all the time in London you get pedestrians just marching out onto pedestrian crossings as if its there God given right and they expect all cars to stop, pretty stupid IMO.

 

The driver may not see you for a host of reasons, it may be dark, you may have on dark clothing. He may be distracted or on the phone or having an argument with his girlfriend..the list goes on. inexperienced/new driver/sociopath/ moron who knows!

 

If crossing the road its up to you to make the assessment if its safe to cross. I certainly would not cross if traffic was not at least slowing to a halt...and if wet as in this video I would wait till it more or less stopped. the cyclist was damn stupid IMO assuming the bus would stop.

If a pedestrian has stopped or is waiting at a zebra crossing, then a driver is required in law to stop for them to cross, and not doing so is an offence.

 

That cannot be extended to cover someone running into view immediately into the path of a vehicle when it's too close to stop. If that were the law, all vehicle drivers would have to approach crossings at near to walking pace where there are pedestrians anywhere in the near vicinity, as someone else has already observed. That is not the case of course.

 

Birch 'em no! I think we should be quite smug about our UK accident rate with just under 3000 deaths a year now. Other European nations are worse and usually far worse, and even in the USA where their laws are far stricter than ours, their death rate on the roads is a staggering 3 times ours pro rata to the population. Clearly strict laws don't necessarily reduce accidents and deaths.

.

Edited October 5, 200817 yr by flecc

Frank, I have no wish to be rude but it became clear to me several posts back that your knowledge of driving and observational skills is limited which is why I said then "If you really believe that, then we live in very different worlds and there's nothing more to be said!"

 

I should not have allowed myself to be drawn because I know how even the best intentioned people will defend poor, subjective judgements when faced with a situation outwith their training and knowledge.

 

I'm sure you believe what you say, and I wish you well, but there is really no point in us continuing this particular discussion any further.

 

Red, really there is no point here. You make yet more assertions with no evidence and use the tactic of being rude while pretending to wish not to be, then you try to make it appear that this is some complex subject that only one with your (implied) expertise, which again with no evidence you assert to be superior to that of others, could grasp. Er, it's a pedestrian crossing!

I'll say no more and invite you to have the last word.

I was only thinking last week that motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists really don't mix well. I guess cycling across pedestrian crossings is the ultimate bad mix. If that had been me on the bike, in the UK ,I'd have considered myself lucky to be alive and blamed myself for being such a complete idiot.

Motor vehicles should never have been allowed to mix with pedestrians and cyclists. Our ancestors insisted that the steam engine should be deployed only on its separate "ways", and we call them railways.

 

With regard to motor vehicles they did in the early days at least attempt to restrict speeds to walking pace with a red flag man going on before, but that was soon doomed to failure with the new motor vehicles in the hands of the great and the good, ie the rich establishment who soon stole the streets and roads for their own selfish enjoyment, and were eventually of course unable to retain an exclusive right, as the working man, and woman, attained first his, and then her, dream of getting a "wee car", as if the size makes them any less dangerous to human life and limb.

 

It is convenient now for the politician to urge cyclists to separate themselves from danger by means of a few centimetres of polystyrene round their skulls, the politician knowing that true separation, by means of curbs, verges, bushes, trees, etc as might be found in the Netherlands, would be too expensive.

The subject of this thread is an accident involving a cyclist on a crossing in China. However, most of the debate has related to zebra crossings as used by pedestrians in the UK.

 

I don't know anything about Chinese law, and I'm not sure any of the contributors here do either so lets suppose that the accident was in the UK and that it was a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. (It doesn't look to me that the cyclist was travelling much more than walking pace)

 

This is what the law says about pedestrians on a zebra crossing:

"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

(And as far as I can tell, this is all the law says on the matter.)

 

Clearly the "pedestrian" (ie the cyclist) was on the crossing so the question is whether the driver accorded him precedence. If not then the driver would be at fault.

 

Firstly, it is very difficult to tell from the video and I think it would take someone with specific experience to analyse it. However, it looks to me that the driver did not brake until quite late (give that the car behind didn't seem to close on it). He was certainly much more than a van's length when the "pedestrian" began to cross.

 

Secondly, the conditions were certainly wet and the driver should take that into account.

 

Having said that, I don't think the law expects people to do the impossible, and if the driver was driving carefully but physically unable to stop in the time available then s/he would not be at fault.

