Pulled over by Police

Springy1

So cycling home this afternoon, a motorbike stops at a zebra crossing to let a lady cross from left to right. I'm coming up at the inside of the lane and can see there is no one else about to cross. The lady is still on the zebra crossing but almost at the other end, so I cycle through the crossing, undertaking the stationary motorbike.

About half a mile down the road, a police van full of cops pulls me over. Cop gets out and asks if I know why I've been pulled over. I answer no, and he proceeds to tell if it was because the motorbike was stationary at the zebra crossing. Wanting a bit more clarification, I tell him the zebra crossing was clear, however he keeps telling me the motorbike was stationary.

The same answer and same reply happens a few more times, before the cop says the highway code says I can't undertake the lead vehicle when it is stationary at a zebra crossing. I accept the explanation and tell him I wasn't aware of this. He tells me he won't give me a ticket this time.

So having checked the highway code online, I can't see anything that states this.

Clearly his own reasoning was that there may have been other pedestrians on the crossing that the motorbike was waiting for, that I hadn't seen. However I had a 100% clear view of the crossing before the motorbike got there, so I knew for certain that wasn't the case.

So whats the deal... assuming crossing is clear of pedestrians, do cyclists wait until the lead vehicle goes through a crossing before proceeding?

nicklouse

Part 5 number 191

191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-t ... 191-to-199

alfablue

Rubbish cycling! Just what was the emergency you were cycling to? Thank you for contributing to the poor image that law abiding cyclists are tarred with!

d87francis

alfablue wrote:

Rubbish cycling! Just what was the emergency you were cycling to? Thank you for contributing to the poor image that law abiding cyclists are tarred with!

Agreed, poor cycling. I can understand rare lapses of judgement when on the road but how did it not cross your mind when typing up "undertook a motorbike stopped at a zebra crossing" how daft that is?

corshamjim

Well I didn't remember that was in the highway code either if that's any consolation. It makes sense though.

Welcome to the forum Springy1.

king_jeffers

Ugh... we have police not cops :roll:

paulg99

Springy1 wrote:

The lady is still on the zebra crossing but almost at the other end, so I cycle through the crossing, undertaking the stationary motorbike.

Aside from passing the vehicle in front of you at a zebra crossing, the lady was still on the crossing which was rule break No2 and undertaking is also illegal.

So that's 3 strikes and you are out.

cookeeemonster

I get really annoyed when cyclists don't stop at a pedestrian crossing when people are waiting or on it...but in this case I think I'm with the OP.

99.9% of scooter/motorbikes and cyclists do the same at least in London in my experience. If the ped is near to the end of the crossing and the cyclist is nowhere near then I don't really see the problem...but...

...there is a fine line here though...your definition of how close you are allowed to be to the ped when you cross...you've obviously got to give plenty of room and be riding relatively slowly , but seriously, that motorbike would've done exactly the same in your position as would many cars if it were a big enough crossing. I've even seen police do it.

Maybe one of those things that are wrong but which need to be enforced more? Yeah maybe.

cookeeemonster

PaulG99 wrote:

Springy1 wrote:

undertaking is also illegal.

What do you mean by this? Undertaking on a cycle is obviously not illegal or 100% of cyclists are riding illegally. Undertaking on a crossing? The highway code bit copy and pasted mentioned overtaking while a vehicle was stationary on a zebra crossing - do you mean that undertaking is also implicitly covered by this?

Torvid

CookeeeMonster wrote:

....

99.9% of scooter/motorbikes and cyclists do the same at least in London in my experience. If the ped is near to the end of the crossing and the cyclist is nowhere near then I don't really see the problem...but...

Yep but that 99.9% also probably wouldn't do it right in front of a police van.

cookeeemonster

Torvid wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

....

99.9% of scooter/motorbikes and cyclists do the same at least in London in my experience. If the ped is near to the end of the crossing and the cyclist is nowhere near then I don't really see the problem...but...

Yep but that 99.9% also probably wouldn't do it right in front of a police van.

yeah fair point

paulg99

CookeeeMonster wrote:

PaulG99 wrote:

Springy1 wrote:

undertaking is also illegal.

What do you mean by this? Undertaking on a cycle is obviously not illegal or 100% of cyclists are riding illegally. Undertaking on a crossing? The highway code bit copy and pasted mentioned overtaking while a vehicle was stationary on a zebra crossing - do you mean that undertaking is also implicitly covered by this?

Yes this. But that still clearly only makes two strikes and makes it obvious I can't count.

In mitigation it is Friday afternoon and my mind isn't really on the job... :oops:

beverick

CookeeeMonster wrote:

PaulG99 wrote:

Springy1 wrote:

undertaking is also illegal.

