Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: ABlipInContinuity on July 31, 2008, 01:51:00 pm

Title: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: ABlipInContinuity on July 31, 2008, 01:51:00 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Gattopardo on July 31, 2008, 01:54:14 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.

Can't overtake the vehicle nearest the actual crossing stopped to let someone across or if controlled by traffic lights I believe.  Same rules for all innit.

Think its a £30 non endorsed IIRC
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: clarion on July 31, 2008, 01:58:24 pm
I believe all overtaking in the zig-zags is illegal.  Just watch how many motor vehicles pass you there.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Gattopardo on July 31, 2008, 01:59:53 pm
Parking on them is illegal.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: tiermat on July 31, 2008, 02:02:30 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.

You are correct, all overtaking is illegal at roads demarked with zig-zag lines.  This includes the appraoch to pedestrian crossings and in front of schools.  I winds me up no end the yummy mummies in their planet slayers that ignore this around where we live, just because they can't be arsed to walk 50 yards up the road to collect Tarquin/Arabella
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Regulator on July 31, 2008, 02:03:58 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.


AFAIK there isn't an offence of overtaking on the zigzag lines of a zebra crossing for cyclists, although overtaking might result in an offence of failing to stop for a crossing.  The zigzag markings are there to indicate the crossing apporach and cannot be parked on.

As far as I am aware, you can filter on the markings, as long as you do not failt to stop for the crossing itself.

However, on most crossings, it wouldn't be possible to overtake  (as opposed to undertake) on zigzag markings, as they are usually only painted on the kerb-side side of the crossing.  Exceptions arise where there are two (or more) lanes either direction (in which case overtaking isn't an issue) or where the zebra crossing is actually two separate crossings, divided by an island, where a zig zag marking may be painted next to the 'kerb' in the middle of the road.



*Amended for clarification
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: chris n on July 31, 2008, 02:04:36 pm
"191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]"

191-199: Pedestrian crossings : Directgov - Travel and transport (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339)
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: clarion on July 31, 2008, 02:08:30 pm
Thanks Chris.  I was wrong.  Well, partly right, but mainly wrong ;D
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: dkahn400 on July 31, 2008, 02:10:24 pm
In about 1969 or 1970 my mate Alan was charged with overtaking at a zebra crossing on his motor scooter. He had pulled up alongside the lead car at the crossing but pulled away first after the ped had gone past. I thought this was a bit harsh, as did he.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Regulator on July 31, 2008, 02:13:19 pm
"191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]"

191-199: Pedestrian crossings : Directgov - Travel and transport (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339)


It is covered by the THE ZEBRA, PELICAN AND PUFFIN PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS REGULATIONS 1997 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24).  As you will see, Part IV applies to movement of vehicles at crossings and Section 24 relates to overtaking... but it only applies to motor vehicles.   ;D :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: chris n on July 31, 2008, 02:16:50 pm
Thanks Chris.  I was wrong.  Well, partly right, but mainly wrong ;D

I had thought that you couldn't overtake at all on the crossings too.  I suppose that in practice, in a car, that rule effectively means 'no overtaking', rather than just 'don't overtake the vehicle next to the crossing'.  Obviously it's a bit different if you can filter alongside traffic.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: nuttycyclist on July 31, 2008, 02:20:16 pm
I did some research onto this a while ago (will dig it out if I can find it, but I think it's over on ACF if anybody has dual nationality).

Cyclists are specifically exempted from the overtaking rule. 


edit: cross post with Regulator I think.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Gattopardo on July 31, 2008, 02:26:23 pm
Where's the smug smiley when you need it.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Gattopardo on July 31, 2008, 02:27:22 pm
I did some research onto this a while ago (will dig it out if I can find it, but I think it's over on ACF if anybody has dual nationality).

Cyclists are specifically exempted from the overtaking rule. 


Wouldn't this be the same as filtering?
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: rafletcher on July 31, 2008, 02:28:50 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.