 

"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

 

And that is the crucial thing, "within the limits of a zebra crossing". The limit I'm familiar with relative to vehicles being able to stop in a controlled area such as the approach to traffic lights in 30 mph limit areas was always 30 feet. Whether that exact amount still applies to zebra crossings in these hybrid imperial/metric times I don't know, but the limiting zone of our zebra crossings is now marked by zig zag lines within which one must not park and must be able to stop for a pedestrian on a crossing or waiting at one to cross.

 

If a driver has already entered that limit zone before someone runs or suddenly changes walking direction onto the crossing, they are not liable for a collision that results.

.

First there was the motorbike, then the cyclist. The pedestrian, rather sensibly was avoiding the crossing altogether. Obviously a different culture. Would the law in the UK view the cyclist as a pedestrian? Would the law view somone riding a motorbike across as a pedestrian. Surely you should dismount at a zebra crossing (unless no ones around to see you).

 

Surely you should dismount at a zebra crossing (unless no ones around to see you).

 

Yes, there has been a case related to this, here's the findings on someone who did dismount:

 

"Anyone pushing a bicycle is a "foot-passenger" (Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441) and is not "riding" it (Selby). In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ said: "In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."

.

And that is the crucial thing, "within the limits of a zebra crossing". The limit I'm familiar with relative to vehicles being able to stop in a controlled area such as the approach to traffic lights in 30 mph limit areas was always 30 feet.

 

This really doesn't stand any examination when you consider that the stopping distance for a vehicle moving at 30 mph [in ideal conditions] is 75 feet and even at only 20 mph the stopping distance [in ideal conditions] is still no less than 40 feet!

 

So if a pedestrian stepped onto a crossing just before a vehicle came to the markings/studs they should expect to finish up in hospital because it would be impossible for the driver to stop - clearly this does not make sense.

 

I'm sorry flecc, but I have asked you to point to this piece of legislation several times and you have consistantly ignored all my requests. Given the wide readership of this site and the high regard in which you are held I am confident that if anyone could support your 30 foot assertion they would.

 

And do you think that if such a rule existed the Highway Code would simply ignore it? Yet it makes no reference to it at all - this is what it does say about Pedestrian Crossings:

 

195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing

 

look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

 

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

 

allow more time for stopping on wet or icy roads

 

do not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians across; this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching

 

be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing

 

That's it - not one word about not having to stop once you're over the studs or within 30 feet or anything else.

 

This would be very easy to resolve - just point to the legislation and I will be happy to offer up my unreserved apologies to you and everyone else and then eat a huge portion of humble-pie - but I bet you anything you like that you can't!

I'm no expert on the legislation Red, but the simple fact is that the police use the distance delineated by approach studs etc to determine whether an offence of traffic light jumping has been committed. That to me indicates that there must be such legislation, and your contention that a driver has to be able to stop in any circumstance is so ridiculous that I'm satisfied that like legislation exists for zebra crossings.

 

And the 30 feet was definitely the law relating to traffic lights and not a figment of my imagination, and that's why the approach markings are there, not just to decorate the road surface to make it look pretty. As I've said, the actual distance may have changed and I happily admit not knowing that.

 

You on the other hand make a wild assumption that vehicle stopping distances are what can determine such things. Where's your support for that? Hasn't it struck you that your position is only yours in this thread, the other contributors giving no support to it?

 

And you've ignored that John has posted the official support for my distance based view:

 

"Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle"

 

(Bold accentuation is mine.)

 

In other words, if the vehicle is within those limits, the pedestrian does not have the right of way, and that's the law. The Highway Code isn't.

.

Edited October 6, 200817 yr by flecc

Interesting discussion though much of it not really related to the original video. Speaking as a motorist, a pedestrian, and a cyclist, for me, the purpose of a journey is to get from A to B as fast as possible without @*ssing anybody off. That includes me, the authorities and anyone on the journey. The finer points of the law don't really matter. What matters at a pedestrian crossing is not hurting or killing someone. That really, seriously, upsets everyone concerned. As far as the rules go my understanding is that as a pedestrian using the crossing I should give traffic plenty of time to see me and to stop before starting to cross. Traffic does not have to stop until I have moved onto the crossing. As a car driver or cyclist I must give way when someone has moved onto a crossing.

I well understand that not all pedestrians are in full possession of their wits for all sorts of reasons (The same goes for car drivers and maybe a few cyclists). But does that make a driver culpable if they do something unpredictable and dangerous. I don't believe so.

