Do you know what a tiger crossing is? If so, congratulations, because that puts you ahead of certain staff of the Metropolitan Police Service, as evidenced by the latest video in our Near Miss of the Day series.
It was shot on Blackheath, which is mainly lovely if you’ve never visited, with some terrific views across the capital (late afternoon golden hour is recommended), but also has the A2 running across it like a scar.
And it was as road.cc reader Cycle London came off one of the shared-use passes crossing the heath to join the A2 heading towards Shooters Hill a couple of weeks ago that the incident in the clip below happened.
We’ll let him take up the story: “The Met refused to prosecute despite the … well, let me quote … ‘In this case the cyclist did not slow down to check both ways of traffic to see if it was safe to cross thus not allowing the driver enough response time to react at the crossing’.
“When I complained that I had looked both ways ten times (as can be seen from my camera moving left to right on the approach to the crossing), they tried to tell me that I shouldn’t be cycling across a pedestrian crossing.
> What to do next if you’ve been involved in a road traffic collision
“My response to that was that it wasn’t a pedestrian crossing, but one of the new ‘tiger’ crossings and cyclists were permitted on it, but they told me that I ‘must’ stop before crossing.
“In short, they spouted bullshit and prevaricated. Complaint going to the Commissioner.”
Oh, and here’s an explainer from the London Cycling Campaign of what a tiger crossing is, in case you weren’t sure.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc">info@road.cc or send us a message via the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
163 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 325: ‘Bullshit’ and prevarication from the Met”
Well done for reporting this
Well done for reporting this and good luck with the complaint.
burtthebike wrote:
My complaint will not go anywhere. It will be rejected, and then when I seek to appeal that rejection, that will be rejected, too.
The Met protects its own.
I have exchanged quite a few e-mails with the bloke at the Met who manages their traffic prosecutions team, and he sounds like a decent enough chap. He has emphasised their efforts to be open and indeed, I sensed real progress. Some of the close passes I reported were actioned, and they were a LOT less serious than this one.
He was off for a while, and it was a colleague of his who rejected this submission (I don’t think I’m giving anything away by telling you that).
As I told the gentleman concerned: ‘all the positive work you’ve been doing – your colleague just spaffed it up against a wall’.
TBH I probably would have
TBH I probably would have stopped at the crossing, or made the final approach very slowly, until there was an indication that the car was slowing up to stop, based purely on an anticipatory & defensive ‘everyone’s an idiot’… Same principle with road-island pinch points, I take the lane because one can’t rely on drivers approaching from behind, to wait for you to proceed through safely.
Dark night, wet and poor
Dark night, wet and poor street lighting; I don’t think I would be apporaching a crossing at 15 mph without slowing down to check drivers had spotted me; but there again I’m not religous and I don’t believe God is on my side.
Whilst I think that the
Whilst I think that the approach speed was a tad high… the driver is completely oblivious to what is going on around her – she made no attempt to slow down at the crossing in anticipation of pedestrians – simply awful driving! On the other hand, I’d never heard of a Tiger crossing until I saw this article. I’m sure that most motorists haven’t got a clue either.
While the cyclist is correct
While the cyclist is correct that he is allowed to cycle across, and should have priority (No such thing as “right of way” in this situation, that’s an incorrect use of terminology) there are 2 things the cyclist should improve on.
1 : If you want the law behind you on these crossings, use the cycle-lane section as marked out, NOT the pedestrian zebra crossing.
2 : Slow your aproach, having priority doesn’t mean anything when they are scraping you up into an ambulance/body bag. Slow down, be prepared to stop if required (shouldn’t be needed but as these crossings are not yet so well known, be extra cautious), make slow head movements to try for eye contact with drivers, and don’t go into the road unless you can see they are stopping.
These have recently been introduced here in Stavanger (Norway) and are all placed where the road layout means traffic is already slowing because of another junction, and the cycle routes are laid out to ensure a slower approach (most are beside a roundabout)… Initially there was a log of “WHY?” from drivers, but now people are used to them, both cyclists and drivers approach them with a modicum of caution, adjust speeds accordingly, and everyone flows in turn.
StuInNorway wrote:
Fair point, but it looks as though the cycle lane section is offset from the path, off the desire line, so to use it you would have to perform a tight slalom on either side of the crossing, which is just not realistic, usable design.
quiff wrote:
Hmm, you mean that is not possible at 15mph?
Maybe the design is intentional, precisely to prevent a cyclist from simply barrelling straight across. In this case the cyclist ignored the design, took the pedestrian crossing, and blames the motorist for the consequences.
Sriracha wrote:
If you’re on a zebra/tiger crossing and get hit by a vehicle, then it’s clearly 100% the vehicle’s fault. It’s a “Must” in the Highway Code and is a legal obligation for vehicles to give way.
Any motorist approaching a zebra/tiger crossing has to be ready to stop for anyone crossing.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Pedestrian Crossings:
Rule 79
Do not ride [cyclists] across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.
Tiger Crossings:
0:29 “When the traffic stops…”
Sriracha wrote:
Those would seem to be more recommendations (“should”) rather than force of law (“must”). There is some disparity between whether you should wait for traffic to stop before crossing or whether you have to start crossing in order for the traffic to stop.
However, giving way to people on the crossing is quite clear-cut – you MUST give way.
hawkinspeter wrote:
erm could you be more wrong hawinspeter? Yes a vehicle “Must” give way to people on the crossing, and has to be ready to stop for anyone crossing. But to barrel onto a crossing at that speed without considering reaction times and stopping distances of vehicles is completely ridiculous.
If the cyclist had slowed down on his approach and crossed the crossing at a sensible speed giving the approaching drivers a chance to reduce their speed then yes I would agree but what the cyclist did in that clip just defied all common sense.
If a pedestrian ran out into a zebra crossing when an approaching car was 2 car lengths away travelling at 20mph and was struck I would say the pedestrian was at fault not the car. In exactly the same way that the cyclist here made the rod for his own back
craigstitt wrote:
So, what is the legal maximum speed that you can use a crossing? It seems very clear to me that the motorists have a clearly laid out obligation, but you’re blaming the cyclist for going too quickly when there does not appear to be any speed restrictions. I’d agree that approaching a crossing slowly is going to give you more leeway for stopping etc., but that doesn’t change the facts.
hawkinspeter wrote:
How about slow enough to negotiate the crossing, which he failed to do, taking the pedestrian zebra section instead of the marked cycle section, due to his speed.
Sriracha wrote:
Completely irrelevant, unless you can find me a section of the appropriate Act(s) which state that cyclists must ride in the ‘marked cycle section’ .
cycle.london wrote:
Ktache already did just that many post ago. Cut from his more lengthy quote from legislation:
“(b)a requirement to stop at, or before, the stop position,
if a pedestrian or cyclist is on the carriageway, for the purposes of using the crossing, within the part of the crossing intended for (as the case may be) pedestrians or cyclists.”
hawkinspeter wrote:
Judging by the comments here, the answer is: an arbitrarily decided speed, 0.01 mph slower than the commentator thinks he or she would have taken the crossing.
cycle.london wrote:
You seriously don’t get it do you cycle.london. Let me break it down for you.
Yes on a crossing you have right of way
No you cant expect other road users to bend the laws of physics for you.
The stopping distance at 20mph on dry roads is around 12m, for wet roads (depending on what research you belive can be up to double that). But lets for sake of argument say 18m
Here is a still frame from your video, where the BMW is circled in red, and is around 25m from the tiger crossing. (note the time stamp 8 seconds). And I am being very generous with them being 25m from the crossing as it looks more like 3 car lengths from the crossing.
You are around 6m from the crossing at that point (on the basis you are travelling at 15mph or 6.7m/s)
At 20mph (the posted speed on that section of road) a vehicle is travelling around 8.9m per second. So in the 3 seconds from the screenshot – the bmw has travelled 27m and is on the crossing.