You are correct, all overtaking is illegal at roads demarked with zig-zag lines.  This includes the appraoch to pedestrian crossings and in front of schools.  I winds me up no end the yummy mummies in their planet slayers that ignore this around where we live, just because they can't be arsed to walk 50 yards up the road to collect Tarquin/Arabella

You shouldn't be so elitist - at my wifes school it's all Jordans and Kayleighs - but the mums are similar in their driving habits!
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Greenbank on July 31, 2008, 02:32:00 pm
I did some research onto this a while ago (will dig it out if I can find it, but I think it's over on ACF if anybody has dual nationality)

The Search bar/button is back for people not logged in on ACF. So you can go find it yourself if you want.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: nuttycyclist on July 31, 2008, 02:39:09 pm
ok, found it.    OMFG - Page 1 (http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/index.php?topic=5472.0)

Quote from: nutty
Traffic signs section 27 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#27) - ""vehicle" does not include a pedal bicycle "  Therefore I conclude we are exempt from the zig-zags.
 

Quote from: fuzzy
Regulation 24 - MOTOR VEHICLES OVERTAKING AT CROSSINGS (ALL)
Whilst any MOTOR VEHICLE or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding TOWARDS the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it:

(a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other MOTOR VEHICLE proceeding in the same direction and nearer to the crossing; or
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any VEHICLE which is stationary in order to comply with the requirements of the paragraphs numbered 3, 4 and 5 in this document.

IMPORTANT: This regulation only applies to vehicles approaching the crossing. ALSO sub-paragraph (a) above refers only to motor vehicles so it would be lawful for a motor vehicle to overtake a moving bicycle in the controlled areas on the approach to a crossing. In the case of (b), a motor vehicle must not overtake any vehicle at all, even a bicycle.

The above is from our legal search system.

It indicates that the offence can only be commited by a Motor Vehicle, which may pass a MOVING cycle approaching a crossing but NOT a  stationary cycle waiting at a crossing.

Even if there were 'zig zags' you were not commiting the offence.

Quote from: nutty
Fuzzy, having sat here with pencil and paper and a logic puzzle hat on, I make this assumption.  Can you confirm it?

under a) as we cyclists are not motor vehicles we are permitted to overtake another vehicle on the approach to a crossing.

under b) if ANY vehicle has stopped to comply with the requirements, as we are not a motor vehicle we are still permitted to overtake the other traffic (although we must still comply with the requirements, so can only filter to the front of the quue).



That's very interesting.  Certainly seems to give an advantage to pedal cycles ;D

No motor traffic is permitted to pass us in the queue (that might be worth while documenting as a handout for the occasional pillock that tries to push past whilst yo;re waiting), but we have no real requirement to sit in the queue if we can safely filter to the front :)  :)  :)

Edit: I suppose I'd better add that of course we must stop at the line.  I always do, so forget to comment upon it.


Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: nuttycyclist on July 31, 2008, 02:39:41 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.

I see from the link above that you should already know the answer ;)
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: ABlipInContinuity on August 04, 2008, 01:54:13 pm
As far as I understand, it's illegal to overtake on a pedestrian crossing upon the zig zag lines.
Does this apply to cyclists want to pass slowmoving traffic?

I can see good reasons why it might not be legal.

I see from the link above that you should already know the answer ;)

I should!

I'd tried to find that thread as my memory had faded, but obviously I didn't look hard enough!
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: red marley on August 04, 2008, 04:08:51 pm
...As you will see, Part IV applies to movement of vehicles at crossings and Section 24 relates to overtaking... but it only applies to motor vehicles.   ;D :thumbsup:

Why the thumbs up and cheezee grin? Regardless of the law, I can see the sense in not over- (or under-) taking any vehicle immediately in front of a crossing. Surely the point of the rule is that the other vehicle is likely to be blocking your visibility of pedestrians possibly crossing. Seems sensible to move with the traffic in  these circumstances.

I have been caught out too often as a pedestrian crossing the road at zebras only to be nearly flattened by cyclists who chose not to wait for the other traffic. In the one instance I shouted 'CROSSING!' at a cyclist who did this, I was sworn at loudly.

As for being a cyclist threatened by overtaking cars at the approach to a crossing, all the more reason to adopt primary position at these points.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Regulator on August 04, 2008, 04:20:40 pm
...As you will see, Part IV applies to movement of vehicles at crossings and Section 24 relates to overtaking... but it only applies to motor vehicles.   ;D :thumbsup:

Why the thumbs up and cheezee grin? Regardless of the law, I can see the sense in not over- (or under-) taking any vehicle immediately in front of a crossing. Surely the point of the rule is that the other vehicle is likely to be blocking your visibility of pedestrians possibly crossing. Seems sensible to move with the traffic in  these circumstances.

