London - on the spot fine

[mjr]

There is no reason that a cyclists cannot be both a pedestrian, and in charge of a vehicle simultaneously, and I would imagine the both could sometimes apply under law. IMO, the only reason the Highway Code advises cyclists to dismount, is not that riding across is a problem, but that they gain the priority accorded to pedestrian status when they do so. The law clearly gives pedestrians priority on a crossing. The status of a cyclist riding across is unclear until a legal precedent is set (i.e. someone brings a case to court).

This has however changed in law for parallel cycle lanes across zebras but both highway code and road markings are slow to change. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ph/22/made

It would have been better if the law had changed to simply make all zebras like that IMO.

[Vorpal]

There is no reason that a cyclists cannot be both a pedestrian, and in charge of a vehicle simultaneously, and I would imagine the both could sometimes apply under law. IMO, the only reason the Highway Code advises cyclists to dismount, is not that riding across is a problem, but that they gain the priority accorded to pedestrian status when they do so. The law clearly gives pedestrians priority on a crossing. The status of a cyclist riding across is unclear until a legal precedent is set (i.e. someone brings a case to court).

This has however changed in law for parallel cycle lanes across zebras but both highway code and road markings are slow to change. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ph/22/made

fair enough

It would have been better if the law had changed to simply make all zebras like that IMO.

Yes, or simply to give all non-motorised users on the road the same priority as pedestrians. e.g.turning at road junctions; give way to non-motorised users* who are already crossing the road into which you are turning

* my substitution in one of the points from HC rule 206

[thirdcrank]

All this misses the big issue: BMW drivers.

[londoncommuter0000]

All this misses the big issue: BMW drivers.

Wot 'e said.

[[XAP]Bob]

There is no reason that a cyclists cannot be both a pedestrian, and in charge of a vehicle simultaneously, and I would imagine the both could sometimes apply under law. IMO, the only reason the Highway Code advises cyclists to dismount, is not that riding across is a problem, but that they gain the priority accorded to pedestrian status when they do so. The law clearly gives pedestrians priority on a crossing. The status of a cyclist riding across is unclear until a legal precedent is set (i.e. someone brings a case to court).

This has however changed in law for parallel cycle lanes across zebras but both highway code and road markings are slow to change. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ph/22/made

fair enough

It would have been better if the law had changed to simply make all zebras like that IMO.

Yes, or simply to give all non-motorised users on the road the same priority as pedestrians. e.g.turning at road junctions; give way to non-motorised users* who are already crossing the road into which you are turning

* my substitution in one of the points from HC rule 206

But motorised used wouldn’t be crossing the road - and actually they should have the same priority over vehicles turning into that toad anyway

[Vorpal]

This has however changed in law for parallel cycle lanes across zebras but both highway code and road markings are slow to change. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ph/22/made

fair enough

It would have been better if the law had changed to simply make all zebras like that IMO.

Yes, or simply to give all non-motorised users on the road the same priority as pedestrians. e.g.turning at road junctions; give way to non-motorised users* who are already crossing the road into which you are turning

* my substitution in one of the points from HC rule 206

But motorised used wouldn’t be crossing the road - and actually they should have the same priority over vehicles turning into that toad anyway

That was an example of one of several rules where I think 'non-motorised users' should replace 'pedestrians' in the HC to accord other vulnerable users that same priority tht pedestrians theoretically have. I used 'non-motorised users' because that covers pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, kids on scooters, etc., who might be using a pavement or shared used facility. I'm perfectly okay with 'give way to anyone crossing the road', but I'm not sure that everyone would understand how that differs from the current HC.