When you enter the crossing the time on the video is 9 seconds, and you almost crash into the side of the BMW at around 11 seconds. Assuming a constant speed, at the point you enter the crossing. (9 seconds in your video) the stopping distance of the BMW would have had them stop ON THE CROSSING
So it is not about setting an arbitrary speed as you put it, but one where the laws of physics don’t have to be bent to make your argument correct
craigstitt wrote:
That’s all true, but it also makes me wonder what the point of these particular road-markings is.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You seriously don’t get it do you cycle.london. Let me break it down for you.
Yes on a crossing you have right of way
No you cant expect other road users to bend the laws of physics for you.
The stopping distance at 20mph on dry roads is around 12m, for wet roads (depending on what research you belive can be up to double that). But lets for sake of argument say 18m
Here is a still frame from your video, where the BMW is circled in red, and is around 25m from the tiger crossing. (note the time stamp 8 seconds). And I am being very generous with them being 25m from the crossing as it looks more like 3 car lengths from the crossing.
You are around 6m from the crossing at that point (on the basis you are travelling at 15mph or 6.7m/s)
At 20mph (the posted speed on that section of road) a vehicle is travelling around 8.9m per second. So in the 3 seconds from the screenshot – the bmw has travelled 27m and is on the crossing.
When you enter the crossing the time on the video is 9 seconds, and you almost crash into the side of the BMW at around 11 seconds. Assuming a constant speed, at the point you enter the crossing. (9 seconds in your video) the stopping distance of the BMW would have had them stop ON THE CROSSING
So it is not about setting an arbitrary speed as you put it, but one where the laws of physics don’t have to be bent to make your argument correct
— craigstitt That’s all true, but it also makes me wonder what the point of these particular road-markings is.— hawkinspeter
Because traffic should stop to allow crossing of a busy road. The point is not to let a cyclist barrel in at speed and expect everyone to stop, but to allow safe crossing. In this case the cyclist showed a high level of arrogance and the behaviour drivers often claim of all cyclists. He was going too fast for the conditions, ignorant of other road users and was cycling on a zebra but of the crossing, intended for pedestrians, NOT on the cycle path next to pedestrian bit that he should have used. Had the cyclist slowed and used the cycle path then there would not have been any issue.
Given the behaviour of the cyclist both in the video and on here I suspect that a complaint is not going his way, and likely to result in further action against him.
John Smith wrote:
I’m not interested in arguing about whether one should approve of the cyclist’s actions (why does everyone think that is important either way? I don’t care, myself), but you haven’t answered my question at all.
If a road has a constant stream of fast-moving traffic that doesn’t have time to stop and let you cross (given the speed it’s travelling at and the traffic behind them) unless you stop and wait at the kerb until either there’s a break in the traffic or a driver decides to be ‘nice’ (and is confident the traffic behind them won’t be a problem) – how is that any different from the case where there’s no painted tiger crossing there?
The point of a zebra is that the motorist is supposed to stop if a ped steps out onto the road. There’s no obligation on the ped to stop and wait by the kerb until a driver feels like stopping as that would make the zerbra paint pointless.
I’m just questioning whether, given the difference in normal speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian, tiger crossings really make sense. People seem to be saying a cyclist has to behave as a pedestrian, travelling at pedestrian speed, to use them. Which might be a fair point but it means they might as well just walk across the zebra. Or wait to cross the road without any crossing there.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I don’t think they make any sense unless there is a national campaign in the style of ‘think once, think twice, think bike’
but that would be a poor use of resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYJYA0P5ls8
hirsute wrote:
I don’t think they make any sense unless there is a national campaign in the style of ‘think once, think twice, think bike’
but that would be a poor use of resources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYJYA0P5ls8— FluffyKittenofTindalosIt makes no sense if noone ever teaches anyone – driver or cyclist – how to use them.
vonhelmet wrote:
Yes, but it appeared that there are so few of them that the chances of a useful campaign seem negligible.
The ECC video looks like an accident waiting to happen.
Dumb cycling, ridiculously
Dumb cycling, ridiculously shite driving. The less road users like either of these, the happier i’ll be.
Alhtough the Tiger crossing
Alhtough the Tiger crossing hasn’t made its way into the Highway Code, the general message is that peds should check that traffic has stopped before striding out on any type of crossing. Why should it be any different for a cyclist?
A cam doesn’t give you a cloak of invulnerability and Blackheath isn’t in the Netherlands last thing I checked..
despite being a cyclist of
despite being a cyclist of some decades, and a motorist , I can’t get sympathy for the cyclist . On a dark night, when wet roads reduce visibility and lengthen stopping distance , and glare from other cars are an issue I’d never proceed over the crossing without stopping first and ensuring its obvious I’m about to cross-and – ensuring that the drivers have seen me and are stopping . I’ve looked at the video several times and I’d not expect a motorist at that distance to the crossing to stop for me Doubtless the cyclist just wanted home on a dark and wet night , but that driver was pretty close to the crossing before the cyclist set a wheel on it, and dare I say even closer to the cycling section of the crossing that the cyclist ignored .
Aberdeencyclist wrote:
Dude, with the greatest of respect, if you wait at this crossing, they will not stop. I tried that. As others have pointed out, the Tiger crossing there is a new addition. It was previously a zebra crossing for pedestrians only. I would get off my bike and cross on foot, and I would wait there as driver after driver blithely ignored me and drove across. And then when I got tired waiting and stepped out, the first two or three would sound the horn and swerve around me.
When the TIger crossing was put in, I’d do the same (without dismounting), and the same happened.
cycle.london wrote:
Seems to be a London driver thing. When I get the Thursday chips, and getting myself ready to leave, I’m 2-3 metres away from the Zebra crossing drop path that I would use to enter the road and I get cars stopping. Sometimes I’m still turning lights on etc so have to actually wave them on.
There’s a problem with
There’s a problem with waiting for traffic to stop before crossing as the Highway Code specifies only that traffic must give way to peds/cyclists on a zebra crossing, so in theory they don’t have to stop until you do start to cross.
I didn’t think the cyclist was going too fast as the closest side to him was clear and thus there should have been plenty of time for a motorist that’s actually looking and is prepared to stop.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Exactly – the HC basically advocates using a zebra crossing as being like playing chicken.
Pedestrian: “I don’t want to step out until the traffic stops or at least shows sign of slowing.”
Motorist: “I don’t have to stop unless there’s someone on the crossing. Yes, they’re waiting there but they haven’t actually stepped out.”
brooksby wrote:
Truth is, that is seldom how it works, in my experience. Pedestrians make it obvious they wish to cross by their purposeful stance at the side of the pavement. Cars then stop without the pedestrian having to first broach the tarmac.
You know it’s not working when you come across pedestrians, typically kids or chatting adults, who don’t follow that custom but congregate haphazardly towards the crossing without making their intentions clear. The ambiguity is frustrating, it’s not realistic to have to stop for every pedestrian in the vicinity of a crossing who has no intention of using it.
As for the cyclist expecting to simply launch himself at 15mph without hesitation on a dark and rainy night, sure, go for it. The driver should recognise the status of this particular crossing indicated that he should be expecting cyclists, instead of simply noting the absence of pedestrians, and therefore have seen you coming, why not. Expletive!
The cyclist was travelling at
The cyclist was travelling at a speed that they managed to stop so as to avoid the collision.
The motorist ploughed on regardless.
They would have done if it were a cyclist or pedestrian on the crossing.
For some reason the belesha beacon was not working on the far side, and there didn’t seem to be any independent lighting on the crossing area. Neither of which were the cyclists fault. More inadequate infrastructure for non motorised traffic.
ktache wrote:
Indeed. The suggestion that I was somehow ‘going too fast’ for the conditions, is completely debunked by the fact that I did manage to stop.
As the one comment I’ve so far seen on the YouTube video points out, would the driver have done that if she had been coming to a ‘Give Way’ and had another vehicle had been in a position of priority?
If the other vehicle had been a bicycle, then perhaps. ‘cos let’s face it – she’s not in any danger from a cyclist, and we’re just ‘road lice’ anyway.
And in the above scenario, I’d have loved to see some of the cyclists here say ‘OK, he had a GIVE WAY sign in his favour, but did he have to pull out…?’
