Pulled over by Police
Comments
-
Sorry but I'd say 9/10 cyclists would have done exactly the same as the op in the same situation. There's a big difference in not stopping at all than approaching a crossing where the pedestrian is almost over the other side and cycling through. The pedestrian would more than likely not even have been aware that he'd done it.
And it was quite clearly a slow crime day that day if a van full of them felt the need to pull him over for it...0 -
I can't quote the Highway Code but I remember my driving instructor telling me that once a ped was clearly on the other side of a zebra then I could drive through or proceed... I really don't see how it helps anyone if I as a cyclist stops for some ped way across the other side of the crossing with his or her back to me... They probably wouldn't even notice I'd stopped!bails87 wrote:
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.Headhuunter wrote:You are not required to stop at a zebra if people crossing have already crossed your side of the road...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
You are not required to stop at a zebra if people crossing have already crossed your side of the road...
Actually I think that is wrong and that you and the other poster are confusing the situation where there is an island in the middle of the road. In that case you can treat the crossings either side of the island as being two distinct crossings. Otherwise you may not cross the crossing until the ped has stepped off at the far side.0 -
Headhuunter, Jedster: The island thing only applies if it's a staggered junction. If it's a straight line from one side of the road, to the island, back off the island and to the other side of the road then the whole road is one crossing.
It doesn't matter what your instructor told you. As alfablue has already copied from the highway code:
"2) 195
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
And the whole road is 'the crossing' if there is no, or a straight, island. If there is a staggered island then each side of the road is a separate crossing.0 -
bails87 wrote:Headhuunter, Jedster: The island thing only applies if it's a staggered junction. If it's a straight line from one side of the road, to the island, back off the island and to the other side of the road then the whole road is one crossing.
It doesn't matter what your instructor told you. As alfablue has already copied from the highway code:
"2) 195
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
And the whole road is 'the crossing' if there is no, or a straight, island. If there is a staggered island then each side of the road is a separate crossing.
Bails, are you sure?
It doesn't look like the staggering of the crossing is a factor.
Part 5 - Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)The Highway Code wrote:A zebra crossing with a central island is two separate crossings (see pictures in Crossings (18 to 30)).
Law ZPPPCRGD reg 25
Rules for pedestrians (1 to 35)The Highway Code wrote:Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra crossing, wait on the island and follow Rule 19 before you cross the second half of the road – it is a separate crossing.
Best regards
DavidBoardman CX Team0 -
There is a lot of highway code being spouted here and lots of I am a perfect rider. The chap who posted has clearly stated that he was asking if what he was tugged for was in fact an 'offence'.
Surely some common sense needs to prevail here and in day to day situations....0 -
bails87 wrote:Headhuunter, Jedster: The island thing only applies if it's a staggered junction. If it's a straight line from one side of the road, to the island, back off the island and to the other side of the road then the whole road is one crossing.
It doesn't matter what your instructor told you. As alfablue has already copied from the highway code:
"2) 195
you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"
And the whole road is 'the crossing' if there is no, or a straight, island. If there is a staggered island then each side of the road is a separate crossing.
So you're saying that if someone is on the other side of the zebra, about to step off onto the pavement, I'm required to slam on the anchors even though there is no one about, the peds back is to me and they blatantly wouldn't even notice me stopping anyway? Sorry but no....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
twist83 wrote:There is a lot of highway code being spouted here and lots of I am a perfect rider. The chap who posted has clearly stated that he was asking if what he was tugged for was in fact an 'offence'.
Surely some common sense needs to prevail here and in day to day situations....
Come on, this is the internet.
Common sense is irrelevant, proving other people wrong on the internet is all that matters.
0 -
Cookdn: Ah, right, I think the staggering thing is for pelican/puffin crossings rather than zebra ones.
twist83: To answer that question: yes, the rider committed an offence.
