A cyclist on a pedestrian crossing?

Youngblood.III

I was watching a programme and it showed a cyclist crossing on a pedestrian crossing and he gets totally wiped out...in fairness he did come onto it fast and the motorist had little or no time to react.
What is the legal stance on cyclist cycling across the road on a pedestrian crossing?

JonJones

Youngblood.III wrote: »

I was watching a programme and it showed a cyclist crossing on a pedestrian crossing and he gets totally wiped out...in fairness he did come onto it fast and the motorist had little or no time to react.
What is the legal stance on cyclist cycling across the road on a pedestrian crossing?

don't know the legal stance. If he was walking with the bike would he be classed a a pedestrian or cyclist ?

Even some pedestrians rush onto it without waiting for a break in traffic and signalling intent to cross.

Youngblood.III

If he was walking he would be a pedestrian...its just I often see people cycle on the path and then swing across the road at a crossing without barely looking...often wondered if they got hit by a car, where would the law stand

my3cents

Define what a pedestrian crossing is first?

In Dungarvan for example there are "pedestrian crossings" that are part of the bike tracks where they cross the roads. They are marked up just like normal pedestrian crossings but they are their because of the bike routes.

Slightly off topic I think they are dangerous because the cyclists often approach and cross them too fast without looking. I've seen some near accidents.

JonJones

my3cents wrote: »

Define what a pedestrian crossing is first?

In Dungarvan for example there are "pedestrian crossings" that are part of the bike tracks where they cross the roads. They are marked up just like normal pedestrian crossings but they are their because of the bike routes.

Slightly off topic I think they are dangerous because the cyclists often approach and cross them too fast without looking. I've seen some near accidents.

not to be smart can you define a normal pedestrian crossing. One i am thinking of has no lights but has road markings and the road narrows to one lane. Some in the centre have lights where the pedestrian can press the button. Which do you mean by normal?

It is one where ther are no lights i see people just walk out seemingly unaware they have to claim the crossing or wait for a break in traffic to show intent.

my3cents

I'm just trying to show that not every pedestrian crossing is equal, and the way coco's implement them isn't always the same. Once you have some that are there for cyclists how can you then say that some are not for cyclists?

JonJones

my3cents wrote: »

I'm just trying to show that not every pedestrian crossing is equal, and the way coco's implement them isn't always the same. Once you have some that are there for cyclists how can you then say that some are not for cyclists?

agreed

mallowgarry

my3cents wrote: »

Define what a pedestrian crossing is first?

In Dungarvan for example there are "pedestrian crossings" that are part of the bike tracks where they cross the roads. They are marked up just like normal pedestrian crossings but they are their because of the bike routes.

Slightly off topic I think they are dangerous because the cyclists often approach and cross them too fast without looking. I've seen some near accidents.

I witnessed a close shave on one of these bicycle crossings in Dungarvan last night. It's basically a zebra crossing on top of a speed bump, it has beacon lights but no buttons. There are signs showing a bike, but they are 10? feet off the ground.

Dungarvan is a "Smarter Travel" town, and these crossings were put in as someone's bright idea. Some cyclists assume they have right of way on them, and run across, regardless of traffic, or the Rules of the Road. One is right beside a busy junction, and visitors to the town have enough to watch out for besides discovering new functions of what looks like a pedestrian crossing.

I was Googling for an email address for the RSA to report the stupid thing and came across this thread....glad someone else has noticed it

Youngblood.III

Ya..Limerick has a couple of those raised crossings, stupid design.

my3cents

Youngblood.III wrote: »

Ya..Limerick has a couple of those raised crossings, stupid design.

The ramps need to be at least 10m back from the crossing to get the motorist to slow down in time for cyclists that aren't going to stop.

Most of the the near accidents I've seen are because the crossing is at the same level as the pavement meaning there is nothing (ramp or curb) to slow the cyclist down.

MarkAnthony

In a negligence claim there might be contributory negligence attributed to a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing, however effectively the road users never have right of way at a pedestrian crossing. Green simply means proceed with caution as it does at all traffic lights.

my3cents

MarkAnthony wrote: »

In a negligence claim there might be contributory negligence attributed to a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing, however effectively the road users never have right of way at a pedestrian crossing. Green simply means proceed with caution as it does at all traffic lights.

Another reason I said define pedestrian crossing? Many of the ones I can think of that I have seen cyclists use are just painted on the road with warning signs but no lights. Its quite reasonable to expect a pedestrian near such a crossing to walk out on to it but so drivers have to take note of cyclists that are 20m back from the crossing but are driving at a speed such that they could be on the crossing the same time as the driver gets there?

MarkAnthony

my3cents wrote: »

Another reason I said define pedestrian crossing? Many of the ones I can think of that I have seen cyclists use are just painted on the road with warning signs but no lights. Its quite reasonable to expect a pedestrian near such a crossing to walk out on to it but so drivers have to take note of cyclists that are 20m back from the crossing but are driving at a speed such that they could be on the crossing the same time as the driver gets there?

I've frequently said the hazard perception here is, generally, very poor. If you're noticing the cyclist you're probably the exception but how many wouldn't even notice them?

I'm driving in France at the moment with pedestrian right of ways with no lights in 70 zones. Haven't killed anyone yet, same should be possible in Ireland IMHO. That said accidents happen.

mallowgarry

Was talking to a friend this morning, and there is, apparently, a fella on crutches hopping around Dungarvan at the moment.
He was clattered whilst cycling across one of the "Smarter Travel" crossings, and **allegedly** there is a forthcoming Court Case.
Will be interesting to see what (if anything) transpires and I will update post if there is news.

(Apparently there is a continuous white line across the cycle tracks immediately prior to these crossings. It doesn't stop people whipping across them)

my3cents

mallowgarry wrote: »

Was talking to a friend this morning, and there is, apparently, a fella on crutches hopping around Dungarvan at the moment.
He was clattered whilst cycling across one of the "Smarter Travel" crossings, and **allegedly** there is a forthcoming Court Case.
Will be interesting to see what (if anything) transpires and I will update post if there is news.

(Apparently there is a continuous white line across the cycle tracks immediately prior to these crossings. It doesn't stop people whipping across them)

Well there's another legal question, what legal status has a white line on a footpath thats combined with a cycle track but isn't a road?

Roanmore

mallowgarry wrote: »

I witnessed a close shave on one of these bicycle crossings in Dungarvan last night. It's basically a zebra crossing on top of a speed bump, it has beacon lights but no buttons. There are signs showing a bike, but they are 10? feet off the ground.

Dungarvan is a "Smarter Travel" town, and these crossings were put in as someone's bright idea. Some cyclists assume they have right of way on them, and run across, regardless of traffic, or the Rules of the Road. One is right beside a busy junction, and visitors to the town have enough to watch out for besides discovering new functions of what looks like a pedestrian crossing.

I was Googling for an email address for the RSA to report the stupid thing and came across this thread....glad someone else has noticed it

I thought all those crossings are for pedestrains and cyclists, definetely the ones in Abbeyside serve both walkways and cycle lanes.