No. Exactly.
Might have better luck
Might have better luck getting the council to fix the broken Belisha beacon light. The motorist could use that as an excuse for not seeing it.
I would never begin to cross a pedestrian crossing, whether zebra or traffic light controlled, until I was sure the traffic was stopping. I’ve drilled this into my kids. I’ve frequently seen cars sail through red at the pelican crossing outside the school.
That looks like stupid
That looks like stupid infrastructure. Obviously car drivers aren’t going to expect bikes appearing on a pedestrian crossing.
vonhelmet wrote:
it’s fairly new infrastructure too, looks like it used to be just a pedestrian Island. I wonder if there is any signage like “new road layout” “give way to cyclists crossing”? If not, there needs to be.
Whilst the motorist was in the wrong, I’m sure they’re not the only ones failing to see cyclists at this crossing. I think Cycle London would be best putting his effort into getting the council to improve the lighting and signage; using this footage as an example.
HoarseMann wrote:
it’s fairly new infrastructure too, looks like it used to be just a pedestrian Island. I wonder if there is any signage like “new road layout” “give way to cyclists crossing”? If not, there needs to be.
Whilst the motorist was in the wrong, I’m sure they’re not the only ones failing to see cyclists at this crossing. I think Cycle London would be best putting his effort into getting the council to improve the lighting and signage; using this footage as an example.— vonhelmet
Yes, I spent ages on Google Earth looking for this, and came to the conclusion it isn’t actually the A2 that the ‘action’ takes place on. It’s the B212 by the Prince of Wales Pond. The google Earth view shows a simple traffic island in that spot, but Street View from June 2019 shows the island has been removed in preparation for the new infra.
Having looked at the video a few times, I think it’s perhaps not the wisest of moves to assume the traffic is going to give way, just as I wouldn’t if I were a pedestrian at this crossing. Not that it makes a difference in law, the motorist is in the wrong – it might have been an opportunity to catch up with the motorist and have a word? “Do you know that cyclists have the right of way on that crossing?” type of thing. I know it very rarely makes a difference, but perhaps they were completely oblivious to this new infra – as many on here are (or were, me included).
The Met police should have a
The Met police should have a little look at the HC, remembering that the tiger crossing should be replacing zebra, I’m assuming that the law has been written and is in force but the HC has not been updated, Rule 195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing “…you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing….” It’s a MUST and the law concerning it Law ZPPPCRGD reg 25.
Rule 19 concerns pedestrians and Zebra crossing (as I say let’s assume that the HC will be updated for Tiger, and relevant laws have been changed)
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.
Not one MUST in that, not even a SHOULD. Just a bit of slightly conflicting advice, like wait until traffic has stopped but of course it dosn’t have to stop until you are actually crossing.
Rule 195 also contains more advice for the Driver/Rider (that is on the carriageway, such as being ready to slow or stop and allowing more time to stop on wet or icy roads.
even driving at just 15mph
even driving at just 15mph with a reaction time of 1 second a car will have travelled 22ft before theyve started to use the brakes, thats equivalent to just over 2 BMW estate car lengths, it will be nearly 3 BMW estate car lengths before they come to a stop at best, in the wet more like 4-5 as the braking distance increases. and remember travelling at that same 15mph the cyclist is actually at least 22ft from the crossing point on the road just 1 second before they get to the crossing.
I think it would be overly optimistic to attempt to cross a road like that in that manner during the daytime in perfectly sunny dry conditions, I think its near suicidal to attempt it in the dark when its wet.
I too am confused by these,
I too am confused by these, various cycle zebras have now appeared in Bristol and it’s not clear what the law is and whether or not it has actually changed.
The TFL study quoted in the LCC linked explantion is from 2006 but states that legally cars only have to give priority to pedestrians on the crossing (i.e. actually on it not stood waiting at the side) – and that cyclists should dismount to cross in order to gain the same priority – as cars do not have to give way to cyclists on a zebra.
If the law has changed is it granting cyclists rights similar to pedestrians – i.e. only give way to them when they are actually on the crossing!
As this has not been widely publicised I would not expect many (if any) drivers to be aware of this change, and they will carry on looking at the immediate area of the zebra only to check for pedestrians that are looking to cross/step out, and not be looking further afield for fast approaching cyclists.
Interesting that the
Interesting that the “explainer” link from LOndon Cycling clearly shows a Give Way sign facing the direction cyclists must come from, but I can’t see such a sign at the location concerned .
Sorry, but posting your video
Sorry, but posting your video on road.cc doesn’t make you automatically right or a victim of bad motorists who hate cyclists. A basic level of road awareness avoids incidents like this. If anything, this should go in the “please don’t do this when cycling”.
WeLoveHills wrote:
By the same token, starting a response with’ sorry’, doesn’t lend any more weight to your belief that I was somehow in the wrong.
There seems to be a worryingly recurrent trend on road.cc of late, to ‘second guess’ cyclists, and to detract from the responsibility or culpability of the driver. It was the same the last time one of my videos made it onto road.cc…..
https://road.cc/content/news/246559-near-miss-day-168-van-driver-crosses-solid-line-forcing-cyclists-out-way
And it looks like that’s happening again. Is this some sort of automative ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ where cyclists want to ingratiate themselves with the people killing us?
Bottom line: who was legally in the right, and who was legally in the wrong?
I was legally in the right, and the driver was legally in the wrong.
That’s all that need to be said.
Now, you could – if you were so inclined – trot out the old chestnut about how I might have been in the ‘right but still dead’, and that’s fine. But let me trot out another old chestnut to counter that one, by saying that the girl in the short skirt might still be raped, even if she had the ‘right’ to wear the short skirt. Neither argument holds water, and in neither case can the victim be said to be in the wrong.
You can say ‘I’d have done it differently’. Again, that’s fine.
I did it that way, and I was completely entitled to do so. And I was still almost killed.
That. Is. All.
cycle.london wrote:
Indeed, that is all.
cycle.london wrote:
So, is this one going to have as much heated debate as the last one?
I was surprised to find out that not giving way at a zebra can land a “hefty” fine of £100 and possibly 3 points. Still, I expect the motoring offences review will be delivered soon – Tories are always big on law and order.
Sorry for screwing up the
Sorry for screwing up the order of the comments. I only just realised that I’d written ‘Stockholm Signal’ instead of ‘Syndrome’.
No doubt due to using Signal to chat with my wife at the same time.
cycle.london wrote:
Oh dear.
cycle.london wrote:
Blimey. Even if you were in the right (and I don’t believe you were) what’s the point of that if you’re hit by a car ?
If you were cycling down that road I bet you’d have hit any cyclist crossing the road like that.
Back to School for you I think. Look up videos of the Green Cross Code Man.
I’d ay the cyclist may have
I’d ay the cyclist may have been approaching the crossing a bit fast given the conditions, but that in any event the motorist ought to have been watching for anyone wanting to or actually crossing. The cyclist was halfway across the crossing when the motorist just sailed across in front of them.
So is a Tiger Crossing what you can see on this Streetview of Baldwin Street/Queen Charlotte Street in Bristol? It has a segregated cycle path next to a footway, and then they widened the zebra crossing so it includes the width of the cycle path.
http://goo.gl/maps/6DS53EG2oFkw38tF7
I have to use a Tiger
I have to use a Tiger crossing on my commute. Most drivers haven’t a clue what it is. After several cose shaves caused by drivers sailing through the crossing while I’m still on it, I now wait about 1 metre back and wait for the road to clear – no traffic in either direction – before venturing out. Yes, I know that’s not how these things are supposed to work but I’m not prepared to put my life in the hands of a distracted/inattentive/don’t care driver. And as they say, there’s no right of way in a coffin.
dobbo996 wrote:
Do you doff your cycle helmet at the same time?
cycle.london wrote:
Was that meant to be sarcastic? I said nothing to criticise you, I simply pointed out my experiences of using Tiger crossings and my own efforts to keep me alive. I don’t give a shit about you tbh. For your information, I don’t wear a plastic hat or dress like a banana.
dobbo996 wrote:
I think that’s just called “Crossing the Road”.
