Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Crime & Legal
YK06RYZ

Near Miss of the Day 325: 'Bullshit' and prevarication from the Met

Our regular series featuring close passes from around the country - today, it's London...
by Simon_MacMichael
Thu, Oct 31, 2019 17:03
163

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 [at] 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.

Near Miss of the Day
NMotD London
Simon MacMichael

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

163 comments

Avatar
cycle.london replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter 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.

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

So, what is the legal maximum speed that you can use a crossing?

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.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to cycle.london | 5 years ago
2 likes

cycle.london wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter 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.

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

So, what is the legal maximum speed that you can use a crossing?

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.

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

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to TriTaxMan | 5 years ago
0 likes
craigstitt wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter 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.

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

So, what is the legal maximum speed that you can use a crossing?

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.

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

That's all true, but it also makes me wonder what the point of these particular road-markings is.

Avatar
John Smith replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
2 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
craigstitt wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter 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.

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

So, what is the legal maximum speed that you can use a crossing?

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.

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

That's all true, but it also makes me wonder what the point of these particular road-markings is.

 

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.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to John Smith | 5 years ago
4 likes
John Smith wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
craigstitt wrote:

cycle.london wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

craigstitt wrote:

hawkinspeter 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.

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

So, what is the legal maximum speed that you can use a crossing?

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.

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

That's all true, but it also makes me wonder what the point of these particular road-markings is.

 

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.

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.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
0 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I'm just questioning whether, given the difference in normal speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian, tiger crossings really make sense.

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

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to Hirsute | 5 years ago
2 likes
hirsute wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I'm just questioning whether, given the difference in normal speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian, tiger crossings really make sense.

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

It makes no sense if noone ever teaches anyone - driver or cyclist - how to use them.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to vonhelmet | 5 years ago
0 likes
vonhelmet wrote:
hirsute wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I'm just questioning whether, given the difference in normal speed of a cyclist and a pedestrian, tiger crossings really make sense.

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

It makes no sense if noone ever teaches anyone - driver or cyclist - how to use them.

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.

Avatar
kevvjj | 5 years ago
7 likes

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.

Avatar
Legin | 5 years ago
14 likes

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.

Avatar
dassie | 5 years ago
9 likes

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.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
6 likes

Well done for reporting this and good luck with the complaint.

Avatar
cycle.london replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
4 likes

burtthebike wrote:

Well done for reporting this and good luck with the complaint.

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'. 

Pages

Latest Comments