Highway Code Hierarchy of Road Users

[jthompson]

For a light-controlled junction I'd have expected there to be a light-controlled pedestrian crossing, too.

[LeMarchand]

I'd say tool.

[enjay]

For a light-controlled junction I'd have expected there to be a light-controlled pedestrian crossing, too.

 

Not on this junction - there are pedestrian crossings to get over the main road, but the side road just has a traffic island in the middle allowing you to cross one lane at a time when the relevant lights are red. The cyclist was back on the main road by the time of the incident though, they weren't crossing the side road.

[Andrew_C]

Tool - it is always the cyclist's fault. (I know, I know...)

[enjay]

Tool - it is always the cyclist's fault. (I know, I know...)

 

As a cyclist, I don't like saying "cyclist's fault" because that is so often used by ignorant drivers, but it does feel like that is the case here.

[Rob_D]

It's illegal for an adult to ride a bike on the pavement anyway, so plough them, and ask questions later?

Minor nit, but the last time I asked a police officer about this (admittedly about 20 years ago), they said there were no specific exceptions in law to no cycling on pavement laws/restrictions. Letting little kids wobble along the pavement next to their parents was just considered widely accepted common sense.

[psydii]

Mrs Enjay stopped rather than hit them

 

I think her approach here was fair.

 

It is actually illegal to cycle on the pavement, and by doing so the cyclist enabled themselves to enter a junction where turning traffic had been given priority by the red light the cyclist chose to bypass by breaking the law.

 

The other bit you describe is one of those situations where there is a correct answer and a practical answer. If a cyclist on the road is coming up the inside, the car should come to a stop and be clearly indicating that it is intending to turn left before acting as though it has priority. On your road it sounds like cyclists and local drivers know what happens there for practical reasons, doesn;t make it right, and one day someone will get knocked off.

 

One problem I have (as a cyclist) is many car indicator light are basically invisible in day light when you are up close and personal... is the car slowing because the queue of traffic just ahead, or is it slowing because its about swing left in front of you, or have they flashed that driver you can't see that was turning right from the other side of the road?

Edited October 8, 2024 by psydii

[enjay]

Minor nit, but the last time I asked a police officer about this (admittedly about 20 years ago), they said there were no specific exceptions in law to no cycling on pavement laws/restrictions. Letting little kids wobble along the pavement next to their parents was just considered widely accepted common sense.

 

I think the Highway Code states children under 10 can cycle on the pavement. This presumably is also extended to adults cycling with them. I'm okay with cyclists who are on the pavement to avoid a dangerous road, less so with those who did it to avoid a red light.

[Andrew_C]

Cycling on the pavement - OKish*. However, the cyclist MUST accept that they are doing something that requires THEM to give priority to pedestrians.

 

Bouncing on and off the pavemen, to avoid queues, without even thinking about a backward glance? There's a special circle of hell for you.

 

*Kids, where the council d@mn well should have provided safe space, etc

[mavhc]

It's illegal for an adult to ride a bike on the pavement anyway, so plough them, and ask questions later?

 

Murder is more illegal than cycling on the pavement

[LeMarchand]

Murder is more illegal than cycling on the pavement

 

Surely that would be "justifiable homicide"?

[AlistairB1983]

Yesterday, Mrs Enjay was driving and came to a light-controlled junction where she was turning right off a main road onto a smaller road. A cyclist was riding along the pavement (normal pavement, not shared use path) towards her on the opposite side of the main road, then dropped onto the road once they'd passed the red light and continued along the road. Mrs Enjay stopped rather than hit them (obviously!) but the cyclist got aggressive towards her for not giving way to them sooner. Does the hierarchy rule apply even for someone who shouldn't legally be there, or was the cyclist being a tool?

Highway Code Rule 64 - You MUST NOT ride on a pavement.

 

Highway Code Rule 68 - You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

 

 

Can't use the Highway Code as a defence when ignoring it themselves.

[enjay]

Can't use the Highway Code as a defence when ignoring it themselves.

 

True, and why I obey red lights etc when I'm on my bike. There are points where I've cycled above the speed limit, which is legal but does expose you to the risk of being charged with the wonderfully named "cycling furiously" if you have an accident.

 

I suppose maybe if the cyclist had been pushing their bike along the pavement, then got onto the main road after the lights they might be able to argue hierarchy as they hadn't broken any rules, but that's very thin ice as they're presumably responsible for ensuring they start riding in a safe manner which starting off in the middle of a cross-roads is not. Anyway, this particular cyclist had been riding along the pavement, because my wife had seen them do it.