Headhuunter: "slam on the anchors"? Surely you could see the traffic stopped/ped crossing before you were within 'emergency stop' range? You can say "sorry but no" all you want, that's like saying "So I have to stick to the speed limit, even though there's no one about, how ridiculous". You broke the law right in front of an entire van full of police, what did you think would happen!?0 -
bails87 wrote:Cookdn: Ah, right, I think the staggering thing is for pelican/puffin crossings rather than zebra ones.
twist83: To answer that question: yes, the rider committed an offence.
Headhuunter: "slam on the anchors"? Surely you could see the traffic stopped/ped crossing before you were within 'emergency stop' range? You can say "sorry but no" all you want, that's like saying "So I have to stick to the speed limit, even though there's no one about, how ridiculous". You broke the law right in front of an entire van full of police, what did you think would happen!?
OK so "slam on the anchors" was a slight exaggeration..... What I'm saying is that do you really think anyone including the police would really give a monkeys if I did or didn't stop at a zebra when there was no traffic ahead of me and the only pedestrian within sight was 3 quarters of the way across on the other side about to exit the crossing altogether? It's not quite the same thing as sticking to the speed limit when someone is around.... A car travelling at 40 or 50 in a 30 zone is moving fast enought that the situation could change in less that a second...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I have a few zebra crossings on my commute and there is often traffic queued up all along the street. I always undertake the entire line of vehicles and slow right down at the crossing checking for any pedestrians, if its clear I don't stop. Anyone who says they would do otherwise if clearly full of bs.
This is completely different to undertaking and going through reds, I don't understand why the OP has been given so much stick.0 -
If the traffic is stopped because of a general traffic jam and the queue happens to extend over the zebra crossing then the rule about overtaking the first vehicle at the crossing doesn't apply. That only applies if traffic is stopped for the crossing.
So you're right, in that situation (no peds on the crossing) I would do the same as you. Slow down, check it's clear, carry on. I wouldn't undertake though, so I guess I'm full of BS?
I just find it odd that someone would break the law (going through a crossing while there's a ped on it) in front of a van full of police officers and then act surprised when they told him not to do it again. If you don't like the speeding analogy then how about a car sitting at a red light. The ped is still on the road but not in the car's lane so the car decides to just drive through the red light. Would you expect a police car behind the RLJer to pull him over? I would.
And now we know that the answer to
is 'yes'.Headhuunter wrote:Do you really think anyone including the police would really give a monkeys if I did or didn't stop at a zebra when there was no traffic ahead of me and the only pedestrian within sight was 3 quarters of the way across on the other side about to exit the crossing altogether?0 -
Ah well, you go ahead and stop, I'll be the one whizzing past you...bails87 wrote:If the traffic is stopped because of a general traffic jam and the queue happens to extend over the zebra crossing then the rule about overtaking the first vehicle at the crossing doesn't apply. That only applies if traffic is stopped for the crossing.
So you're right, in that situation (no peds on the crossing) I would do the same as you. Slow down, check it's clear, carry on. I wouldn't undertake though, so I guess I'm full of BS?
I just find it odd that someone would break the law (going through a crossing while there's a ped on it) in front of a van full of police officers and then act surprised when they told him not to do it again. If you don't like the speeding analogy then how about a car sitting at a red light. The ped is still on the road but not in the car's lane so the car decides to just drive through the red light. Would you expect a police car behind the RLJer to pull him over? I would.
And now we know that the answer to
is 'yes'.Headhuunter wrote:Do you really think anyone including the police would really give a monkeys if I did or didn't stop at a zebra when there was no traffic ahead of me and the only pedestrian within sight was 3 quarters of the way across on the other side about to exit the crossing altogether?Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:
Ah well, you go ahead and stop, I'll be the one whizzing past you...bails87 wrote:I just find it odd that someone would break the law (going through a crossing while there's a ped on it) in front of a van full of police officers and then act surprised when they told him not to do it again. If you don't like the speeding analogy then how about a car sitting at a red light. The ped is still on the road but not in the car's lane so the car decides to just drive through the red light. Would you expect a police car behind the RLJer to pull him over? I would.