Regardless of whether there’s any paint been put there.
And if you do feel you have to do that, then that particular infrastructure is an Utter Waste of Money (or, as certain folks would call it, “Money spaffed up the wall!”).
brooksby wrote:
That’s right, because the Tiger crossing doesn’t work. As I said, I’d rather put my fate in my own hands.
dobbo996 wrote:
Well, yes, but what would you do if the Tiger crossing wasn’t there? Exactly the same, I presume. Which surely means it’s a waste of paint.
@cycle.london The problem
@cycle.london The problem with this incident is the unusual road layout. These types of crossings are not in the highway code yet and not many drivers will be aware of them. Whilst the motorist was in the wrong, I think you will have a hard time getting the police to do something with this particular incident as there are quite a few mitigating circumstances that the motorist could use in their defence.
Rather than put your efforts into educating a single driver, I think you would do more good pushing the council to improve the signage and lighting. Also, you may risk alienating a police officer that has previously been helpful by pressing the complaint angle too much.
Anyways, good to see your cycling mojo is back!
HoarseMann wrote:
🙂 Thank you.
HoarseMann wrote:
I agree. Are there signs up of ‘new road layout ahead’ ? If not, then much better to harangue the council
“cycle.london wrote:
“cycle.london wrote:
… I did it that way, and I was completely entitled to do so. And I was still almost killed.
That. Is. All.”
You’ll not be surprised when exactly the same incident happens again then?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Next time, I won’t stop.
Can I just point out
Can I just point out something, and that’s that the ‘approach speed’ might look high, but the speedometer gets its figures from the helmet-mounted Garmin camera, which occasionally shows me at over 200 mph when I’m stopped at traffic lights.
If I look at Strava for that day (which I populate with a much more accurate, bar-mounted Garmin Edge 800), and squint at my screen, it shows my speed as I enter the crossing, as 7.6 mph.
If you’re at all interested, this is the full-length video submitted to the police, with the two minutes (or a bit more) either side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jrs8m9tviQQ&feature=youtu.be
Trivia include: I have 1,600 lumens of Cateye goodness flashing at the front, and was wearing hi-viz. Also, at the moment I enter the crossing, there are no lines of cars behind me, into which I could potentially ‘vanish’. The driver quite simply wasn’t looking, or else didn’t give a flying flamingo about me.
I believe that the Tiger
I believe that the Tiger crossing is classed as a parallel crossing, defined on the official government documentation (Traffic Signs and General direction Guidance, TSRGD, page 27)
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
RantyHighwayman discusses them here
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2017/04/drawing-parallels.html
Essex Highways has this
Q- Why are they not yet in the Highway Code?
A- The Highway Code is revised periodically by the Department for Transport, but Parallel Crossings are fully legal and recognised in the Department’s documents, such as the official guidance on appropriate signs and layout at TSRGD Schedule 14, including Part 1, Section 18, 21, 25, and Part 2 sections 31 and 53. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made
And with thanks to Plod on https://police.community/topic/115963-parallel-crossings/
The relevant section on the tsrgd2016 is in page 436 (22)
“22.—(1) The give-way line marking provided for at item 54 of the Part 2 sign table (and shown in the diagram at item 53) conveys to vehicular traffic proceeding along the carriageway towards a Parallel crossing—
(a)the position at or before which a vehicle must be stopped (“the stop position”), and
(b)a requirement to stop at, or before, the stop position,
if a pedestrian or cyclist is on the carriageway, for the purposes of using the crossing, within the part of the crossing intended for (as the case may be) pedestrians or cyclists.”
Oh and I would like to say that I would stop for a cyclist on a Zebra crossing.
Crossings are sacred.
You dont just ride onto a
You dont just ride onto a crossing before checking the vehicles have seen you. Just common sense.
A walker would pause to see vehicle’s coming to a stop before crossing.
Yes priority changes once user is on crossing, but its little consolation when laying in a hospital bed or worse.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
The sentient car again, presumably.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
But not the law.
End of conversation.
I can’t side with the cyclist
I can’t side with the cyclist in this instance. They approached the crossing at 15 mph, when they enetered the crossing at 9 seconds in the video, and were “cut up” by the BMW at 10 seconds. Even if the driver had spotted them on the crossing, and had excellent reactions they would have had less that 0.5 seconds to reduce their speed.
At the point the cyclist entered the crossing (still doing 15mph) the BMW was about 2 car lengths away, and would have struggled to stop even if they had slammed the brakes on. And not withstanding that, in wet conditions with cars following closely behind an emergency stop could cause a multiple vehicle crash…. but lets not worry about that…..as your right of way is more important than exercising common sense
It is the equivalent to a pedestrian running across a zebra crossing purely because their side of the crossing was clear, and expecting the drivers in the other lane to be able to stop on a dime, in the rain. But feel free to continue cycling like that and commenting “But I had right of way” from your hospital bed.
Completely moronic cycling.
Completely moronic cycling. Barrelling across crossing assuming all other traffic will get out of their way as they have the moral high ground- “but its my right of way”. How is the traffic supposed to know what your intentions are? Crossing the road or turning to cycle along it? We are very quick to lambast a driver desperate to shave a few seconds off their journey by performing a close pass. Apply the same to cyclists- slow down, lose a few seconds but save your life
Adapting pedestrian (2-3mph) infrastructure to accommodate cyclists (15-20mph) is not great asdistances being closed much more quickly. Pedestrian at the side- the few seconds it takes them to reach the crossing and start to go cross gives car drivers time to react. Cyclist approaching crossng at that speed? Not so much
I’m quite dismayed. I wasn’t
I’m quite dismayed. I wasn’t expecting praise and slaps on the back, and I am big and ugly enough to take some criticism, but this is ridiculous. A cyclist who was almost hit by a car driver, despite the cyclist doing absolutely nothing wrong, gets accused of being somehow responsible?
Have we as cyclists got that bad?
I see a lot of close pass videos and often think, ‘Wow… I would not have positioned myself there!’ Or ‘How come he didn’t see that coming?’
But I’ve never looked at a video where the cyclist is 100% in the right, and thought, ‘That’s the cyclist’s fault’.
cycle.london wrote:
And to be fair, you still haven’t.
Road.cc commentators on the whole are very pro-cyclist, as I know whenever I take a line sympathetic to “the other side”. If you feel you are taking a pummeling here of all places maybe you need to take stock of the comments and quietly come to your own conclusion. I wish you well, and a long life!
Sriracha wrote:
Hmm. You know, that fifty-two mushrooms can be wrong…
cycle.london wrote:
What on earth does that mean?
hirsute wrote:
I suspect it means he doesnt care, he was in the right, cant accept constructive criticism.
Probably soon to exit the gene pool
cycle.london wrote:
The problem is you seem unable to review what you did in light of the comments.
Do you have evidence that you can use the pedestrian part of the crossing ?
cycle.london wrote:
It is ridiculous that a large number of people, on a largely pro-cyclist website are criticising you?
Please explain why cycling on to a crossing at 15 mph, expecting a driver to carry out an emergency braking maneuver just to avoid running into you is doing absolutely nothing wrong?
The key point there is expecting a driver to carry out an emergency braking maneuver
The brief glances that you gave in the direction of the BMW would barely give you enough time to register what speed they were going, let alone to register if they had actually seen you approaching and had begun to slow down in response to you approaching. But your right of way obviously trumps the use of common sense.
craigstitt wrote:
Isn’t it more, expecting a driver to drive in such a way (and especially when approaching a tiger/zebra/unicorn crossing) that they wouldn’t have to carry out an emergency braking manoeuvre?
brooksby wrote:
I don’t really know about this one. I don’t think I can really blame the driver for not stopping, given the fact they appear to be travelling as part of a stream of vehicles at the same speed.
Maybe it’s just that a ‘tiger crossing’ in such a location (where it appears there’s a pretty heavy constant stream of quite fast-moving traffic) just doesn’t work as a design?
