ped crossing woes

Soup just had to say

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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* pissing 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 [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

... 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 said:

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 [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"W K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Adrian Boliston
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 😄

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

W K said:

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

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

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.

quite right, the requiremet in for you to give way to the
pedestrian on the crossing, not to stay off the crossing if
there is any pedesrtian on it. if you have a green light and
there is a gap, use it.

pk

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

That's where the system falls down. It should be as illegal
for peds to cross on a red man as it's illegal for me to
cycle through a red light. I am fed up of giving way to
peds when they've got the green man, only for them to take
absolutely no notice at all of the red man (and my green
light). What is the point of having a crossing at all if
peds can walk across with impunity whether the figure is
red or green? It's only any use when you've got a bus
behind you as back up, they soon stop then.

--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
simonmason.karoo.netsimonmason.karoo.netOpen ↗

Simon Mason said:

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

That's where the system falls down. It should be as
illegal for peds to cross on a red man as it's illegal
for me to cycle through a red light. I am fed up of
giving way to peds when they've got the green man, only
for them to take absolutely no notice at all of the red
man (and my green light). What is the point of having a
crossing at all if peds can walk across with impunity
whether the figure is red or green? It's only any use
when you've got a bus behind you as back up, they soon
stop then.

Let's all move to Germany. Streets empty of traffic in the
middle of the night and pedestrians patiently waiting for
the lights to change. ;-)
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "Some cause happiness
wherever they go; others whenever they go." -Oscar Wilde
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

In "]news:[email hidden],
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Adrian Boliston said:

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.

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.

Yes, but Mr. Duffer assaulted him, for an incredibly minor
provocation. Actually, I was surprised those rules are as
they are: I always understood you could pass through a
pedestrian crossing on flashing amber as long as you weren't
impeding the progress of a pedestrian.

A

Peter Clinch said:

Adrian Boliston said:

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.

IANAL, but to quote
highwaycode.gov.ukindex.shtmlOpen ↗ the legal
requirements are marked with "MUST" or "MUST NOT" whereas

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code
will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The
Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court
proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability."

So the fact that this paragraph does not read "You MUST give
way to pedestrians who are still crossing after the signal
for vehicles has changed to green." suggests that this is
not law, just good practice.

?

Mark Atherton

Simon Mason said:

That's where the system falls down. It should be as illegal
for peds to
cross on a red man as it's illegal for me to cycle through
a red light.

I'm with you in spirit, kind of, but I think there are damn
good reasons why this should never happen - not least of
which is that if they start banning pedestrians from being
on the road then it's only a short step to banning cyclists.

d.

Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Let's all move to Germany. Streets empty of traffic in the
middle of the night and pedestrians patiently waiting for
the lights to change. ;-)

Did someone here not post a while back about being stopped
by the police because he didn't wait for the lights to
change before crossing an empty street in the middle of the
night? I really like Germany, but this does seem to be
rather over the top.

Graeme

Mark Atherton said:

So the fact that this paragraph does not read "You MUST
give way to pedestrians who are still crossing after the
signal for vehicles has changed to green." suggests that
this is not law, just good practice.

This is so, but Adrian was saying he thought it was okay to
go through gaps if the ped had started to cross on a
flashing green man. Which isn't so, AFAICT. 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 [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Yes, but Mr. Duffer assaulted him, for an incredibly minor
provocation.

I'm not defending Mr. Duffer at all. He sounds like a cranky
old fool, but that doesn't mean it's okay to ignore the
Highway Code on a bike. "He did something worse afterwards,
so I'm excused my prior naughtiness" isn't how it works.

Quoted message said:

Actually, I was surprised those rules are as they are

But that's a direct cut and paste job I did from
highwaycode.gov.ukhighwaycode.gov.ukOpen ↗

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 [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

What Simon said. And while we're at it, we can introduce
some sort of punishment, preferably medieval in its
severity, for the ones who think that the crossing extends
ten yards along in the street in each direction. There I am,
stopped behinf the white line at the lights outside
Liverpool Street station (the place with the lowest mean IQ
in Britain, IMHO) like a gude little boy, when Mr.
Cretininasuit gives me a mouthful because he has to walk
round me. Ship his job to India and him to the chicken-
shredder...

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================