ped crossing woes

I was cycling home for my lunch break a few minutes ago, and was passing a
busy pelican crossing in the town centre and the traffic was gridlocked (due
to the heavy rain i guess).

I am normally very careful to respect ped crossing rights, and always wait
before the last ped has crossed on the phase before proceeding.

My understanding is that a ped who starts crossing *after* the green man
starts flashing has the same rights as a ped who starts crossing whislt the
man is on red, ie vehicles must still give way but may proceed if a gap
large enough exists to proceed safely.

I was aware of an old "duffer" type ped who had started shouting "OI OI
YOU!" at me as I passed at about walking pace with a good 3 foot between me
and him. (he had started to cross *after* the green man had started
flashing). The "duffer" then somehow managed to reach and grab part of my
jacket (shoulder) which was somewhat alarming to say the least!
Fortunately I was able to release his grip by using my elbow but it was
quite scary at the time as I could have ended up sprawled on the road if
he'd hung on more tightly.

I could hear him effing and blinding at me as i rode away, which must have
been amusing to other peds, but my heart must have been doing 180bpm due the
adrenaline rush!

Soup just had to say

My understanding is that a ped who starts crossing *after* the green
man starts flashing has the same rights as a ped who starts crossing
whislt the man is on red, ie vehicles must still give way but may
proceed if a gap large enough exists to proceed safely.

Always understood it that you (TINY)weren't to START crossing
if the green man was 'flashing' , but you (TINY) had all the rights if
you (TINY)were already on the crossing when the green man started
'flashing'

--
Yours S. addy not usable (not that you would try it) ( )
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant! / \
www.killies.co.uk/forums/index.php

Adrian Boliston wrote:

My understanding is that a ped who starts crossing *after* the green man
starts flashing has the same rights as a ped who starts crossing whislt the
man is on red, ie vehicles must still give way but may proceed if a gap
large enough exists to proceed safely.

Highway Code Rule 172:
These [Pelican crossings] are signal-controlled crossings where flashing
amber follows the red 'Stop' light. You MUST stop when the red light
shows. When the amber light is flashing, 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.

Highway Code Rule 174:
Give way to pedestrians who are still crossing after the signal for
vehicles has changed to green.

So I'm afraid you're clearly in the wrong on this one. The fact that
Mr. Duffer broke an HC rule himself doesn't excuse you from 172 and 174
as two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law.

The bottom line is that whatever a ped *should* be doing, they take
right of way. "Oh, I was on a Motorway and he wasn't allowed there, so
it was Perfectly All Right to run him over at 70!" wouldn't save you a
few points on your license...

Best procedure IMHO would be to either (a) just wait the several whole
seconds you would have been held up and then get on with life, or (b) if
it was *really* ****ing you off then get off your bike, accost Mr.
Duffer and explain to him as courteously as you can that he was breaking
the Highway Code Rule 22 and shouldn't really be doing that. That
would hold you up a lot more than (a), of course, which would certainly
be my preferred alternative.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...

So I'm afraid you're clearly in the wrong on this one. The fact that
Mr. Duffer broke an HC rule himself doesn't excuse you from 172 and 174
as two wrongs don't make a right in the eyes of the law.

3 wrongs.
Grabbing hold of someone is an assault isn't it? and more serious than the
other two.

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...

...
Highway Code Rule 174:
Give way to pedestrians who are still crossing after the signal for
vehicles has changed to green....

By the time I crossed, the lights *were* Green in my favour, and there were still
more peds still crossing *behind* the "duffer" as the vehicular traffic was
gridlocked and not moving at all.

By obeying rule 174 I would likely have had to wait through several green phases
as there was a continuous stream of peds crossing on all phases due to the
gridlocked traffic.

I can see no offence being committed by a cyclist whose only option is to choose a
*safe* gap between peds during a green phase in such circumstances.

W K wrote:

3 wrongs.
Grabbing hold of someone is an assault isn't it? and more serious than the
other two.