Given that it won’t work unless a cyclist slows right down, probably to to a dead stop, until there’s a sufficient break in the stream of traffic that a driver can see them in time to slow to a stop at the crossing, I don’t really see what the point of it is.
What value does this particular bit of road marking actually add?
brooksby wrote:
To some extent this is true, but it’s clear that the car is travelling at what is apparently the accepted speed for all road traffic at that point, including the vehicles just behind them.
It’s worse for the ‘tiger’ crossing because cyclists are likely to be approaching faster, leaving even less time for cars to stop. But I’m not even sure how the zebra crossing is supposed to function given what seems to be the ‘normal’ speed for cars to be travelling at here.
I reckon the whole crossing, and the whole arrangement of ped/cycle/car routes is just badly-designed.
brooksby wrote:
But it is then back to what vonhelmet said. Drivers are not expecting people to come barreling up to a crossing point at 15mph.
Would you, as a driver, on the approach to a crossing where there are no pedestrians within say 5m of a crossing, be looking for runners 10 or 15m away from the crossing, slowing down for them expecting that they are going to run out into the crossing at full tilt? Or would you simply not factor them into the equation?
In the run up to the incident there is no one anywhere near the crossing, apart from the cyclist approaching at speed and approaching at right angles to the road. So I would say that the vast majority of drivers (even those who are cyclists themselves) would not have assumed that the cyclist would just plow out onto the middle of the road.
My point is not to excuse the driver for not slowing down, but to point out that the cyclist is in the wrong too.
craigstitt wrote:
The cyclist isn’t in the _right_, their outrage at that particular driver is misplaced, but I’d still say it’s the stupid paint-based infrastructure that misled the cyclist in the first place.
Really the ‘common sense’ people are being asked to show is the common sense acceptance that most ped and cyclist infrastructure is a pointless token gesture put in to pretend to be doing something.
craigstitt wrote:
I think they said the speed was more like 8 mph and that the video was incorrect.
However
19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.
I think it is unclear if the driver could have stopped in time even if they were paying attention and had any notion that a ‘tiger crossing’ exists and that a cyclist may appear at random.
My straw poll at work showed no one had heard of such a crossing.
craigstitt wrote:
Craigstitt, much as I gree with the principle “I’d rather be alive than in the right” we cannot just continue to adjust our behaviours to accommodate the bullies, that is why the roads are such a dangerous place and people accept deaths so easily.
Yes, as a driver I would slow for every single crossing, I do so when on my bike especially (strangely enough) in busy areas, around schools etc.
How very cavalier of me!
craigstitt wrote:
Actually, I try to approach any crossing, at any time, ready for the possibility of someone crossing. Even if I can’t see someone about to step out, I slow enough that I feel that I can stop safely if someone unexpected does happen.
But that’s clearly just me. YMMV
On repeated viewing I was
On repeated viewing I was somewhat harsh. The speed of approach was lower than I thought and the car driver did have time to stop and give way, but didn’t
rdmp2 wrote:
12-13mph onto a road. What would you say if a person running into the road at that speed. Its foolhardy not to expect some mishap.
Don’t be dismayed. You’re out
Don’t be dismayed. You’re out in those conditions commuting which deserves credit. Plus, you have drawn attention to some poor infrastructure and the bad driving to expect.
I think most of the comments were just a concern for your safety. But you were clearly anticipating well and were able to stop even in the wet. Your bike light illuminates the drivers face; they are just staring ahead oblivious. Hopefully that gave them enough of a shock to make them pay more attention next time.
Most drivers are not horizon scanning like a fighter pilot, but their zoned-out gaze transfixed on the rear lights of the car ahead. I bet they didn’t even notice it was a crossing. The lighting is rubbish, old sodium lamps and a broken beacon. Needs LED lighting of the crossing.
I think some people are just
I think some people are just fundamentally missing the point here, you cannot change the laws of physics when crossing the road just by being on the crossing doesnt result in reversing space & time, even if you think you legally have right of way as soon as you are on the crossing, you have to accept drivers on the road have a reaction time to that and a stopping distance to factor in as part of your calculation when its actually safe for you to cross.
a car on the B212, can actually be driving at 20mph over that crossing, so could travel 30 feet in 1 second, 1 second is considered to be an optimal reaction time in the dry and daylight, the Met police gave evidence in court they believe when its dark its nearer 3-4 seconds reaction time as a minimum, so a car could travel nearly from the penalty area on a football pitch to the halfway line, before the driver has even reacted to there being something that required them to stop and then used the brakes to stop, theyll probably be at the opposition penalty area by the time theyve actually stopped in the wet.
thats the point. if thats a hill you want to gamble your life on, thats your choice.
I agree with you cycle.london
I agree with you cycle.london, driver probably didn’t see you until last moment. Fitness level unknown, choices to make, risks and rewards. Would wet road skid? Would tail get slammed?
Is immediate danger upon cyclist crossing? I also agree with CXR94Di2. Pedestrians tend to view the vehicle slowing prior to stepping infront. 15 mph quite impressive, maybe driver did see you and thought wow, at that rate of knots he’s probably going to get a clear left while there’s nothing comi,,,,, oh shit he’s crossing hence confused intentions.
Lol. Doesn’t make sense to
Lol. Doesn’t make sense to me.. If noticed earlier, stiff ship if hooking a left or going across, wet roads, nice approach speed, it’d be worth a slow down incase reaction to grasp a skid is required. Probably didn’t click that you were crossing.
@craigstitt – I think you’re
@craigstitt – I think you’re confusing laws of physics with the laws of bad driving.
You use the maximum motorised speed limit as the likely speed of the car approaching the crossing – that rings alarm bells to me. Why would a driver be going at the maximum allowable speed when they are quite likely going to need to stop for anyone crossing?
You also seem to be saying that the car’s speed needs to be factored into cyclists’ behaviour rather than the driver actually being in control of their vehicle and being able to stop in time.
Also, the cyclist was able to stop in time which shows an appropriate speed whereas the driver wasn’t able to stop in time which shows very poor and dangerous driving.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Ding-ding! And you win the prize for “Most relevant comment”, hawkinspeter!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes I am using the maximum speed posted as the benchmark…. why??? Because it is estimated that 85% of journeys in 20mph Zones are carried out in excess of 20mph (Department for Transport Study).
Yes – I am saying that a car’s speed needs to be factored in to the cyclists behaviour, largely for the sake of say self preservation. As a pedestrian would you step out on to a zebra crossing in front of a vehicle which may or may not be able to stop in the time just because you have right of way? Or would you perhaps wait until they started to slow down?
(EDIT) I also used in my calculations stopping distances based on emergency braking. Is it reasonable for someone to expect a driver to have to carry out an emergency braking maneuver just because of their sense of entitlement at a crossing point? (EDIT)
How can it be an appropriate speed to approach a crossing with absolutely no reduction in speed? Where is that common sense under anyones book other than yours and cycle.london? And you are not taking account of any other actions that the driver may or may not be dealing with, such as checking mirrors, lights from oncoming traffic affecting the ability to see a lunatic approaching a crossing at speed. BUT RIGHT OF WAY!!!!!
I will be keeping my eyes peeled for the news where cycle.london is being interviewed from their hospital bed ….. “But I had right of Way, they should have stopped for me”.
There may have been an element of bad driving, but that DOES NOT excuse cycle.london’s appaling cyclecraft.
The problem is drivers are
The problem is drivers are accustomed to slowing for pedestrians approaching a crossing less than a metre or so from the kerb at sub walking pace. They’re not accustomed to slowing for cyclists approaching a crossing at a significant percentage of full tilt from let’s say 5-10m from the kerb and without it being clear whether they’re even going to cross the crossing. If nothing else it requires a driver to look across much more of their field of view. It’d be like a driver having to consider a pedestrian sprinting straight across the crossing, like some sort of risky Usain Bolt. Now hey, maybe that’s the way its intended to work with these new tiger crossings, but if that’s the case they need a massive program of education. I’d not heard of a tiger crossing until now, so go figure, and given how drivers treat ASLs when they were introduced in 198flipping4, I think it’s fair to say that driver education- both initial and ongoing – is woeful and not up to the task of teaching drivers to cope with cyclists to cross the road in this way.
vonhelmet wrote:
That is you hitting the nail on the head there @vonhelmet
And any cyclist with half a ounce of common sense could understand that but it seems to have escaped some people on here.
craigstitt wrote:
That is you hitting the nail on the head there @vonhelmet
And any cyclist with half a ounce of common sense could understand that but it seems to have escaped some people on here. — vonhelmet
Again, vonhelmet’s point is absolutely true, but it does seem, for a road where fast moving streams of traffic are apparently normal, to make the tiger crossing entirely pointless. I don’t know that the driver would have felt able or willing to stop for a pedestrian walking on to the zebra either.
