Trigger Happy’s Angry Cyclist is back: Local newspaper covers “fed-up” cyclist screaming “elephants” at pedestrians crossing a cycle lane… but it’s Dom Joly’s TikTok audio; Could TotalEnergies sponsor Ineos Grenadiers? + more on the live blog

Meh - can get round that easy and safely enough.  They need to take a lesson from Edinburgh drivers.  For example - here's a joint effort to block any forward progress on a cycle path.

You may think they've made a schoolboy error by leaving just enough space to squeeze between ... but in fact that's a higher-level strategy to lure cyclists out into the path of motor traffic where neither has a clear view of the other!  (And don't tell me you're thinking "but the 20mph zone and adjacent junction means that drivers will be going slowly and keeping an eye out"!)

brooksby wrote:

What's the legal status of those weird "almost a zebra crossing" on cycle lanes?  Are they legal - like 'real' zebra crossings - or are they advisory?

My understanding is that a zebra crossing needs flashing beacons, so it's not legal. But you shouldn't be running people over if you can possibly avoid it.

The BlackBeltBarrister produced a video about Zebra crossings a few months ago.  The legislation he showed on screen required "yellow globes" to mark either side of the crossing for it to be a legally considered a "Zebra crossing".

Several times I have asked the question about the non-standard crossings (and roundabouts) that have been featured on road.cc, what is the legal position if you do not follow the full requirements usually required for proper Zebra crossings?

Tom_77 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

What's the legal status of those weird "almost a zebra crossing" on cycle lanes?  Are they legal - like 'real' zebra crossings - or are they advisory?

My understanding is that a zebra crossing needs flashing beacons, so it's not legal. But you shouldn't be running people over if you can possibly avoid it.

Hadnt intended to, was just curious for the next time I get the stink eye from someone crossing one

I'm pretty certain that there are no circumstances where it is legal to deliberately run over a pedestrian regardless of the presence or absence of belisha beacons

The police and courts have got news for you!  It seems that there are quite a few people "innocently killing" pedestrians and cyclists.  Presumably because both groups of vulnerable road users give them "no chance to avoid collision" by throwing themselves in the road appearing out of nowhere somehow ending up in collision and we will never know why as the driver can't remember but it was a tragic accident using the infra in a sensible and normal manner as they are legally permitted to do (is this right?)

Sorry, I failed to make it clear that it only applies while riding your bicycle.

Backladder wrote:

I'm pretty certain that there are no circumstances where it is legal to deliberately run over a pedestrian regardless of the presence or absence of belisha beacons

I agree.

However, (as a whatabout), I suspect there are a lot of motorists out there who think it's OK for them to run people over under certain circumstances…

They are legal. Theres text buried in the TSRGD 2016 about it.  Conventional zebra crossing may be applied to a cycle track. Used in this way, the zebra crossing does not require zig-zag markings and belisha beacons are optional.   Might actually be in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6.

Moist von Lipwig wrote:

They are legal. Theres text buried in the TSRGD 2016 about it.  Conventional zebra crossing may be applied to a cycle track. Used in this way, the zebra crossing does not require zig-zag markings and belisha beacons are optional.   Might actually be in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6.

You're correct:

16.2.12. Where a crossing is placed across a segregated cycle track the Regulations allow for the omission of the controlled area and the yellow globes (see Figure 15‑1). It may be necessary to reduce the dimensions of the black and white stripes to the minimum to retain proportionality. Give Way lines should always be provided, to enforce the requirement for cyclists to give way to pedestrians.

I suppose the next question is, is it still legal if there are no Give Way lines?

Seems like the BBC have managed to get it wrong on two fronts there, firstly the bike was not an e-bike but an illegal electric moped, and secondly if the battery had run out so the motor wasn't running at the time of the crash then it was effectively just an ordinary bicycle. Either way, not an e-bike on either count, unless you're writing for an organisation that seems for some reason to have decided it's going to blame e-bikes at every conceivable opportunity, whether it's accurate or not.

There's a lot going on in this report.

"He modified his e-bike so it was classed as a motorcycle" - good on them for getting the motorcycle bit for once (and the article does at least attempt to explain the legal EAPC rules, however cack-handedly). But was it really an ebike to start with? Or are they correct when they say, later on, that he "fitted a motor to his bicycle".

He pleaded guilty to driving without a licence or insurance - so it was still seemingly treated an illegal motorbike notwithstanding that it wasn't being ridden under power. 

