In the UK pedestrians have right of way practically everywhere except dual carriageways and Motorways (where there not permitted to be)
This I take as a given.
If a pedestrian is crossing the street ahead of you then you slow down or stop if there is a group taking there time.
Cyclists however we are told to treat as vehicals and give them the same consideration as we would do another car.
Driving home tonight through my very residential neighbourhood, pootling along at 25 MPH I come up to a zebra crossing. The lights are green and no one is standing waiting so I can assume the button has not been pushed.
I continue to pootle up to the lights when a cyclist on the pavement turns left and start to cycle onto the crossing while looking right at me.
I’m looking right at him and it turns into a very short game of chicken before he relents and stops the bike on the crossing and I pootle past, we both exchange evils.
The fact that this all transpired on a zebra crossing doesn’t really put me in a good light. However it was a blazingly green light at all times.
However the rules of the road do say you do not intentionally disrupt traffic when pulling out onto streets.
Oncoming vehicals have right of way.
Are cyclists considered vehicals in this situation, I accept if he was on foot and pushing his bike then it’s a given he has right of way.
Did I break any traffic laws by not giving the negligent cyclist right of way by virtue of an emergency stop.
i’m not clear on what happened, are you in the u.k. and was he riding his bike? In the U.S. cyclists who are riding are vehicles and must obey all vehicle traffic laws. In other words no left hand turn from the right lane.
See, the thing is, if he’s on a bike path, there’s no red light or stop sign to tell him to stop. So if you treat bikes on a bike path like vehicles, then the city just set up a place where two vehicles are both given the go ahead to cross through the same intersection. OTOH, if you expect him to stop and look before crossing the street at a crosswalk, that sounds like pedestrian behavior, and I’d treat him as such.
Does “on the pavement” mean on the street (where cars drive) or on the sidewalk (where pedestrians walk)? I’m a bit confused as to exactly what his path was before and after his left turn.
Another vehicle - car or bike - which changes direction so as to cross your path must yield to you.
Sounds like this fellow was operating his vehicle in a pedestrian lane (the crosswalk, which is what I assume “zebra crossing” means), which might be a violation.
Cyclists should act like vehicles and not like pedestrians because even though they’re usually slower than cars, they’re significantly faster than people on foot - which dramatically affects closing speed - and cannot step aside or stop nearly instantly like a walker can.
I take it that the cyclist was on the pavement (US->sidewalk) coming towards you, then turned left onto the zebra (US->crosswalk) in the street (US->pavement) therefore crossing in front of you from your left across your path.
This is very dependent on local law. However, in most cases in the US the cyclist would have been at fault if an accident occurred for disregarding a traffic signal. I am assuming there is a cross street, which is why there is a light.
This is generally but not universally true. In Virginia, there are court cases that have treated cyclists riding their bikes as pedestrians, which places a greater burden on the motorist.
All bike path/street crossing around here have stop signs on the bike paths. They have considered this, you know.
Cross walks are for walking across, not riding. If you are riding on the crosswalk as if you were a pedestrian that’s like riding on the sidewalk, also not allowed. If the person dismounted and walked across, you’d be obliged to stop for him assuming you’d be obliged to stop for a pedestrian.
Playing chicken in your car is going to do no one any good. No matter what happens, running over a cyclist in a cross walk is not going to look good for you, nor feel very good for either party regardless of who had the RoW.
The cyclist is riding on the pavement (US = Sidewalk) which he is not supposed to be doing (It’s illegal to ride on the pavement/sidewalk as it is reservered for pedestrians only).
He (I assume) wants to cross the street to the other side of the road onto the other pavement/sidewalk to continue his journey. The Zebra crossing has no step unlike the rest of the street as it is designed for pedestrians, disabled et al.
So as I’m cruising into the zebra zone he is cycling parallel to me on the other side of the road on the pavement/Sidewalk. In the UK we drive on the left with the driver on the left so there is a hefty gap for blindsiding.
Zebra crossings are dictated by lights.
Pelican crossings are dictated by right of way, if pedestrians are waiting you must stop.