“I did it the way I was
“I did it the way I was completely entitled to do”…
There’s your problem.
Argus Tuft wrote:
Aye, that and cycling over the pedestrian side of the crossing, which is a zebra. The HC has a couple of words about that and they are ‘do not’.
…this and common sense and bunch of other shite, but hey – entitlement.
cycle.london managed to stop
cycle.london managed to stop in time. The driver was completely oblivious of the crossing and anyone on it and failed to even start to slow down.
It’s pointless bleating about
It’s pointless bleating about other drivers. Let’s operate our own machines as safely as possible.
Argus Tuft wrote:
Do you take the same attitude to knife-weilders and gun users?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
It’s pointless bleating about other drivers. Let’s operate our own machines as safely as possible.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Do you take the same attitude to knife-weilders and gun users?— Argus Tuft
Good Point-It would have been better to bring it back to this particular case,and not generalize.
It’s safer to expect the
It’s safer to expect the unexpected.
Argus Tuft wrote:
So I trust you never leave the house?
Argus Tuft wrote:
Completely meaningless.
Surely the old advice of Stop
Surely the old advice of Stop, Look and Listen applies.
Sorry Cycle London you did none of those things.
100% with cycle.london here
100% with cycle.london here and also the infrastructure needs to change as driver behaviour clearly wont!
He approached the crossing with the ability to stop (he clearly did so) unlike the driver. If he’d waited at the side then the driver would have sailed through because might is right at least his appearing in their window may make them think twice next time. People are so indulgent, aggressive, self-obsessed within their bubble of security and the law backs them up as they can kill without remores or punishment.
As for the infrastructure, how do you allow a car to go through a crossing at 30-40mph, it should never happen. Put them on ramps, put those car park metal things on them or put a speed camera on every one. Traffic should always slow when there’s a crossing like this, make them slow!
A whole lot of arguing about
A whole lot of arguing about nothing.
cycle.london has dismissed all arguments based on “common sense” and the like, and stands on what is right according to the law. It is uncharacteristcally clear. Here it is:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made
[i]22.—(1) The give-way line marking provided for at item 54 of the Part 2 sign table (and shown in the diagram at item 53) conveys to vehicular traffic proceeding along the carriageway towards a Parallel crossing—
[i](a)the position at or before which a vehicle must be stopped (“the stop position”), and
[i](b)a requirement to stop at, or before, the stop position,
[i]if a pedestrian or cyclist is on the carriageway, for the purposes of using the crossing, within the part of the crossing intended for (as the case may be) pedestrians or cyclists.[/i]
Sriracha wrote:
Great, theres legislation. Now count for me (on the fingers of one hand) the number of drivers who have read that, or seen any secondary materials educating them of this.
You can make laws saying anything, but if you keep them a secret, no one is going to know to obey them. If drivers have no idea what a tiger crossing is they’re not going to know to expect a cyclists list.
The infrastructure is flawed. It encourages cyclists to approach at speed while giving drivers little if any clue what they might be about to encounter.
Come on, be honest, how many of us had even heard of a tiger crossing before reading this article?
vonhelmet wrote:
Not me, vonhelmet, I agree totally. But it is the OP who has chosen to stand on the legal position -read his posts. He bats away any appeal to common sense, reason, self-preservation, etc, and makes his stand on “doing absolutely nothing wrong” and being “100% in the right”. So I thought we ought to know what the legislation actually says. Others can work out for themselves if the OP is “100% in the right”, according to that legislation. The OP brooks no other argument.
Sriracha wrote:
This is the thing about legislation, it can be interpreted differently by different people.
And as a counter argument to cycle.london, there is case law, specifically the case law relating to contributory negligence as explored in “Davies v Swan Motor Co (1949)” where the judge summed up using the phrase ‘When a man steps into the road he owes a duty to himself to take care for his own safety’.
And more recently explored in the case of “Brushett v Hazeldean” (Yoga teacher v cyclist), where despite the cyclist proceeding through a green light, they were found to be 50% at fault in the incident, because the pedestrian was established on the pelican crossing at the time. 50% of the blame was allocated to the pedestrian as they were distracted as they crossed the road. (broadly speaking)
If this had been an actual accident, and had proceeded to court I would full well expect a 50:50 verdict in relation to this incident, as on the balance of the evidence both parties have some responsibility in relation to what happened. Yes the cyclist was established on the crossing at the time but did they give the approaching driver time to slow down in a safe and controlled manner? – No.
craigstitt wrote:
No, the cyclist was not established on the [cycle] crossing. He was cycling across the pedestrian zebra section.
If he wished to establish himself on the pedestrian section of the crossing, however, he would have had to dismount and proceed as a pedestrian wheeling his cycle. Had he done so I doubt the incident would have occurred.
The cycle section is offset from the ‘desire line’. He would need to slow down to negotiate the change of line required in order to establish himself on the cycle section. I wonder whether this is not by design, but that is just my conjecture. Had he done so, again, I doubt the incident would have occurred.
He had choice available.
craigstitt wrote:
Fixed that for you
I don’t think the rider would have got 50% because well car innit. But again I refer you to the point of slowing down for a crossing and the fact that at no point did the driver slow or prepare to slow…
alansmurphy wrote:
And there in bold is your problem right there. You are so blinded by hatred of cars that you cannot see anything other than your opinion that the cyclist could not be wrong.
If you knew anything about the Brushett Case, you would know that the cyclist did not allow the pedestrians who were on the road to clear the road before they tried to barge their way through but your complete bais trumps the actual facts in the case.
And believe me, having been involved in an accident with a car, where I had priority, resulting in 3 months of physiotherapy and a carbon fibre bike being written off as a result of the impact, I personally am not going to take risks with my own life as a result of priority, percieved or otherwise.
Enjoy the view from your hospital bed when your sense of priority and “I’m doing nothing wrong” puts you there.
craigstitt wrote:
I had thought that what made the Brushett case interesting was that there *wasn’t* a crossing (zebra, tiger, or unicorn). The pedestrians were just Crossing The Road, although admittedly beyond a junction controlled by traffic lights. Not sure if that changes any of your argument.
brooksby wrote:
Not really, as my point was merely that despite one party having right of way/priority they were still held to be 50% liable for the causation of the accident because they were deemed to be partly at fault for causing it.
I would be virtually certain that the police are applying a similar methodolgy in rejecting cycle.londons allegation against the driver. i.e. that there was contributory negligence from his entry into the road without allowing the driver sufficient time to slow down in a controlled manner.
Lets take cyclists out of the equation for a moment and imagine the scenario – driver 1 approaches a traffic calming measure, and they have priority over oncoming vehicles (As dictated by road signage and road markings). And as they approach the pinch point a queue of oncoming vehicles are passing the traffic calming measure coming towards them….. If driver 1 simply goes I have right of way I am going to crash into the cars coming the opposite way….. what do you think the outcome would be?
craigstitt wrote:
Not a very good analogy in my opinion.
How about a scenario of a pedestrian walking normally along a pavement and a driver decides that they want to park on the pavement ahead of the pedestrian. Now assume that the driver mounts the pavement and the pedestrian doesn’t stop walking and bumps into the car, breaking the wing mirror. Is the pedestrian 50% to blame for damaging the wing mirror because they didn’t stop walking when they could have?
