once again, I will stop for pedestrians in the circumstances you describe if it does not compromise my safety:

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQh25SHtI4

greg66_tri_v2.0

Answer me this: why is it that *every* ped who decides that the best time to start crossing is when the traffic's lights go green runs like they're auditioning for the part of Mr. Bean?

Pufftmw

Technically, pedestrians have right of way on a road and you should give way to them...

(Not saying that pedestrians are not fools if they were to launch themselves out in front of you & expect you to stop!)

redvee

Theres one crossing I encounter where the peds cross in the ASL as well as the crossing area and the looks and comments I get from when stopped there are quite funny. The look of panic on some of their faces, if they look up from their mobiles when crossing, as I slow for the redlight is also amusing. They're looking at me thinking will he-won't he? and they stop walking as I do.

MichaelW

This is a battle of politeness vs danger.

I get this at ASL, peds crossing after their Red Man and just before my Green Light.
It would be nice for me to be considerate to the peds and let them cross BUT this is endangering ME.
When the traffic behind me accelerates, I get squeezed out.

Should I have to endanger myself to be polite to others?

Another situation where you have politeness vs danger is when you are turning right INTO a side-road and peds are crossing. Legally, you should stop in the middle of the road and wait till they have crossed BUT its often not a safe place to wait. I just ride around them.
Ive never had a driver acknowledge this right of way when I walk.

Origamist

MichaelW wrote:

This is a battle of politeness vs danger.

I get this at ASL, peds crossing after their Red Man and just before my Green Light.
It would be nice for me to be considerate to the peds and let them cross BUT this is endangering ME.
When the traffic behind me accelerates, I get squeezed out.

Should I have to endanger myself to be polite to others?

Another situation where you have politeness vs danger is when you are turning right INTO a side-road and peds are crossing. Legally, you should stop in the middle of the road and wait till they have crossed BUT its often not a safe place to wait. I just ride around them.
Ive never had a driver acknowledge this right of way when I walk.

The use of the word "battle" is telling - you'll be invoking von Clausewitz next!

Scenario 1 - the use of an ASL zone is not obligatory for cyclists - if you're worried about having to hold your position at the lights while a tardy pedestrian crosses, why not join the traffic stream further back, in the centre of the lane?

Scanario 2 - well, you have to wait if there is traffic coming in the opposite direction, so why not wait for a pedestrian? That said, like you I'd rather spend less time stationary in a moving traffic lane (shoulder checking etc) and I will slowly enter a side road if the pedestrian has not finished crossing, but has a buffer of a couple of metres. However, simply by watching pedestrians in the vicinity of the side road means you can often time the turn without having to skirt around them.

rick_chasey

How much does waiting for a pedestrian or two add to your journey time?

it's tens of seconds at worst.

iPete

I cba to read the scenarios but generally I let people across, I'm even more vigilant to pedestrians crossing through traffic now i have two spikes on the front! (tri bars) :twisted:

What I can see here is the same impatience displayed by drivers that people on bikes moan about.

Add some Zen to your riding.

davmaggs

I've found that it's rarely the last minute sprinter at these particular junctions, at least they are making an effort and know that they need to dash.

I think what is annoying me is that at a couple of junctions it is the slow casual walk with attitude that says that I've seen the green man go off, I've seen the bloke on the bike, but you know what everyone else can go an f themselves and wait for me.

rick_chasey

davmaggs wrote:

I've found that it's rarely the last minute sprinter at these particular junctions, at least they are making an effort and know that they need to dash.

I think what is annoying me is that at a couple of junctions it is the slow casual walk with attitude that says that I've seen the green man go off, I've seen the bloke on the bike, but you know what everyone else can go an f themselves and wait for me.

Seriously, how long does it take to wait for said person?

davmaggs

Rick Chasey wrote:

How much does waiting for a pedestrian or two add to your journey time?

it's tens of seconds at worst.

Most places I agree and I'm more than willing to stop in many places (like the Lollipop ladies near Clapham common), but at the Brixton junction or Wandsworth the traffic is forced into choke points and they move off at speed so I'm not sure I want to be the only polite one slamming on my brakes.

rick_chasey

davmaggs wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

How much does waiting for a pedestrian or two add to your journey time?

it's tens of seconds at worst.

Most places I agree and I'm more than willing to stop in many places (like the Lollipop ladies near Clapham common), but at the Brixton junction or Wandsworth the traffic is forced into choke points and they move off at speed so I'm not sure I want to be the only polite one slamming on my brakes.