There was no cycle path the cyclist was following as he was illegally riding on the pavement/sidewalk to start with.
He just chose to pick the quickest easiest route between two sides of a road to continue his illegal journey and assumed the driver agreed with his intentions.
Correction: Driver right hand side car left hand side - sucker still blindsided me
Just to clarify further the cyclist only stopped cycling with the intervention of my vehicle. Otherwise he would have performed a fluid/speedy transition from one pavement to another.
pertinent hijack (or hitchhike):
If “the pavement” = “the sidewalk” and vice versa, what term is used to refer to the paved surface that the Brit motor vehicles run on (the wrong side of)?
You lost me with the pelican vs. zebra, but I think a bicyclist (riding the bike, not walking) should not use a pedestrian crossing the way a pedestrian would. People do it here and it drives me nuts.
So, had you seen another car driving on the pavement and making a left into a zebra crossing before continuing onto another section of pavement, would you have played chicken with him because you had the right of way? Or would you just have stopped and let the crazy man go (perhaps pulling onto the side of the road to alert the constabulatory on your mobile, first)?
Between the language barrier and differing traffic laws and the direction of driving, I’m having a hard time picturing the scenario. I don’t know whether or not your actions were legal - but I definitely know it would have been a bad idea to hit him.
If the crossing had a dedicated cycle lane, it would be a toucan crossing. (Yes, I’m complicating things further ) UK-ers can spot one difference from the driver’s point of view, because toucans have a red-&-amber phase instead of the flashing amber of a pelican crossing.
No, laws relating to pedestrians do not apply. Some laws specifically apply to cyclists - I don’t know where you are, but I do remember (from Fark) a guy not long ago who got a prosecution for ‘reckless cycling’ under Scottish law. There’s a specific law for riding a bike while drunk.
Should a collision worthy of investigation occur, the specific actions would be taken into account, and if it could be proved that you continued to accelerate or maintain your speed despite a cyclist being in your way, then you’re screwed. However, if it was clear that he steered into oncoming traffic, then you can start claiming for the damage to your car.
For those confused about the crossings, just find them on Wikipedia!
I find the better parallel to be ‘motorway=interstate’. It doesn’t directly correspond, but at least it shows the specific legal status that motorways have. After all, you can have four lanes in each direction on an A-road (the North Circular near the M11?), and many motorways are only two lanes.
As a regular bike commuter, could I yell this from the tops of buildings? When on a bike, you are a vehicle. If you want pedestrian laws to apply to you, get off and walk your bike. So simple, it’s silly, yet half of the cyclists out ther don’t get it (And the angry motorists take it out and me)
It’s the other way around. Zebra crossings are the stripy ones (hence the name) with Belisha Beacons (Flashing yellow globes on stripy poles) at either side. Pedestrians have ROW once they step onto the crossing. Drivers should stop for pedestrians waiting to cross - and surprisingly to foreign visitors, most often do!
Pelican crossings are controlled by lights and bear no resemblance to pelicans whatsoever.
Cyclists are not allowed on sidewalks except where cycle-only or shared lanes are marked. Crossings which are intended for cyclists and pedestrians are similar to pelicans (the crossings, not the birds) and are called Toucans :rolleyes: . Cyclists should not therefore be using Pelican crossings (which I think is really what the OP is talking about) as they have no right to be on the sidewalks being crossed between and do not have the presumption of ROW unless indicated.
If riding on the footpath (pavement/sidewalk … dontcha love traffic threads!) is indeed illegal where you are (as it is here) then the cyclist is 100% in the wrong. The Zebra crossing is a pedestrian crossing - it’s for pedestrians which he clearly was not.
However, by not stopping when you could see that he was about to ride in front of you, IMO you were 100% in the wrong too. (There’s an IMO in that sentence purely because I don’t know the legalities of the situation, but morally your obligation to avoid accidents if you can transcends basically everything - and that includes if your fellow-road-users are being rule-breaking idiots)
The proper response is to stop, then lean on your horn and glare meaningfully at him
) UK-ers can spot one difference from the driver’s point of view, because toucans have a red-&-amber phase instead of the flashing amber of a pelican crossing.