Or better yet, a 7-year old on a push-along scooter goes barrelling across the zebra/tiger (not using the cyclist/wheeled section and not dismounting) and doesn’t give the poor motorist advance warning that they may have to slow down or heaven forbid, stop. Assume then that a horrible accident ensues – is the 7-year old 50% responsible for it?
hawkinspeter wrote:
In that case I would put it at 100% the pedestrians fault. Why? Because irrespective of the legality of the vehicles parking, for a pedestrian to damage a stationary vehicle is 100% their fault. Just in the same way as a car running into an illegally parked car…. the moving vehicle would always be deemed to be at fault.
In that example it is the parents fault for allowing their child to play on a scooter near to a live road without adequate supervision.
I like this game
craigstitt wrote:
First example – both the car and pedestrian are moving.
Second example – what? So the parents would be found to have contributed to the collision due to their negligence? Sorry that’s just wrong.
hawkinspeter wrote:
First example – You are fundamentally flawed in your understanding of physics if you think there is any possibility that a car manuvering at parking speeds and a pedestrian walking for there to be enough momentum to break a wing mirror.
But to humour you….. of course if a pedestrian is struck by a moving vehicle while they are walking along a pavement they are going to be entirely at fault.
Second example – I’m guessing you are taking a leaf from my book and employing hyperbole because again for the purposes of the real world a child on a scooter would be going significantly slower than the cyclist entering the crossing so the child would be at fault in the event of an accident.
.
.
p.s. once you have read the above statments and typed your reply in anger…. read my replies above in the sarcastic tone that they are meant to be read……
craigstitt wrote:
No worries, I’m not angry about this, and to be honest, all of our analogies are crap.
I disagree with your interpretation of the second one, but then we disagree about the actual incident, so that’s no surprise.
I remember a real world example that is very sad that was covered here (sorry, haven’t time to find it) – a young girl was wobbling along a pavement on her bike and ended up going into the road (I think it was a semi-busy A-road) and was hit and killed by a car/driver who couldn’t stop in time. There was some disagreement in the comments about whether the driver should have been able to stop or not as they should have anticipated a possible hazard, but there was very little talk of blaming the girl (it would have been in poor taste).
I love cars, an amazing feat of engineering, often aesthetically amazing, give some people amazing freedom. My hatred is of the general driving standard, the need to get in front, constant risk taking with other people’s lives, law breaking by the majority, the arrogance to think it’s always someone elses fault and the lack of enforcement or punishment when their luck runs out and they kill someone.
And thanks for the bullshit advice, total arrogance on your part. You speak of your incident, well I’m sorry but for all of oyur subserviant self-preservation you’ll not be able to prevent that one wanker that doesn’t value your life. In fact, attitudes that are victim blaming or at least not holding others to account for their actions increase the problems…
alansmurphy wrote:
I am very well aware of the people on the road that don’t value the life of a cyclist all for the sake of a few seconds, and I have a mountain of video evidence to prove it.
Does it irritate me that these people drive like that? Yes of course it does. Does it get under my skin that there is such a lack of enforcement, and even when enforcement action is taken the punishments dished out to motorists is utterly laughable. Yes it definitely does. Of which 0 out of the clips which I have sent to the police have been actioned. And that annoys the hell out of me because those road users are a danger to themselves and others.
Am I in the habit of victim blaming? No. Am I in favour of using common sense to mitigate problems? Yes. If that had been me in cycle.london’s position, would I have made a complaint to the police? No, I would have looked at that footage and thought maybe I should have slowed down a bit more on approach to the crossing.
I have attempted to explain why I think that Cycle.London was in part to blame for the incident, in terms of speed (including my views and calculations on his speed), not taking into account weather conditions and stopping distances. In drier weather and better light, I most likely would have sided with Cycle.London, but it was wet and dark therefore I chose a different view to you.
You call it victim blaming…… I call it looking at it objectively.
Your standpoint has come from the…… he has priority in law as soon as he is on the crossing therefore he must be right
It’s not a lot of arguing
It’s not a lot of arguing about nothing, and if it is then why are you still arguing.
You and I can apply whatever common sense we like but whilst the infrastructure is set up to not slow down drivers, and they travel without care or appropriate punishment ourselves and our families are forever at greater risk. This video demonstrates that perfectly regardless of whomever you think is right in the clip!
Crap cycling, looking for
Crap cycling, looking for trouble.
Replace the car with another rider. They’d have been doing a similar speed to the car driver, likely just as surprised to see another rider approaching at speed from the park, and probably also resulting in a near miss that could have been easily avoided with a little less sense of entitlement.
srchar wrote:
Exactly – riding along scanning for potholes and litter in the road – having to be aware of vehicles around you – you’d need Spider Sense to think someone’s going to ride out without even pausing.
srchar wrote:
Do any of us really look for trouble when on 2 wheels, seems like it’d be pretty easy to lose that fight!
alansmurphy wrote:
Erm, did you actually watch the video?
That cycling IMHO is the very definition of looking for trouble on 2 wheels.
alansmurphy wrote:
Based on this video, surprisingly yes apparently. I thought the driving very poor, but the cycling was also dumb to say the least (IMO). If you want to get picky, the car didn’t need to stop for the cycle as he wasn’t a pedestrian (as he was cycling) on the zebra, c.f. Crank v Brooks (1980) RTR, nor was he a cyclist on the cycling section of the crossing… but that’s un-necessarily pedantic, a bit of common sense and respect for the HC from both, and extra large dollop of situational awareness from the driver would have made this a non-issue.
alansmurphy wrote:
By “looking for trouble”, I meant looking for conflict. Whether that be so they can have a row or post a video to YouTube. Obviously, nobody goes out looking to get hurt.
so @brooksby and @alansmurphy
so @brooksby and @alansmurphy – you both slow down for every crossing that you come to regardless of whether there is anyone is there?
Just out of question do you stop at the line at each one just so you can be doubly sure that Usain Bolt is going to fly across the crossing in front of you?
If I use your logic Brooksby –
“I try to approach any crossing, at any time, ready for the possibility of someone crossing…….. I slow enough that I feel that I can stop safely if someone unexpected does happen.”
If you are travelling at 10mph, as you are right at the stop line of the zebra crossing and a pedestrian sprints out of nowhere into the path of your car…. you wouldn’t be able to safely stop at that point therefore you are going too fast…. No?
craigstitt wrote:
Yes, 100%. Foot off the pedal and cover the brakes looking for anyone that may be using the crossing. That’s what everyone does and should do isn’t it?
As for using Usain Bolt as an example, you are aware he runs at 27mph, 4 to 5 times quicker than the cyclist was travelling in this video?
People can’t sprint out of nowhere, 10mph would give you appropriate time to react if you were looking around you as you should.
Finally, you realise that the car in the clip didn’t react at any point in this video, didn’t see the bike when it was a couple of inches away. What does this tell you?
alansmurphy wrote:
Not at any point have I said the car is blameless here…. and might want to check the definition of hyperbole…. because the Usain Bolt statement was exactly that. Also last time I checked 27mph divided by 4 doesn’t equal 15mph. Cycle.London only reduced his speed at the very last minute on the entry onto the tiger crossing, when he realised that the BMW wasn’t slowing down. So maybe by that point they had dropped to about 10mph.
But I can see from your various responses that you are basically trying to absolve the cyclist of 100% of the blame here.
And on the subject of looking…. are you able to look and pay full attention to both pavements running parallel to all rorads at all times? Unless you happen to be part Chameleon I would say you choose one side in preference to the other, and most likely being the nearside , and the offside is secondary.
And even the best of drivers can have a lapse in concentration.
craigstitt wrote:
If you read cycle.londons posts he says there is a large difference between the way the camera and the Garmin record speed and he is going significantly slower than the speeds posted in the video. My maths was fine.
Hmm what would I have done. Yep generally speaking I’d slow more. There’s a few bike lanes near me that have a give way to the cars a few yards after they turn into the junction, they rarely stop and probably don’t even know they’re there. I do occassionally roll a wheel out and usually get beeped at, then the argument begins and I point at the lines on the road, when the driver realises they are wrong they’ll usually bring up road tax and call me a wanker (harsh as most mornings I don’t have the energy).