I have been caught out too often as a pedestrian crossing the road at zebras only to be nearly flattened by cyclists who chose not to wait for the other traffic. In the one instance I shouted 'CROSSING!' at a cyclist who did this, I was sworn at loudly.

As for being a cyclist threatened by overtaking cars at the approach to a crossing, all the more reason to adopt primary position at these points.

Not wishing to get into an argument, but I don't see why the smileys are a problem. 

I was pointing out that the prohibition on parking or overtaking at a crossing applies only to motor vehicles.  This is good, as it allows cyclists to manoeuvre in an area in which they are potentially vulnerable, given the propensity for crossings to also be pinch points.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: red marley on August 04, 2008, 04:28:49 pm
I guess what I was trying to express was that pedestrians are also vulnerable at these points, and given my own experience, would be less so if cyclists were prevented from overtaking at crossings.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Regulator on August 04, 2008, 04:30:54 pm
I guess what I was trying to express was that pedestrians are also vulnerable at these points, and given my own experience, would be less so if cyclists were prevented from overtaking at crossings.


I don't see how preventing cyclists from overtaking would make much difference - they still have to stop for the crossing.  What the law is trying to do, I believe, is stop motorists from cutting up other road users (including more vulnerable ones) at crossings.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Jacomus on August 04, 2008, 04:37:56 pm
I guess what I was trying to express was that pedestrians are also vulnerable at these points, and given my own experience, would be less so if cyclists were prevented from overtaking at crossings.


I don't see how preventing cyclists from overtaking would make much difference - they still have to stop for the crossing.  What the law is trying to do, I believe, is stop motorists from cutting up other road users (including more vulnerable ones) at crossings.

Quite.

Red marley - it seems to me that you have missed the finer point of this rule - that whilst it is perfectly legal for a cyclist to filter past the waiting traffic, inside the zig-zag section. It is still required by law that the cyclist must not continue on, over the crossing.

This renders your rant invalid in this situation, as it is not the cyclists filtering that is the problem, it is the lazy sods who can't be bothered to stop at the crossing.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: nuttycyclist on August 04, 2008, 04:48:19 pm

... Regardless of the law, I can see the sense in not over- (or under-) taking any vehicle immediately in front of a crossing. Surely the point of the rule is that the other vehicle is likely to be blocking your visibility of pedestrians possibly crossing. Seems sensible to move with the traffic in  these circumstances.

I have been caught out too often as a pedestrian crossing the road at zebras only to be nearly flattened by cyclists who chose not to wait for the other traffic. In the one instance I shouted 'CROSSING!' at a cyclist who did this, I was sworn at loudly.
...

The fact that cyclists are excluded from the no-overtaking on zig-zags is an excellent point imho.  In stationary/slow traffic the length of the zig-zag would lead to a lengthy period of time stuck in the queue if cyclists weren't allowed to filter legally.

The fact that cyclists still have to stop to give way to pedestrians is also a good thing.  And the necessity to do so should ensure that the sensible rider filter past slowly whilst looking and being prepared to stop.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Greenbank on August 04, 2008, 04:48:34 pm
There is no law that stipulates you must stop if people are waiting to cross (and have not already begun to cross).

The law (ZPPPCRGD reg 25) only applies if they are on the carraigeway:-

"
Precedence of pedestrians over vehicles at Zebra crossings

     25.  - (1) 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.
"

In other words, whoever gets onto the crossing first has priority.

However, it is expected that you should stop to allow people to cross if they are waiting, and you should always expect them to walk out onto the crossing without looking (like most do anyway).
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: red marley on August 04, 2008, 05:08:38 pm
This renders your rant invalid in this situation, as it is not the cyclists filtering that is the problem, it is the lazy sods who can't be bothered to stop at the crossing.

I don't think I was 'ranting', so I will try to clarify.

I think we are all agreed that road users of any type that go through crossings when people are crossing is A Bad Thing.