Both cyclists on the pavement.       

brooksby wrote:

CCTV footage showed neither man was wearing a helmet, but it was not possible to calculate their speeds.

I'm unclear about how not wearing a helmet relates to measuring their speed?

Tom_77 wrote:

New Forest MP says cyclists should have ‘mandatory bell’

Presumably the striped robes and the obligation to shout "Unclean, unclean!" will come later...one suspects with this type of bell advocate, or "bellfriend" as we might call him, that if every cyclist had a bell and used it at every opportunity he would be protesting against the appalling nuisance, aggression and sound pollution of lycra-clad maniacs "demanding" people move aside. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Tom_77 wrote:

New Forest MP says cyclists should have ‘mandatory bell’

Presumably the striped robes and the obligation to shout "Unclean, unclean!" will come later...one suspects with this type of bell advocate, or "bellfriend" as we might call him, that if every cyclist had a bell and used it at every opportunity he would be protesting against the appalling nuisance, aggression and sound pollution of lycra-clad maniacs "demanding" people move aside. 

"Bellfriend", eh?  I see what you did there…

I think he's perhaps unaware how much many pedestrians hate it if you ring a bell (almost as much as if you don't ring a bell).

And a bell is useless at warning a motorist.

brooksby wrote:

And a bell is useless at warning a motorist.

Bells also do nothing for the deaf / hard of hearing, those wearing earphones or deep in conversation, or if there's lots of other ambient noise (maybe by a road) ... in fact, if there were more than a few cyclists they'd be a nuisance more than a help as they'd just keep telling you what you already knew e.g. "cyclists about" and not much else.

I do sometimes wonder whether some of these folks have mental images of a 1930s ideal Britain in their heads?  If in practice what they really want is to return to an imaginary golden age when things were more certain, and probably quieter (what could be causing all the noise in our environment, I wonder...)?

Tom_77 wrote:

New Forest MP says cyclists should have ‘mandatory bell’

also in today's Daily Echo:

Residents say speeding and anti-social cars top concern in police survey

 

From the article

"We are still using a piece of legislation from the mid-19th century, which was offensive and wild carriage driving, which is not acceptable, but it hardly ever commits anybody and convicts them either."

I thought MPs weren't allowed to lie to Parliament?

Steve K wrote:

I thought MPs weren't allowed to lie to Parliament?

I thought it was obligatory.

eburtthebike wrote:

Steve K wrote:

I thought MPs weren't allowed to lie to Parliament?

I thought it was obligatory.

Only of your name contains "de Pfeffel"

Tom_77 wrote:

New Forest MP says cyclists should have ‘mandatory bell’

This is the kind of thing a backbench MP proposes knowing it won't change anything, but they can put about it on their 'campaign' on leaflets probably under the title of "working hard for you".

It is a huge pity that Sir Julian missed the opportunity to remind pedestrians that, while cyclists are obliged to give priority to them on share paths, pedestrians still have a duty to be aware of their surroundings and have regard for other road users.

Axioms show that pedestrians who look around - including behind them - as they walk are more aware of other road users approaching from different directions. This effectively reduces the need for bells and other audible warnings to warn them of others' presence.

Tom_77 wrote:

New Forest MP says cyclists should have ‘mandatory bell’

Some gammon wrote:

The main point I was making was we have had deaths on the street where cyclists cannot be prosecuted for having killed someone

This is an idiotic point, badly made. Cyclists do not have any kind of immunity from prosecution; if there is a fatal collision and no prosecutions are brought, then that is presumably because it has been decided that no offences were committed.

Where offences have been committed, prosecutions can be, and are, brought. Charlie Alliston is a recent high profile example, and the link posted by brooksby elsewhere in today's comments provides another example (also speaking to the right honourable gentleman's point about "e-bikes" (aka illegal electric motorbikes)).

If there have been any cases where it is felt that a cyclist's behaviour in a fatal incident really ought to have been considered criminal, but was not due to a deficit in current legislation, I am not aware of them. The only one I can think of that may come anywhere close is the recent Regent’s Park incident, but even then I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest the cyclist's speed (despite being >20mph) or manner of cycling was particularly inappropriate for the conditions, such that it ought to have been considered criminal (as a minimum, the cyclist could have been prosecuted under current legislation for Careless Cycling if there had been any such evidence).

From the comments
"Sums this MP up.
He regularly comes up with ideas like this as he needs to feel relevant
Try sending him an e mail, no chance as he’ll only accept hand written letters
The guys a dinosaur who needs to retire"