Like most drivers I slow down and stop if someone is standing at a Zebra crossing or even close to it. Like most pedestrians I wait till the traffic has stopped before stepping out in front of it. That's why most most pedestrians don't get killed or injured on pedestrian crossing. At least in the UK.

I'm sorry flecc, but I have asked you to point to this piece of legislation several times and you have consistantly ignored all my requests. Given the wide readership of this site and the high regard in which you are held I am confident that if anyone could support your 30 foot assertion they would.

 

I think perhaps you have made too much of this point. Although there doesn't appear to be any specific legislation, as I quoted above, the law says:

 

"...driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian..."

 

The exact meaning of that can only be determined by the courts and there may well be case law along the lines that flecc has stated. Police are not expert on law but they do seem to follow easy rules of thumb which are generally in line with the law.

 

If the disagreement is whether an accident on a zebra crossing between a car and a pedestrian is always the drivers fault, I would say that the legislation does not support that. It may well be that courts usually come down on the side of the pedestrian but I doubt that it would be 100% of the time. The court would weigh up the available evidence and judge it against its interpretation of the law.

Hi

 

Always use the green cross code, when in doubt.

 

If there is a bus beyined me i would usually take the kerb until it is past, but always check for people walking first.

 

thx

 

Bob

If I were a traffic cop called to that accident, I would be very interested in the condition of the tyres on that coach.

 

It finally came to rest, after turning through 180 degrees, on the wrong side of the road. Assuming it had a single, double wheeled rear axle, I would have expected those six tyres to have easily cut through the standing water and maintained control.

 

The distance covered before coming to a standstill suggests it was aqua-planing. This may be because, either the tyres were bald, or the speed was far in excess of what was safe for the given conditions.

 

I'm not really sure why I've bothered to join in with the latest blazing row that Pedelecs UK forum is becoming increasingly well known for. What, exactly, IS the mission statement for this place?

 

'Nite all

 

Bob

Hi Bob

 

Seems a very friendly place to me, the mission statement of pedelecs should be to be happy with your pedelec.

 

thx

 

bob

 

I'm not really sure why I've bothered to join in with the latest blazing row that Pedelecs UK forum is becoming increasingly well known for. What, exactly, IS the mission statement for this place?

 

'Nite all

 

Bob

 

Blazing row Bob? Certainly not.

 

We do often have strong disagreements and hold to our positions, but we still have respect for each other, no enmity being involved. As you say, there has been an increasing incidence of these arguments, but as Aldby has pointed out, we have enjoyed a 50% increase in membership in the last four months so our lively forum is obviously widely enjoyed.

 

And our mission statement?

 

"Love thy neighbour" of course.

.

Here (close to the border between France and Switzerland) there appears to be a local rule/complication which I worked out through trial and error:

 

At zebra crossings check to see whether the car approaching has French or Swiss license plates - if Swiss the car will stop and it is safe to step off the pavement - if the car is French, stay put!

 

I realise that this information may not be of much use to the majority of pedeleccians.

Here (close to the border between France and Switzerland) there appears to be a local rule/complication which I worked out through trial and error:

 

At zebra crossings check to see whether the car approaching has French or Swiss license plates - if Swiss the car will stop and it is safe to step off the pavement - if the car is French, stay put!

 

I realise that this information may not be of much use to the majority of pedeleccians.

 

Presumably, if it has an Italian plate, it is past you already.

Back on the subject of cycling over a zebra crossing, it's both amusing and alarming that a cyclist can cycle across a zebra crossing legally as long as they walked onto it and off it, but a driver does not have to stop for one cycling over! So they can be in the right and still be run over!

 

Here's the interpretation of the relevant parts of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions (1997) by TfL's corporate lawyers. (The bold accentuation is mine):

1. Cyclists should dismount when crossing zebra crossings, as they are advised in the Highway Code (Rule 64), even when approaching the zebra crossing from a shared use (pedestrian/cycle) path.

 

2. Cycling across a zebra crossing is not in itself unlawful, as the crossing forms part of the carriageway. However, cyclists who fail to dismount will be unlawfully riding on the footway as they enter and exit the crossing (unless the area of footway concerned is a shared footway and cycleway).

 

4. Precedence is only given to “pedestrians” over vehicles at zebra crossings. Vehicles are not obliged to stop to allow a cyclist who has not dismounted from his bicycle to cross at a zebra crossing.