What do you mean by this? Undertaking on a cycle is obviously not illegal or 100% of cyclists are riding illegally. Undertaking on a crossing? The highway code bit copy and pasted mentioned overtaking while a vehicle was stationary on a zebra crossing - do you mean that undertaking is also implicitly covered by this?

For the record, the near side overtake is not itself illegal for any vehicle motorised or not.

I wish he'd stopped me. I'd have refused the ticket asking that the case be referred to a magistrate. I'd then have asked him to write down the following statement: "I would like to point out that the relevant section of the pedestrian crossing regulations (sic) cited under which the aleged offence was committed refers only to motor vehicles. The definition of which specifically excludes pedal cycles".

Bob

cat_with_no_tail

beverick wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

PaulG99 wrote:

Springy1 wrote:

undertaking is also illegal.

What do you mean by this? Undertaking on a cycle is obviously not illegal or 100% of cyclists are riding illegally. Undertaking on a crossing? The highway code bit copy and pasted mentioned overtaking while a vehicle was stationary on a zebra crossing - do you mean that undertaking is also implicitly covered by this?

For the record, the near side overtake is not itself illegal for any vehicle motorised or not.

I wish he'd stopped me. I'd have refused the ticket asking that the case be referred to a magistrate. I'd then have asked him to write down the following statement: "I would like to point out that the relevant section of the pedestrian crossing regulations (sic) cited under which the aleged offence was committed refers only to motor vehicles. The definition of which specifically excludes pedal cycles".

Bob

That kind of attitude really hacks me off, and just further perpetuates the opinion amongst certain road users that all cyclists are smug, hypocritical morons.

I bet you're the sort of person who is absolutely consumed with righteous indignation when you spot a car not following the highway code, but then justifys your own disregard for it by saying something stupid like "I'm not in a 2 tonne killing machine".

captain_vimes

I'm with Cat. 'It's OK to run someone down as I don't have an engine...' Tit.

And Bob likes to think he would have said this, but in reality wouldn't have....

beverick

Captain Vimes wrote:

I'm with Cat. 'It's OK to run someone down as I don't have an engine...' Tit.

And Bob likes to think he would have said this, but in reality wouldn't have....

Why not? The officer was wrong, no offence had been committed.

Bob

captain_vimes

Can you not see the difference between 'committing an offence' and 'riding like/behaving like an idiot?'

A friend of mind died in a crash where no offence was committed, but it happend because the car driver did something stupid.

Try and focus on what really matters rather than the law...

cat_with_no_tail

Because it's a stupid technicality.

It's a bit like seeing that someone has spelled alleged as aleged, you know that it's technically incorrect, but you can still quite clearly see the point, even if you don't agree with it.

daddy0

Technically you're not meant to overtake (or undertake) where there are zig zag lines, but I'd bet 100% of us do it.

Springy1

Thanks all for the replies

For the record I consider myself a safe cyclist - I don't red light jump and generally do everything by the book. Nearly 2 years of cycling through London each day (30mile round trip), I've never had an incident with cars or peds. (apart from a few dozen or so smidsy's and left hooks which I generally knew were about to happen).

I'm aware that the highway code says its ok to undertake stationary or slow moving vehicles, so I was genuinely surprised to have been pulled over.

Having cycled alongside hundreds and hundreds, perhaps thousands of other London cyclists on their daily commute, I can't recall ever seeing a cyclist stop at a crossing when its clear of pedestrians, just because the vehicle ahead has stopped. Cyclists slow down and check, but never stop.

But as nicklouse stated, it does indeed say this within the highway code, so I admit defeat

jonathan914

If I were you i'd forget it and carry on riding as you were! On my daily commute I as probably most dailly commuters have been egged had my arse slapped been knocked off verbally abuseded and all from riding within the absolute letter of the law.I dont remember any car drivers being pulled up for there antisocial antics towards me! This all happened in rural derbyshire so god only knows how you all manage to commute in London.

mouth

beverick wrote:

CookeeeMonster wrote:

PaulG99 wrote:

Springy1 wrote:

undertaking is also illegal.

What do you mean by this? Undertaking on a cycle is obviously not illegal or 100% of cyclists are riding illegally. Undertaking on a crossing? The highway code bit copy and pasted mentioned overtaking while a vehicle was stationary on a zebra crossing - do you mean that undertaking is also implicitly covered by this?

For the record, the near side overtake is not itself illegal for any vehicle motorised or not.