I understood the previous posts to have established that the law about overtaking only applies to the final vehicle in a queue - the one that if overtaken, would involve crossing the crossing. Therefore the issue is not about 'filtering' with the other vehicles in the queue, which I have no issue with.

The problem as I see it is that the law about overtaking that last vehicle is there because visibility to your left or right is restricted if you are just behind or adjacent to a vehicle waiting at a crossing. Therefore while a cyclist (or car driver) may have no intention of running anyone over, they are frequently not in a safe position to assess whether there are any pedestrians currently crossing if also trying to overtake a vehicle at a crossing.

It seems like considerate and safe cycling always to stop at a crossing if there is already a stationary vehicle that is partially blocking the view of the crossing. I would have no problem if that behaviour was reinforced by law, just as it is for motor vehicles.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Regulator on August 04, 2008, 05:13:25 pm
This renders your rant invalid in this situation, as it is not the cyclists filtering that is the problem, it is the lazy sods who can't be bothered to stop at the crossing.

...

I understood the previous posts to have established that the law about overtaking only applies to the final vehicle in a queue - the one that if overtaken, would involve crossing the crossing. Therefore the issue is not about 'filtering' with the other vehicles in the queue, which I have no issue with.

...

But that is not what the law says.  The law says that a motor vehicle cannot overtake any vehicle which is stopped within the road markings for a crossing and which is nearer to the crossing.  It doesn't just relate to the vehicle nearest the crossing.  On some crossings the markings go back some distance - two or three or more vehicles length. 


I know from experience that it can sometimes be safer to filter or overtake at crossing queues and place yourself to the front of the queue - otherwise you seriously risk being 'squeezed' by motor vehicles.  From my experience, black cabs are amongst the vehicle most likely to try and 'bully' you if you are stopped towards the rear of a queue at a crossing in London.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: red marley on August 04, 2008, 05:21:36 pm
OK - my mistake. I misinterpreted 'foremost part of vehicle' as 'foremost vehicle'.
In which case, we are probably in agreement :)

On edit: Ah, it looks like it does in fact apply to the foremost vehicle only (thanks for clarification Mr Khan). So sorry, it looks like we are not in agreement after all. Lordy-lord, this is confusing!


I have though, yet to experience car drivers considerate enough to leave a gap at the head of a (non-ASL) queue large enough to accommodate a cycle without sticking out into the crossing. My default behaviour at queues is to insert myself behind the first car. That way I can quickly assume primary position and clearly indicate that I am going to move as part of the general traffic flow.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: dkahn400 on August 04, 2008, 05:25:58 pm
But that is not what the law says.  The law says that a motor vehicle cannot overtake any vehicle which is stopped within the road markings for a crossing and which is nearer to the crossing.  It doesn't just relate to the vehicle nearest the crossing.   

Not according to the HC rule quoted by Chris N earlier in the thread.

Quote
"191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]"
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Greenbank on August 04, 2008, 05:34:33 pm
Not according to the HC rule quoted by Chris N earlier in the thread.

Quote
"191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]"

The HC rule is not the actual law, and the law is worded slightly differently to say no overtaking of any vehicle within the controlled area leading up to the crossing...

Statutory Instrument
1997 No. 2400 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/240001-a.htm#24)

"
24.  - (1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called "the approaching vehicle") or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it -

      (a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

      (b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
"
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: Regulator on August 04, 2008, 05:35:42 pm
But that is not what the law says.  The law says that a motor vehicle cannot overtake any vehicle which is stopped within the road markings for a crossing and which is nearer to the crossing.  It doesn't just relate to the vehicle nearest the crossing.   

Not according to the HC rule quoted by Chris N earlier in the thread.

Quote
"191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]"


The law says something slightly different from the Highway Code - and the Regulations trump the Code.  The law is slightly stricter for motor vehicles - a motor vehicle can't overtake any vehicle stopped within the markings of a crossing - so a car isn't legally allowed to push past you if you are stopped behind another vehicle at a crossing and inside the markings.
Title: Re: Pedestrian crossings
Post by: dkahn400 on August 04, 2008, 05:45:36 pm
Thanks Greenbank and Regulator. I'm happy to have been corrected.