Slamming?

Surely you can anticipate?

If you can't, that's your fault.

If you're moving off and still slamming your brakes, you're clearing being uncessarily aggressive.

It's like whinging about bikes who hold up cars by being not close enough to the curb, even though they can see the lights are going to go red any second. The bastards.

Ber Nard

In the second scenario I wouldn't give way, just as I wouldn't signal for someone to pull out of a side road. Motorists gaining on me from behind wouldn't know what I was doing - they would just see a slow moving cyclist and overtake me. I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to step out/pull out in to the traffic if it wasn't entirely safe.

Rob

Sanderville

When I did my motorcycle training the instructor stressed that you should never give way to anyone when you're on a bike because you don't want other road users to assume that you will give way just because some other biker gave way, and then take you out by crossing your path.

Struck me as good advice, as long as every biker/cyclist does the same.

Headhuunter

Pufftmw wrote:

Technically, pedestrians have right of way on a road and you should give way to them...

(Not saying that pedestrians are not fools if they were to launch themselves out in front of you & expect you to stop!)

No they don't! they have right of way on zebra and other ped crossings and right of way if they have already begun to cross a road you are turning into but they don't have right of way wherever, whenever on any road!

What always amazes me is the number of peds who cross a road at a junction without doing a quick shoulder check, for example, they are continuing straight on across the head of a T junction, however a vehicle could well be approaching from behind, with its indicators on and about to turn. Of course the ped has priority (as described above) but I would ALWAYS do a quick check that I wasn't about to get mown down, however 99% of peds do not, they simply walk....

Origamist

Sanderville wrote:

When I did my motorcycle training the instructor stressed that you should never give way to anyone when you're on a bike because you don't want other road users to assume that you will give way just because some other biker gave way, and then take you out by crossing your path.

Struck me as good advice, as long as every biker/cyclist does the same.

What about zebra crossings, lollipop men/ladies etc...

Headhuunter

Sanderville wrote:

When I did my motorcycle training the instructor stressed that you should never give way to anyone when you're on a bike because you don't want other road users to assume that you will give way just because some other biker gave way, and then take you out by crossing your path.

Struck me as good advice, as long as every biker/cyclist does the same.

There is some truth in this. I find that if I falter and look as though I might slow, drivers pull out peds cross etc. if you blast on through purposefully but move further from the kerb and cover the brakes I find it happens less. Clearly you stop for peds at crossing points etc...

Big Wib

I would generally let them cross in the first scenario - unless it would put me at risk. I wouldn't in the second

snailracer

It would definitely not be legal for a driver/rider that is stopped at a junction, sees a ped crossing the road, to subsequently move off towards the ped, even if the light is green, because the driver/rider would have broken their duty of care.

The ped has probably not broken their own duty of care, as it is reasonable to start crossing a road when the traffic is stopped. The red man/green man lights (if there are any) have no legal significance, unlike the red traffic light for vehicles.

If you think about it, some junctions do not have red man/green man lights, and peds are still expected to be able to cross even though they can't see the traffic lights controlling the (stationary) traffic stream they are about to step in front of.

davmaggs

snailracer wrote:

It would definitely not be legal for a driver/rider that is stopped at a junction, sees a ped crossing the road, to subsequently move off towards the ped, even if the light is green, because the driver/rider would have broken their duty of care.

The ped has probably not broken their own duty of care, as it is reasonable to start crossing a road when the traffic is stopped. The red man/green man lights (if there are any) have no legal significance, unlike the red traffic light for vehicles.

If you think about it, some junctions do not have red man/green man lights, and peds are still expected to be able to cross even though they can't see the traffic lights controlling the (stationary) traffic stream they are about to step in front of.

What does that mean? Duty of care is public-sector/legalese speak (usually for being obstructive) for issues like employment and provision of safety, not a highway code term.

In my scenario the green man changed before the person got there (so they know), and the light for cars was green too and they still decided to carry on because the ASL gave them enough time (if they ignore the bicycles) to walk out.

snailracer

davmaggs wrote:

What does that mean? Duty of care is public-sector/legalese speak (usually for being obstructive) for issues like employment and provision of safety, not a highway code term...

Duty of care is concept in civil law that also applies to traffic accidents. English law encompasses both civil law and criminal law, both comprise "the law".