And now we know that the answer to
is 'yes'.Headhuunter wrote:Do you really think anyone including the police would really give a monkeys if I did or didn't stop at a zebra when there was no traffic ahead of me and the only pedestrian within sight was 3 quarters of the way across on the other side about to exit the crossing altogether?
That's fine by me, I'll stop when I'm legally required to and then just go past you when you're having another word with the police
I'd have agreed with you that it seemed heavy handed if they'd sent you to court or given you a massive fine, but as I said, you broke the law right in front of an entire van full of them, they used their discretion and advised you not to do it again. Sensible policing IMO.0 -
bails87 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:
Ah well, you go ahead and stop, I'll be the one whizzing past you...bails87 wrote:I just find it odd that someone would break the law (going through a crossing while there's a ped on it) in front of a van full of police officers and then act surprised when they told him not to do it again. If you don't like the speeding analogy then how about a car sitting at a red light. The ped is still on the road but not in the car's lane so the car decides to just drive through the red light. Would you expect a police car behind the RLJer to pull him over? I would.
And now we know that the answer to
is 'yes'.Headhuunter wrote:Do you really think anyone including the police would really give a monkeys if I did or didn't stop at a zebra when there was no traffic ahead of me and the only pedestrian within sight was 3 quarters of the way across on the other side about to exit the crossing altogether?
That's fine by me, I'll stop when I'm legally required to and then just go past you when you're having another word with the police
I'd have agreed with you that it seemed heavy handed if they'd sent you to court or given you a massive fine, but as I said, you broke the law right in front of an entire van full of them, they used their discretion and advised you not to do it again. Sensible policing IMO.
I'm not the OP on this one...wasn't me who was pulled over...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
It's bullshoot, they should've been out catching real criminals (ducks)Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
Cat With No Tail wrote: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".
+100Keeping it classy since '830 -
Where the highway code says 'Must Not', it is a law I believe - as opposed to 'should not' etc.bails87 wrote:But the Highway code isn't law.
You will note that at the bottom of the section they list the appropriate laws which relate to it.
I've watched a police van not in an emergency (heading home) go through a red light. It was safe to do so and I don't have a problem with that - I don't like that they would probably give me three points for doing the same thing when it was safe to do so.0 -
Yeah I know, and you're right. 'Must' refers to a law rather than guidance. What I meant was just because there's advice in the Hway Code, it doesn't make something illegal.geebus wrote:
Where the highway code says 'Must Not', it is a law I believe - as opposed to 'should not' etc.bails87 wrote:But the Highway code isn't law.
You will note that at the bottom of the section they list the appropriate laws which relate to it.
It's not illegal to drive in icy weather without an ice scraper and jump leads, for example, even though the highway code advises you do so.0 -
Just read this thread; and I'm with the OP here - I would have done exactly the same thing.
Also totally agree with Sneill comments too; many a times I've got to zebra crossings, cars are waiting but the crossing person is almost at the other end, I look around and carry on if no one else is there.
Simples!sneill wrote:I have a few zebra crossings on my commute and there is often traffic queued up all along the street. I always undertake the entire line of vehicles and slow right down at the crossing checking for any pedestrians, if its clear I don't stop. Anyone who says they would do otherwise if clearly full of bs.
This is completely different to undertaking and going through reds, I don't understand why the OP has been given so much stick.0 -
As I understand it, both are 'Must Not's in the highway code; supported by law.sneill wrote:This is completely different to undertaking and going through reds, I don't understand why the OP has been given so much stick.
While the pedestrian is on the crossing it should be treated as if there was a red light - not a flashing amber. (Though, even with a flashing amber in this case you would not be allowed to cross as the pedestrian was still on the crossing, it should be noted.)
So legally, I'd say it was the same.
Morally and we're back to the question of "is it ok to go through a red light if it IS safe to do so?"0 -
test0
