Ah, one last Jeremy Vine video this week wouldn’t hurt, would it? Come on, let me off with this one, it’s Friday…

Anyway, the latest snazzily-annotated commuting clip from the meme merchant and Mad Max impersonator (sorry, presenter-broadcaster) highlights how some people just can’t resist a dig at cyclists – even when drivers are putting them in danger.

In the video, titled ‘How people see cyclists, part 41’ (I swear he’s getting his ideas from the live blog), Jeremy stops at a zebra crossing before waving at two pedestrians to cross.

So, how does one of the pedestrians react?

Well, he turns to Vine, waves back, and remarks, “Unusual for a cyclist”… before making his way around the motorist abruptly stopped bang in the middle of the zebra crossing.
“He is completely blind to the danger posed by the metal lump beside me,” Vine wrote in his video.

“That’s how it works on Planet Petrol.”
Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it .

https://twitter.com/i/status/1633884436130349065

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, one last Jeremy Vine video this week wouldn’t hurt, would it? Come
> on, let me off with this one, it’s Friday…
>
> Anyway, the latest snazzily-annotated commuting clip from the meme
> merchant and Mad Max impersonator (sorry, presenter-broadcaster)
> highlights how some people just can’t resist a dig at cyclists – even
> when drivers are putting them in danger.
>
> In the video, titled ‘How people see cyclists, part 41’ (I swear he’s
> getting his ideas from the live blog), Jeremy stops at a zebra crossing
> before waving at two pedestrians to cross.
>
> So, how does one of the pedestrians react?
>
> Well, he turns to Vine, waves back, and remarks, “Unusual for a cyclist”…
> before making his way around the motorist abruptly stopped bang in the
> middle of the zebra crossing.
> “He is completely blind to the danger posed by the metal lump beside me,”
> Vine wrote in his video.
>
> “That’s how it works on Planet Petrol.”
>
> Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that
> cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or
> crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it .
>
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1633884436130349065
>

Except the car was on the crossing BEFORE the pedestrians. They waived to
thank the driver.

Conversely, cyclist rode into a narrow gap, placing himself in danger.

On 10/03/2023 11:07 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Ah, one last Jeremy Vine video this week wouldn’t hurt, would it? Come on, let me off with this one, it’s Friday…
>
> Anyway, the latest snazzily-annotated commuting clip from the meme merchant and Mad Max impersonator (sorry, presenter-broadcaster) highlights how some people just can’t resist a dig at fairy-cyclists – even when drivers are putting them in danger.
>
> In the video, titled ‘How people see fairy-cyclists, part 41’ (I swear he’s getting his ideas from the live blog), Jeremy stops at a zebra crossing before waving at two pedestrians to cross.
>
> So, how does one of the pedestrians react?
>
> Well, he turns to Vine, waves back, and remarks, “Unusual for a fairy-cyclist”… [Only because it IS unusual for a fairy-cyclist to accor precedence to a normal person - Ed.] before making his way around the motorist abruptly stopped bang in the middle of the zebra crossing.
> “He is completely blind to the danger posed by the metal lump beside me,” Vine wrote in his video.

What "danger" does a stationary vehicle impose?
>
> “That’s how it works on Planet Petrol.”
>
> Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it .
>
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1633884436130349065

The driver STOPPED when a pedestrian entered the zebra crossing. Above
and beyond, in fact.

Fairy-cyclists RARELY stop for pedestrians in any setting at all, least
of all at zebra-crossings. That's because fairy-cyclists are, as we
know, mainly self-centred scofflaw chavs

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ah, one last Jeremy Vine video this week wouldn’t hurt, would it? Come
>> on, let me off with this one, it’s Friday…
>>
>> Anyway, the latest snazzily-annotated commuting clip from the meme
>> merchant and Mad Max impersonator (sorry, presenter-broadcaster)
>> highlights how some people just can’t resist a dig at cyclists – even
>> when drivers are putting them in danger.
>>
>> In the video, titled ‘How people see cyclists, part 41’ (I swear he’s
>> getting his ideas from the live blog), Jeremy stops at a zebra crossing
>> before waving at two pedestrians to cross.
>>
>> So, how does one of the pedestrians react?
>>
>> Well, he turns to Vine, waves back, and remarks, “Unusual for a cyclist”…
>> before making his way around the motorist abruptly stopped bang in the
>> middle of the zebra crossing.
>> “He is completely blind to the danger posed by the metal lump beside me,”
>> Vine wrote in his video.
>>
>> “That’s how it works on Planet Petrol.”
>>
>> Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that
>> cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or
>> crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it .
>>
>> https://twitter.com/i/status/1633884436130349065
>>
>
> Except the car was on the crossing BEFORE the pedestrians. They waived to
> thank the driver.
>
> Conversely, cyclist rode into a narrow gap, placing himself in danger.