I wish he'd stopped me. I'd have refused the ticket asking that the case be referred to a magistrate. I'd then have asked him to write down the following statement: "I would like to point out that the relevant section of the pedestrian crossing regulations (sic) cited under which the aleged offence was committed refers only to motor vehicles. The definition of which specifically excludes pedal cycles".



Bob

Hmm, as I understand it the Highway Code applies to all road users which the last time I checked includes cyclists. Oh, and horses. And pedestrians who are walking in the road.

bails87

But the Highway code isn't law. It's a 'laymans translation' of the Road Traffic Act, with som extra bits added in, which does say something odd about overtaking near a crossing, the restriction only applies one way IIRC. So it may be that non-motorised vehicles can overtake motorised vehicles that have stopped for the crossing but not vice versa.

pete_s

jonathan914 wrote:

If I were you i'd forget it and carry on riding as you were! On my daily commute I as probably most dailly commuters have been egged had my ars* slapped been knocked off verbally abuseded and all from riding within the absolute letter of the law.I dont remember any car drivers being pulled up for there antisocial antics towards me! This all happened in rural derbyshire so god only knows how you all manage to commute in London.

Yeh, but then it's just a race to the bottom to who can be the bigger arse on the road. It's the broken windows theory, only applied to road use.

alfablue

I always stop at the crossing, I don't under or overtake any car in front. If I'm at the front I never move off until the pedestrian is completely off the crossing. I like cycling fast in the countryside, but when in urban areas and on my commute, I think it is very important to be taking great care where so many road users with different vulnerabilities mix. I would like everyone, cyclists and motorists, to slow down a bit and stop acting as if every second counts.

captain_vimes

alfablue wrote:

I always stop at the crossing, I don't under or overtake any car in front. If I'm at the front I never move off until the pedestrian is completely off the crossing. I like cycling fast in the countryside, but when in urban areas and on my commute, I think it is very important to be taking great care where so many road users with different vulnerabilities mix. I would like everyone, cyclists and motorists, to slow down a bit and stop acting as if every second counts.

Well said old chap!

passout

Next time pinch her handbag, don't stop for the police, get involved in a high speed chase (involving bunny hopping over urban obstacles, an Uzi and a crash)....then post on B.R. More posts like that, and I wouldn't have to watch so much TV.

DrLex

Captain Vimes wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I always stop at the crossing, I don't under or overtake any car in front. If I'm at the front I never move off until the pedestrian is completely off the crossing. I like cycling fast in the countryside, but when in urban areas and on my commute, I think it is very important to be taking great care where so many road users with different vulnerabilities mix. I would like everyone, cyclists and motorists, to slow down a bit and stop acting as if every second counts.

Well said old chap!

Needs "Like" button.

Headhuunter

alfablue wrote:

I always stop at the crossing, I don't under or overtake any car in front. If I'm at the front I never move off until the pedestrian is completely off the crossing. I like cycling fast in the countryside, but when in urban areas and on my commute, I think it is very important to be taking great care where so many road users with different vulnerabilities mix. I would like everyone, cyclists and motorists, to slow down a bit and stop acting as if every second counts.

I see what you mean about watching out for other vulnerable road users but I don't see how stopping at a zebra when the only pedestrian crossing is over the other side with his/her back to you about to exit the crossing serves any purpose.... You are not required to stop at a zebra if people crossing have already crossed your side of the road...

bails87

Headhuunter wrote:

You are not required to stop at a zebra if people crossing have already crossed your side of the road...

I don't think that's right! Except on a staggered junction with an 'zig zag' island in the middle. If the island goes straight across (or there is no island) then the whole width of the road is one crossing so you have to stop for peds on the other side of the road.

alfablue

Headhuunter wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I always stop at the crossing, I don't under or overtake any car in front. If I'm at the front I never move off until the pedestrian is completely off the crossing. I like cycling fast in the countryside, but when in urban areas and on my commute, I think it is very important to be taking great care where so many road users with different vulnerabilities mix. I would like everyone, cyclists and motorists, to slow down a bit and stop acting as if every second counts.

I see what you mean about watching out for other vulnerable road users but I don't see how stopping at a zebra when the only pedestrian crossing is over the other side with his/her back to you about to exit the crossing serves any purpose.... You are not required to stop at a zebra if people crossing have already crossed your side of the road...

The reasons for waiting are

From Highway Code

1) section 194

Allow pedestrians plenty of time to cross and do not harass them by revving your engine or edging forward.

2) 195

you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

3) 196 (Pelicans)

you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.

4) 198

Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings.

5) My opinion:

I want to make people feel safe on crossings and not have cars or cycles zooming off behind them, making them nervous, and in addition, someone else may wish to cross.

Don't treat your journeys as if you are on an emergency mission.