This morning's commute and other commuting stories

Yeah, it was because he saw, sped up and cut diagonally from the pavement towards the crossing telling me no and deliberately wanted to get in my way to cause something, to put my cycling at fault, which I stand by it wasn't.

To be clear I don't impede pedestrians on zebras at all, but once they have cleared me I cross.

Ah yes, spaces work, too.

I still think it should look like code. :)

Changed it back, just for you

Would it help with traffic light sequences?

I've had the police stop me as I cycled through a zebra crossing when the pedestrian passed me but was still on the crossing. He was definite that you had to wait until you were all the way across; I couldn't be bothered querying, just smiled and nodded until he went away.

The area of the crossing is out of bounds while a ped is crossing, makes sense to block out a large area on safety grounds.

Again, the HWC does not say this, it only says you must give way.

and those still a bit dosey from the cycle commute hibernation cutting across here there and everywhere

so much of this at the moment.

I guess what isn’t 100% clear from the wording (but is definitely implied) is that in order to be able to give way when someone is on the crossing, you need to already be stopping when they are approaching the crossing.

For cars yes, for cyclists no.

I've always felt there is a huge contradiction employed around pedestrians are cyclists. If you are cycling sensibly the two can mix safely. The irony of the taboo about cycling on the pavement (which I don't do) is exposed by the fact that many cycle 'lanes' are simply a white line on a pavement. And one that pedestrians simply don't acknowledge anyway. Anything away from the road are always shared paths. There remains very few dedicated bike only spaces, and those are readily ignored by cars parking on them or pedestrians walking on them. I can ride through Bristol on my commute and pretty much avoid the road entirely, however every part of that I share with pedestrians. It seems according to the law cycling around pedestrians is perfectly safe in certain situations i.e. a white line on a pavement, and unsafe in others.

I think as a cyclist you have to exercise your own judgement sometimes, and rolling over a zebra crossing safely after the space in front of you has cleared is one of those times, whatever the law is.

And your guess is as good as mine who has right of way on that zebra crossing that leads off from the path on Baldwin street!

Good old Baldwin Street. They did try, it is lovely and smooth however the lorries and vans parking on it can get in the way

And this is the council's solution:

And yes the zebra crossing is a ton of fun. That is a zebra crossing for pedestrians AND cyclists, which brings me back to my previous point: sometimes it is fine for pedestrians and cyclists to mix, others its not.

Talking of zebra crossings, it would be really good to delete the one at the corner of St James’ St and Pall Mall outside the palace, or maybe put traffic lights in a little further up at the junction with King Street.

At the wrong time of the morning you have a pretty much constant stream of peds coming out of St James’ Place from the cut-through from Green Park. So much dickish / plain stupid filtering as well.

Blast through zebras shouting NO BRAAAAAKES!!!!. Works every time.

That's ridiculous

At least once you've navigate baldwin st and get to the fountains area, you've got some fun in the shape of ambiguous cycle/pedestrian areas that seem to be demarcated purely by watermark :-)

I'm going by the legislation which states you have to wait for the peds to finish crossing.

Though it's fucking ages since I bothered looking it up.

Here we are:

"25.—(1) Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian."

shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian

Which pretty much backs up what stevo_com wrote.

Whenever a pedestrian is on the crossing*, they have priority.

Not the right to sole occupation.

There's nothing about finishing crossing, nor stopping even.

I love a pedantic quibble, me.

* providing no part of a vehicle was already on the crossing.

I'm going by the legislation which states you have to wait for the peds to finish crossing.

Does it? Isn't it just saying that you should give way to them? Says nowt about then waiting for them to get off the carriageway, provided you have accorded such precedence to them in the first place.

Also we should stop saying "give way" it sounds rubbish compared to "accord precedence"

The various cycle paths around the fountains are truly bizarre and considering they have had that area dug up for months doing them, a complete waste of time, as everyone uses the space the same as before.

I mean what is this:

From this chap's twitter: https://twitter.com/shitfrastructur

Ah yes, Bristol, you lovely misguided yet ulteriorly motivated clusterfuck of cycling infrastructure. Sometimes I look forward to the impending discombobulation of traffic along routes, spuriously improved by the addition of 'dedicated' lanes, fragmentally spread over otherwise smooth flowing spacious roads. It's often only at these 'entertainment sections' where I choose to use the cycle 'paths/lanes' for my own amusement. Bristol's limp wristed excuse for routes have recently begun to follow the London school of city planning which advocates 'more lanes, more lights, more confusion, look left, look right, look up, look down, look every direction except the one in which you're travelling'.

Not the right to sole occupation.

It depends what "Accord precedence" means in laymans terms, and I prefer the idea that peds have sole occupation rather than having to rely on dangerous/careless driving laws!

I love a pedantic quibble, me.

Quite, makes the forum world go round!

Not the right to sole occupation.

Unless they're in a wheelchair or other kind of assistive device, they need to occupy their soles, though, and their soles need to occupy space, so they need the right for both.

Reminds me of this that popped up a little while ago, the statement from a MET spokesperson would suggest that you can go behind someone if there's enough space?
http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/30/pedestrian-completely-loses-it-with-a-cyclist-at-zebra-crossing-6163128/