Author Topic: Pedestrian crossings  (Read 4160 times)

ABlipInContinuity

Pedestrian crossings
« 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.

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #1 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

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #2 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.
Getting there...

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2008, 01:59:53 pm »
Parking on them is illegal.

tiermat

  • According to Jane, I'm a Unisex SpaceAdmin
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #4 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
I feel like Captain Kirk, on a brand new planet every day, a little like King Kong on top of the Empire State

Regulator

  • Got a thing for rubber...
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #5 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
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #6 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

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2008, 02:08:30 pm »
Thanks Chris.  I was wrong.  Well, partly right, but mainly wrong ;D
Getting there...

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #8 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.
The old Legion hand told the recruit, "When things are bad, bleu, try not to make them worse, because it is very likely that they are bad enough already." -- Robert Ruark

Regulator

  • Got a thing for rubber...
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #9 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


It is covered by the THE ZEBRA, PELICAN AND PUFFIN PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS REGULATIONS 1997
.  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:
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #10 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.

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #11 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.

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2008, 02:26:23 pm »
Where's the smug smiley when you need it.

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #13 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?

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #14 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!
We are making a New World (Paul Nash, 1918)

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #15 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.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2008, 02:39:09 pm »
ok, found it.    OMFG - Page 1

Quote from: nutty
Traffic signs section 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.



Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #17 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 ;)

ABlipInContinuity

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #18 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!

red marley

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #19 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.

Regulator

  • Got a thing for rubber...
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #20 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.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

red marley

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #21 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.

Regulator

  • Got a thing for rubber...
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #22 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.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Jacomus

  • My favourite gender neutral pronoun is comrade
Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #23 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.
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity." Amelia Earhart

Re: Pedestrian crossings
« Reply #24 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.