If this is the best driver then we are in trouble. But again, if we are to so readily accept these lapses then we shouldn’t allow them to travel unhindered at the speeds they do. Their laziness costs lives!
[quote=alansmurphy}
[quote=alansmurphy}
If you read cycle.londons posts he says there is a large difference between the way the camera and the Garmin record speed and he is going significantly slower than the speeds posted in the video. My maths was fine.
[/quote]
How about your maths isn’t fine.
Assuming braking force was applied equally from the point that cycle london entered the road to the point where he stopped some 10ft later (approximate width of the road – using the width of the mercedes sprinter van as a reference point). Just over 1 second elapsed, therefore that puts his average speed for crossing the lane at around 6mph.
Using the assumption of even braking from point of entry to point of stopping this equates to an entry speed of around 12mph.
That speed is also borne out by using a similar calculation of distance and time based on the time it took cycle london to cross the path.
So please explain your maths?
craigstitt wrote:
How about your maths isn’t fine.
Assuming braking force was applied equally from the point that cycle london entered the road to the point where he stopped some 10ft later (approximate width of the road – using the width of the mercedes sprinter van as a reference point). Just over 1 second elapsed, therefore that puts his average speed for crossing the lane at around 6mph.
Using the assumption of even braking from point of entry to point of stopping this equates to an entry speed of around 12mph.
That speed is also borne out by using a similar calculation of distance and time based on the time it took cycle london to cross the path.
So please explain your maths?
[/quote]
london.cyclist stated he was travelling at around 8mph (from memory, can’t be arsed to look back thru 130 posts to clarify), so Usain Bolt is 4 to 5 times quicker. Simple really.
Just admit your comparison to Bolt was a ridiculous exageration as 12mph is less than half!
Also, you’ve really just confirmed the points being made by showing how quickly the cyclist managed to stop, he was bang on the money. The driver on the other hand looks like they didn’t even lift as they passed through the crossing like Lewis Hamilton…
alansmurphy wrote:
I believe I answered that question when I asked you to check the definition of hyperbole many comments ago.
but seeing as using google is too complex for you I will spoon feed you the definition…..
Hyperbole – noun – exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
craigstitt wrote:
So you’re saying you were talking hyperbole? Why post it then as it takes away from the point of the discussion?
alansmurphy wrote:
It tells me it’s not a good idea to ride out in front of it.
alansmurphy wrote:
Seconded. Is there any particular reason that you don’t, craig?
brooksby wrote:
This is where we are going to disagree, I have no issues for slowing down and looking for people that may be using a crossing….. just less inclined to slow down where there is no one within a reasonable distance of the crossing.
And I call hipocrisy on both you and alansmurphy……. because you expect cars to slow down on the approach but are happy fory cyclists to barrel up to the crossing.
And i am well aware of the lag between the speed shown on the garmin displays in terms of video because I use a garmin camera for my commutes. I would reckon that cycle.london entered the crossing still above 10pmh only braking when he saw the car wasn’t stopping.
craigstitt wrote:
Cars should slow down on approach to avoid yet another collision whereas the cyclist barrelling across was vigilant and able to stop within the distance he could see to be clear.
It’s also telling that the cyclist could see that the car wasn’t stopping whereas the motorist seemed utterly clueless. Somewhat concerning when one of those two was operating heavy machinery.
Can anyone tell me if there
Can anyone tell me if there is signage on the road on the approach to the crossing to advise drivers? Google maps/streetview has old imagery so I can’t tell.
I can’t believe this thread
I can’t believe this thread is still going.
Here’s my summary of the points:
hawkinspeter wrote:
The cyclist was clearly not using the crossing correctly, by his own video evidence. He also was performing an action marked as ‘Do not’ by the HC – not itself an offense but hardly exemplary behaviour, which thankfully did not have consequences for the cyclist, or any bystanders.
Again, as pretty much everybody is saying, this in no way condones the driving and apparently utter lack of awareness – but it does go against the claims by the poster that they were somehow 100% in the right here, regardless of ones own view on common sense etc.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It is quite impressive for a non helmet related thread
If you have to use them like any other section of road, then they are utterly pointless.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’d go further and say that the existence of tiger crossings is not well known, never mind the difference between that and a zebra crossing. On this basis I’m hesitant to lay too much blame on the driver as they have no frame of reference to expect a relatively fast moving cyclist on a crossing like that.
vonhelmet wrote:
Yep – can’t say that I’ve recognised any on my journeys.
However, the driver must accept blame for not paying attention. If a child had raced across using a scooter, then would it be acceptable to blame the child for not being a typical pedestrian?
Is it too late to change
Is it too late to change sides on this one?
Argus Tuft wrote:
This ain’t Mike Reid’s Runaround!
Argus Tuft wrote:
It was for the cyclist.
As both car and bike were
As both car and bike were converging at similar speeds, it’s possible the cyclist’s approach to the crossing was obscured by the A pillar. Yes, a driver should be looking around it, but many don’t.
https://singletrackworld.com/2018/01/collision-course-why-this-type-of-road-junction-will-keep-killing-cyclists/
HoarseMann wrote:
They weren’t though.
Video said 15 for bike, OP claimed it was 8 (lag time??), car 20-30 mph
hirsute wrote:
They weren’t though.
Video said 15 for bike, OP claimed it was 8 (lag time??), car 20-30 mph— HoarseMann
Similar enough for this to be a possibility.
HoarseMann wrote:
If you are alluding to constant speed, constant bearing, then no, not similar.
hirsute wrote:
I wasn’t alluding to it, I included a link to an article on it.
Crikey, what’s with all the radgieness on this thread?!
HoarseMann wrote:
Simply restating what was in the video – we see the cyclist changing speed and the motorist chaging direction. None of my posts have been ‘radgieness’ orientated.
My first post agreed with someone who said the infrastructure was poor and the OP would be better focusing on the council to make some changes.
There is an issue with the
There is an issue with the way that humans process things they see which has been proven to be the cause of a lot of accidents.
There is an article on the IAM about the SMIDSY and it explains how the human brain processes information….. main points below
1. Only the small central part of the eye’s retina (the fovea) can see detail well. The rest of the eye gives you peripheral vision which is good for detecting movement and size change, but not for detail.
2. Your eyes do not scan smoothly, but take images in a series of jumps (saccades) with short pauses (fixations) to obtain detail. Your brain fills the gaps during saccades with peripheral vision and assumption, to avoid image blurring & information overload.
3. Framed scenes (windscreen zoning) – you tend not to look at edges of a framed scene, so physical blindspots such as windscreen pillars, have a zone around them where you don’t take fixations, leading to larger saccades, thus enlarging blindspots.
4. Relative movement – if another vehicle is approaching you from the side, a constant speed and lack of size change may blind your peripheral vision to its approach, unless you move your eyes or head.
5. Assumption (expectation) – if you don’t expect to see something, you are less likely to notice it. If the junction is usually empty, your brain expects to see nothing.
So the combination of factors above may have had something to do with the drivers lack of noticing the cyclist….especially number 4 and 5
How to use a Tiger Crossing:
How to use a Tiger Crossing:
Video by Essex County Council, so I’m not sure how “official” that advice is.
Tom_77 wrote:
Mr drink driver himself presenting.
Tom_77 wrote:
Check your rear view mirror? Eh? Drivers do a lot of reversing in Essex?
I think the OP has moved on
I think the OP has moved on with his life.Perhaps we should do the same.
Argus Tuft wrote:
But where would be the fun it that?
(At least this is distracting people from going mad on a helmet thread
)
Only slightly off topic but I
Only slightly off topic but I remember taking out a truck test once.We were approaching the end of the terminating street of a Tee Intersection when a woman on the footpath pushed her shopping bike across our path. There was ample time to stop but the applicant made a point of driving right up to the line ,forcing her to turn back. “Thats not a crossing luv,” he quipped,and looked at me for approval. I said something like “It is,you know” and it was all over. We’d gone less than 200 metres.