A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Routemasters (again)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 2nd 13, 05:12 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Routemasters (again)

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote:

From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).


Is a bicycle not a "mechanically propelled vehicle" for the purposes of the
act? Presumably there are other more general obligations that apply to
anyone who injures someone else, irrespective of the circumstances.

Presumably the cyclist would still be guilty offences relating to failure to
stop at the crossing to let pedestrians cross (and relating to causing
injury if anyone was injured) - *please* tell me that cyclists are not
exempt from this requirement too (!)

Years ago I witnessed a cyclist who injured a pedestrian who was already on
a zebra crossing: I was walking towards the crossing and heard someone
behind me yell "Out of my f**cking way" so I turned round and saw a cyclist
overtake two cars that had stopped to give way to a woman pushing a pram on
the crossing. Again yelling "Out of my f**cking way, he swerved between the
offside of the leading car and the traffic island in the centre of the road,
and clipped the woman as she scurried into the central island. Having come
off his bike he skidded across the road and narrowly avoided going under the
wheels of an oncoming HGV.

He tried to run off but my mate who was built like a brick outhouse
restrained him and "persuaded" him to wait until the police arrived. There
were a lot of witnesses so the police moved most of us on and didn't take
statements, but my mate who did give a statement said the cyclist was
ranting and raving about how the pedestrian and the cars had got in his way,
and was livid that the police didn't release him as the innocent party.
Utterly bewildering that a tiny minority of cyclists think that they have
priority over everyone else on the road, and give the vast majority a bad
name. I never heard how it ended, but I presume he was convicted - hard to
see how he could not be in the circumstances and with so many witnesses.

Ads
  #62  
Old August 2nd 13, 05:16 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
John Dean[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Routemasters (again)


"Truebrit" wrote in message
...
NY" wrote in message
Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What
do
pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs
pedestrians
to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way
to
them.

"Thumper" wrote:
When the pedestrian green man goes out there is about 20-30 seconds
before
the traffic lights start to change from red to green. So no excuse for a
pedestrian to still be crossing.


"Bertie Wooster" wrote:
Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red
symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to
cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use
highways)?

Do you not have jaywalking laws?


Generally speaking, no.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians...e-road-7-to-17


--
John Dean

  #63  
Old August 2nd 13, 05:40 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:

ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards

I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is
not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration
(where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or
guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the
person behaving badly.

That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the
negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect
everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's
own rights.

If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described
in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094

From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).


Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing?

Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being
that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be
aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which
any response to your question would hang.


Pelicon, he
http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8
http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP
http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL


Supplementary question(s):

1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision
occurred?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.

2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has
avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether
the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.




  #64  
Old August 2nd 13, 06:45 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Routemasters (again)

"John Dean" wrote in message
...
"Truebrit" wrote in message
...


Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red
symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to
cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use
highways)?

Do you not have jaywalking laws?


Generally speaking, no.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians...e-road-7-to-17


That's general advice rather than what's legal and what isn't.

--
Max Demian


  #65  
Old August 2nd 13, 06:58 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Routemasters (again)

"tim....." wrote in message
...

Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red
symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to
cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use
highways)?

Do you not have jaywalking laws?
We have them here and for the most part they are quite vigorously
enforced.
Truebrit.


Where is here?

Does you name refer to your location or your birthplace (perhaps)?

IME whilst ignoring a red man does constitute jaywalking in the UK, your
chances of being "ticketed" for it are somewhat less than negligible.


My understanding is that jaywalking refers to reckless crossing of the road
by a pedestrian, and wouldn't apply to crossing against a red man if there
is no traffic in sight.

In any case, neither jaywalking, nor crossing against a red pedestrian
signal, is illegal in Britain, and I've never heard of anyone even being
ticked off for it.

OTHO in the US and Germany it is quite possible.


No doubt. In Portugal, a green man doesn't mean that the traffic is held up
for you, just that you have right of way. You still have to check that any
vehicles have time to stop. You have to learn the laws and customs of the
country you are in.

--
Max Demian


  #66  
Old August 2nd 13, 07:48 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
Bertie Wooster[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,958
Default Routemasters (again)

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:40:29 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:

ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards

I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is
not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration
(where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or
guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the
person behaving badly.

That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the
negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect
everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's
own rights.

If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described
in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094

From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).

Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing?

Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being
that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be
aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which
any response to your question would hang.


Pelicon, he
http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8
http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP
http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL


Supplementary question(s):

1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision
occurred?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.

2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has
avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether
the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.


c, c.
  #68  
Old August 2nd 13, 07:51 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 02/08/2013 18:40, Phil W Lee wrote:
"tim....." considered Fri, 2 Aug 2013
06:41:50 +0100 the perfect time to write:


"Truebrit" wrote in message
...
NY" wrote in message
Turning left/right (delete as applicable) is probably a good one. What
do
pedestrian lights show during this time? Green/walk? It needs
pedestrians
to be aware that cars will turn, even if they (cars) *should* give way
to
them.

"Thumper" wrote:
When the pedestrian green man goes out there is about 20-30 seconds
before
the traffic lights start to change from red to green. So no excuse for a
pedestrian to still be crossing.

"Bertie Wooster" wrote:
Is there any legal requirement for pedestrians to wait while the red
symbol is showing? Or do pedestrians have an unrestricted right to
cross the highway (other than motorways and other restricted use
highways)?

Do you not have jaywalking laws?
We have them here and for the most part they are quite vigorously
enforced.
Truebrit.


Where is here?

Does you name refer to your location or your birthplace (perhaps)?

IME whilst ignoring a red man does constitute jaywalking in the UK, your
chances of being "ticketed" for it are somewhat less than negligible.

Probably because there is no offence with which you could be charged.
The red man is advisory only for pedestrians.
Motorists, on the other had, are only permitted to drive through a
green light if the way is clear.


Cyclists, on the same "had", are also only permitted to move through a
green light if the way is clear.

Aren't they?
  #69  
Old August 2nd 13, 07:51 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 02/08/2013 18:45, Phil W Lee wrote:
Bertie Wooster considered Fri, 02 Aug 2013
11:12:20 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:50:58 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards

I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is
not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration
(where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or
guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the
person behaving badly.

That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the
negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect
everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's
own rights.


If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described
in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094

From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).


The signals displayed by a traffic light mean stop, stop, stop, and
give way.
There is no Go, as even a green only allows you to proceed if the way
is clear.


Can you give the Highway Code reference (page number, etc) for that, please?


  #70  
Old August 2nd 13, 07:55 PM posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Routemasters (again)

On 02/08/2013 19:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:40:29 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:

ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards

I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is
not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration
(where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or
guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the
person behaving badly.

That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the
negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect
everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's
own rights.

If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described
in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094

From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).

Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing?

Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being
that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be
aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which
any response to your question would hang.

Pelicon, he
http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8
http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP
http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL


Supplementary question(s):

1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision
occurred?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.

2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has
avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether
the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)?

Choose from:

(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I don't know.


c, c.


Thank you for your honest answers.

If you know so little about the incident and have no way of forming a
well-founded opinion on the question of who is (more) to blame for it:

(a) why do you expect me to know any more than the zero you know about it,

(b) how do you expect me to be able to form a relevant opinion on it, and

(c) if I were to express an uninformed opinion on it, how would you
judge its validity, given that you know nothing of what happened?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.