Quite possibly. So if Mr. Policeman had been watching it all, Mr.
Duffer would get done for more than you. But you'd still get done...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"W K" wrote in message
...

3 wrongs.
Grabbing hold of someone is an assault isn't it? and more serious than the
other two.

It is legal if someone has committed an arrestable offence and you are performing
a citizens arrest. Otherwise it is most certainly an assault, as was the case
here!

Adrian Boliston wrote:

By the time I crossed, the lights *were* Green in my favour, and there were still
more peds still crossing *behind* the "duffer" as the vehicular traffic was
gridlocked and not moving at all.

By obeying rule 174 I would likely have had to wait through several green phases
as there was a continuous stream of peds crossing on all phases due to the
gridlocked traffic.

But unfortunately Rule 174 does not come with a set of caveats that it's
Perfectly All Right To Break It under certain circumstances. Your
understanding of the peds' rights and your legal requirements and
obligations is at fault is the bottom line here.

I can see no offence being committed by a cyclist whose only option is to choose a
*safe* gap between peds during a green phase in such circumstances.

Then you need to read the rule again, which says you MUST (in HC speak
that means you're legally obliged) yield right of way to pedestrians on
the crossing whatever the lights are doing.

And what you did is by no stretch of the imagination the "only option"
you could choose. You could have waited, like the other traffic, or you
could have dismounted, wheeled your bike onto the pavement and around
the crossing, remounted on the far side, and ridden away quite legally.
I'll readily concede that that's a faff, but you're giving everyone
watching a negative view of cyclists by ignoring your clear legal
requirements on a pedestrian crossing, which prejudices people against
you in future and, while you're at it, prejudices them against anyone
else on a bike too. It's all part of why there's a general perception
that "cyclists think they own the own the roads and lights don't apply
to them" etc. etc.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
W K wrote:

3 wrongs.
Grabbing hold of someone is an assault isn't it? and more serious than
the
other two.

Quite possibly. So if Mr. Policeman had been watching it all, Mr.
Duffer would get done for more than you. But you'd still get done...

At a guess its in "that london" place.
From infrequent visits I'd guess the car-loons are right when they'd say you
wouldn't.

which reminds me:
I did see a guy with a stick waving it wildly at a cyclist and shouting "you
nearly hit me, I'm disabled".
The way he waved his stick, neither was particularly close to the truth.

Adrian Boliston wrote:
I was cycling home for my lunch break a few minutes ago, and was passing
a busy pelican crossing in the town centre and the traffic was
gridlocked (due to the heavy rain i guess).
I am normally very careful to respect ped crossing rights, and always
wait before the last ped has crossed on the phase before proceeding.
My understanding is that a ped who starts crossing *after* the green man
starts flashing has the same rights as a ped who starts crossing whislt
the man is on red, ie vehicles must still give way but may proceed if a
gap large enough exists to proceed safely.
I was aware of an old "duffer" type ped who had started shouting "OI OI
YOU!" at me as I passed at about walking pace with a good 3 foot between
me and him. (he had started to cross *after* the green man had started
flashing). The "duffer" then somehow managed to reach and grab part of
my jacket (shoulder) which was somewhat alarming to say the least!
Fortunately I was able to release his grip by using my elbow but it was
quite scary at the time as I could have ended up sprawled on the road if
he'd hung on more tightly.
I could hear him effing and blinding at me as i rode away, which must
have been amusing to other peds, but my heart must have been doing
180bpm due the adrenaline rush!



Well, you've had some pretty clear explanations of the legalities of
this situation so there's no need to go up against Pete again. However,
being manhandled whilst you are in motion is in my book an unforgivable
offense and something that you ought to respond to. Trying to arrest the
progress of a cyclist when he's riding is potentially fatal and it would
have been worth bollocking the old duffer.

In my experience old farts are some of the most self-opinionated, self-
aggrandizing guardians of what is "right and proper" and are frequently
in the wrong.

Pedestrian crossings... a necessary evil



--