[mavhc]

Surely that would be "justifiable homicide"?

 

And that's why they changed the law

[Davit2005]

Minor nit, but the last time I asked a police officer about this (admittedly about 20 years ago), they said there were no specific exceptions in law to no cycling on pavement laws/restrictions. Letting little kids wobble along the pavement next to their parents was just considered widely accepted common sense.

 

Got told off in the 1980's by a police officer for riding on the pavement. It was on a pavement connecting 2 roads that had been blocked off, lol.

 

Shared pavements or not shared pavements cyclists need to respect the more vulnerable users. It does not help when the issue is ignorance by one or the other but still should edge on the safer option. Using a bell is prob better than shouting.

 

As for cyclists running red lights, they are not helping at all. I've been on my push bike and have told some I've seen doing it.

Edited October 8, 2024 by Davit2005

[Rob_D]

Shared pavements or not shared pavements cyclists need to respect the more vulnerable users.

And the same goes for cars. That is now the hierarchy of road users is supposed to work.

[Theblacksheep]

Every day I find instances I would get killed if I didnt yeld to someone in car thinking they have right of way because they own a car, not the road.

 

I do wish my local Police had a decent submission portal for videos.

[Davit2005]

And the same goes for cars. That is now the hierarchy of road users is supposed to work.

 

Surely cars should not be driving on the pavements except to park or access a driveway/parking bay (and not using it to jump queues). But yes even in those cases Cars should be looking out for the most vulnerable in anycase.

Edited October 8, 2024 by Davit2005

[jthompson]

Surely cars should not be driving on the pavements except to park...

 

You should NEVER park on the pavement!

[Davit2005]

You should NEVER park on the pavement!

 

Yes should not block any pedestrians, wheelchairs or pushchairs but NEVER??

 

Car could also need to drive across pavement to get to a parking bay i.e. where there is a dropped curb

Edited October 8, 2024 by Davit2005

[synaesthesia]

Age old argument again - in some places yes, but in some places you must. If everyone on our street or any of the surrounding streets parked all 4 wheels on the road, no vehicles larger than a hatchback are getting through (and I wouldn't trust some people to successfully navigate an e-scooter through). One size can't fit all which is precisely why the law is only currently bylaws for certain towns/cities etc.

[jmak]

Got told off in the 1980's by a police officer for riding on the pavement. It was on a pavement connecting 2 roads that had been blocked off, lol.

 

Shared pavements or not shared pavements cyclists need to respect the more vulnerable users. It does not help when the issue is ignorance by one or the other but still should edge on the safer option. Using a bell is prob better than shouting.

 

As for cyclists running red lights, they are not helping at all. I've been on my push bike and have told some I've seen doing it.

When I was about 6 or 7 years old I came home to a police car parked on the road outside our house.

 

One of the neighbours had phoned them to complain about me cycling on the pavement.

 

The policeman said he'd come out to make sure that the neighbours could see he'd attended, but his message to me was that he really didn't want to see me riding on the road. He couldn't tell me to ride on the pavement as strictly it was against the rules, but said if I was for any reason, then I should just try and stay away from our neighbours.

 

Ahh the days of village policeman who could apply their judgement.

[enjay]

As for cyclists running red lights, they are not helping at all. I've been on my push bike and have told some I've seen doing it.

 

I live on a one-way street, and have had this conversation with cyclists going the wrong way along it. I don't bother with e-scooter riders since riding those in either direction is illegal!

[enjay]

When I was about 6 or 7 years old I came home to a police car parked on the road outside our house.

 

I Googled this after my earlier comment about age limits. Cycling on the pavement at any age is illegal, but under the age of 10 there's no criminal responsibility so you can't technically break the law at 6 or 7. Also, penalty charges can only be given 16+. Police are advised to use discretion about when to issue, so if the road is dangerous or you're accompanying a child, they won't do anything. The one time recently I've cycled on the pavement I was limping my bike home with a flat tyre (I figured it was better to ride slowly on the pavement than ride slowly on the road, and didn't want to walk that far in my cleats as I'd probably fall on my a$$ which is also dangerous!).

[Cazab]

More often that not, the reason people ride on the pavements is because they do not feel safe on the roads, due to the amount of traffic, and the behaviour or drivers towards them.