In a traffic accident, a criminal court can put an offender in jail, fine them and put points on their licence if they have commited a specific criminal offence. A separate civil court case makes them pay damages to the plaintiff, based on fuzzier concepts like negligence, duty of care and reasonableness. It is entirely possible for a civil case to proceed without any criminal offence even being committed, never mind proven in criminal court. It is very likely that damages are split: 50:50, 80:20, etc.

Criminal laws are typically quite explicit things: e.g. do not jump a red light, do not speed, etc., but AFAIK it is not a criminal offence for a ped to ignore a red man light or "jaywalk".

davmaggs wrote:

In my scenario the green man changed before the person got there (so they know), and the light for cars was green too and they still decided to carry on because the ASL gave them enough time (if they ignore the bicycles) to walk out.

It boils down to whether the ped started to cross before the vehicles started moving. For a ped to cross when there is no green man (or the red man is showing) is not a criminal offence - the green man/red man has no status in criminal law. For a motorist/rider to deliberately hit a pedestrian when they could have avoided them is a criminal offence.

It could be argued, in a civil case, that the ped was unreasonable to cross when the red man light was showing, but the stronger counterargument is that it is even less reasonable (in fact, criminal) for a motorist/cyclist to deliberately drive/ride at a pedestrian already on the road, especially as that motorist/cyclist was originally stopped.

snailracer

The other reason for not riding into pedestrians - the stats show the cyclist is much more likely to get injured/killed.

chhopsky

snailracer wrote:

The ped has probably not broken their own duty of care, as it is reasonable to start crossing a road when the traffic is stopped. The red man/green man lights (if there are any) have no legal significance, unlike the red traffic light for vehicles.

Not true in australia, not sure about elsewhere in the world. You get fined for crossing on a red man.

If you think about it, some junctions do not have red man/green man lights, and peds are still expected to be able to cross even though they can't see the traffic lights controlling the (stationary) traffic stream they are about to step in front of.

I can't think of a single intersection with a traffic light (again, only speaking for AU) that has a traffic light and no pedestrian buttons/signals.

If you're a pedestrian, and you're too stupid to either have some spatial awareness about crossing the road, or to look around you when you're doing things, it's probably better that you're removed from gene pool before you reproduce. That's just plain natural selection. Ive done dumb stuff around cars before and nearly gotten hit, on foot and on a bike. All my fault, and I deserved every bit of pain.

Watch where you're going, evaluate decisions you make for potential threats. If you don't do that, you deserve the repercussions.

snailracer

chhopsky wrote:

...
If you're a pedestrian, and you're too stupid to either have some spatial awareness about crossing the road, or to look around you when you're doing things, it's probably better that you're removed from gene pool before you reproduce. That's just plain natural selection...

Ugly.

jeremyrundle

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

No. They're wankers. If you can slap 'em as you ride by then all the better.

I know part two of this is hopefully a joke but I am afraid I have to agree 100%.

In tavistock, devon we have LARGE wide speed homps each end of three roads, for some moronic reason cars stop allowing peds to cross, they get really p88888 off when I speed through, it is NOT a crossing so I am not going to stop.

Dont (deliberately) hit them but YOU are in the right.

tailwindhome

jeremyrundle wrote:

for some moronic reason cars stop allowing peds to cross

or it could be courtesy to more vulnerable road users..

roger_merriman

jeremyrundle wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

No. They're wankers. If you can slap 'em as you ride by then all the better.

I know part two of this is hopefully a joke but I am afraid I have to agree 100%.

In tavistock, devon we have LARGE wide speed homps each end of three roads, for some moronic reason cars stop allowing peds to cross, they get really p88888 off when I speed through, it is NOT a crossing so I am not going to stop.

Dont (deliberately) hit them but YOU are in the right.

no you are in the wrong the ped has right of way once started, you are going out of your way to make your self appear to be bit of a tool about peds has to be said, what is the issue with stopping?

Dan_xz

I often come across scenario 2 in the car and bike and never give way. On my road there are 3 pedestrian crossings in a 100m stretch. The original crossing in the middle and one 20 metres up where a roundabout has been replaced with traffic lights and the same thing 80 m down the road, wjich is a busy commuter road and one of 2 main routes out of town.

Almost every day at rush hour I find people trying to walk out into moving traffic - even between the crossings which are no more than 20m apart! Just because they want to go into a shop directly opposite and cant be bothered to walk less than 10m for their own safety. Often these people have kids with them too.

Its this 'ill do what i want and the world will just work around me' attitude that have no time for.' So many times I've wished the law would allow me to just clip their elbows with my wing mirrors!