 

5. As a cycle is a ‘vehicle’ and pedestrians are to be given precedence over vehicles at zebra crossings, a cyclist who has not dismounted is required to give precedence to any pedestrians using the crossing at the same time. Failure to do so would constitute an offence under s25 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

6. Should a cyclist be involved in an accident while riding over a zebra crossing:

• the fact that he has acted in contravention of Rule 64 can be presented in court as evidence that he was riding dangerously and thus guilty of an offence under s28 Road Traffic Act 1988; and

• his failure to comply with the Highway Code also makes it more likely that he would be found liable in the civil courts for any injury caused.

 

I think their conclusion at the end of number one above is questionable though. If it's legal to cycle on the shared use path and legal to cycle across the zebra crossing because it's part of the carriageway, any proposed offence of cycling while entering is carried out in a virtual world that has no UK dimension, so surely cannot be subject to English law?

.

Edited October 7, 200817 yr by flecc

 

The distance covered before coming to a standstill suggests it was aqua-planing. This may be because, either the tyres were bald, or the speed was far in excess of what was safe for the given conditions.

 

 

Without wanting to appear non-PC, given that the Chinese regulatory system seems to allow manufacturers to get away with putting poisonous chemicals in food if it saves them a few pence per unit, it would not be a huge surprise to find sub-standard motor vehicles on the Chinese roads.

 

Frankly, despite the debate going on about the rights and wrongs of this incident if it happened in the UK, I'd suspect many Police Officers would throw the book at both bus driver and cyclist for a lack of due care and attention, and let the courts decide on the case. After all, in this case it is the bystanders (bus passengers, other road users) who were the real uninvolved innocents put at risk.

 

 

I'm not really sure why I've bothered to join in with the latest blazing row that Pedelecs UK forum is becoming increasingly well known for. What, exactly, IS the mission statement for this place?

 

 

Come, come, Bob - don't you know that internet forums are the de facto 21st century outlet for the passive-aggressive lurking in all of us?

 

David.

The info from the Highway Code and Pedestrian Crossing Regulations is helpful and accurate. So what happened to the specially marked distances using studs etc etc inside which the motorist was not obliged to stop?

 

I may be dim but I failed to see any reference to them.

It looks to me like the cyclist didnt look at all, and the driver didnt show any care at all, and all the traffic was indeed speeding.

 

In my view, if there is a zebra crossing there, then the onus is on the driver to expect there to be pedestrians wanting to cross, and to therefore show a degree of trepedation on the appraoch. To not show any regard for any potential pedestrians in this situation smack's of driving without due care and attention to me.

 

If this crossing was outside a school as so many of them are over here, you can expect children to act erratically, so isnt that why 99% of drivers would slow down and take extra care?

 

I agree the cyclist should have stopped and dismounted, but I have seen teenagers running faster than this onto zebra crossings without looking, and I know that doesnt mean the driver was at fault, but if they were not giving enough attention as this guy obviously wasnt...

 

John

This has been an interesting little debate to watch unfold, but it appears that nearly everyone is looking at as though it were the UK.

I have no experience of China as such (just Hong Kong, prior to the end of the lease..), however I think that a lot of these technical observations would be looked at with incredulity by the relevant locals......In India they have rules of the road (I think...) but they certainly aren't apparent when you drive there! The rule has always been if you are on the road, look out, if you encounter anything bigger than you, you're fair game..

My experience of these places has always been this:-

1 - don't get in the way of anything, unless you can reincarnate yourself.

2 - arguing afterwards is pointless (see (1) above).

3 - treat every other road user (including pedestrians, pigs, goats, dogs, elephants (especially elephants ) as potential hazards.

4 - you are safer in the hands of Osama Bin Laden than near a bus or truck, especially on a narrow track!

5 - Don't waste your breathe on the technicalities, don't trust anything moving to do only the expected, give 'em a wide berth. Arguing from your wheelchair afterwards just isn't cool!

I think we're all rather spoilt here. The rest of the world just isn't British

They don't do rules like we do, supermarket queues, fish and chips or polite discussions after the event!

 

Remember "The Hill Street Blues? - 'Let's be careful out there'"

 

Cheers, Phil

Thirty-plus years ago, my grandfather was knocked down and killed on a pedestrian crossing. The driver was not prosecuted because he had not been exceeding the speed limit, and my grandfather had just emerged from a pub, where he had had a few.