Spot on. That gap was ridiculously narrow.

As Ashley Neal said…bit of a drama queen, making a drama of a non-event.

--
Spike

QUOTE:
> Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it . ENDS

Blocking a pedestrian crossing is an offence.

On 10/03/2023 04:12 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE:
>> Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it . ENDS
>
> Blocking a pedestrian crossing is an offence.

Not if one has stopped *for* a pedestrian who has stepped out and not if
one's way forward is obstructed.

Wake up!

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:12:29 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE:
> > Actually, what he's REALLY saying is that it's par for the course that cars drive onto the zebra crossing when peds are about to cross or crossing, and that's why he didn't bother to comment on it . ENDS
>
> Blocking a pedestrian crossing is an offence.

As is parking on the zig zags which is as common as speeding.

I think what is most scary is that he thinks it’s normal for a car to not stop correctly at the crossing. Just goes to prove how many drivers don’t use them properly.

On 10/03/2023 14:01, Brian wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ah, one last Jeremy Vine video this week wouldn’t hurt, would it? Come
>> on, let me off with this one, it’s Friday…
>>
>> https://twitter.com/i/status/1633884436130349065
>>
>
> Except the car was on the crossing BEFORE the pedestrians. They waived to
> thank the driver.

And the car was in the zig-zag area before the cyclist arrived.
>
> Conversely, cyclist rode into a narrow gap, placing himself in danger.

The size of the gap is irrevelant for the law for zig zag lines.

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:54:21 AM UTC, Nick Finnigan wrote:

QUOTE: The size of the gap is irrevelant for the law for zig zag lines. ENDS

Or for drivers blocking the actual crossing in slow moving traffic.

On 11/03/2023 11:17, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:54:21 AM UTC, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
> QUOTE: The size of the gap is irrevelant for the law for zig zag lines. ENDS
>
> Or for drivers blocking the actual crossing in slow moving traffic.

No, it is relevant for regulation 18.

On 11/03/2023 11:34 am, Nick Finnigan wrote:

> On 11/03/2023 11:17, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:54:21 AM UTC, Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> QUOTE: The size of the gap is irrevelant for the law for zig zag
>> lines. ENDS
>
>> Or for drivers blocking the actual crossing in slow moving traffic.
>
>  No, it is relevant for regulation 18.

This issue has come up before.

The following was my contribution:

QUOTE:

QUOTE (by someone calling himself "John"):
“The Highway Code is quite explicit: ‘You MUST NOT overtake the moving
vehicle nearest the crossing’. Though technically in the underlying
legislation cycles do not count as vehicles (Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 &
24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28) it is hard to interpret
the HC as written, in any other meaning than ‘Don’t overtake at
pedestrian crossings’. Let alone overtake in a manner that potentially
puts people in danger."
ENDQUOTE

But is he correct in his "interpretation"?

Is he right in thinking that the Highway Code is authoritative on a
question of law?

Is he even right in his a priori assumption that a bicycle isn't a vehicle?

Remember, he specifically mentions the overtaking of a "moving vehicle",
which clearly has to be distinguished from a stationary vehicle (well,
unless John wants to have his cake and eat it, that is, and heavens
forfend, eh?).

What does the law (rather than "John") say?

The relevant legislation is The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian
Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997; UK Statutory
Instruments 1997 No. 2400.

It is an offence to overtake (with a motor vehicle), the nearest *motor*
vehicle (whether moving or stationary) to a pedestrian crossing (subject
to other bits about being within the controlled area, traffic direction,
etc).

That's provided by Regulation 24, which reads (in full):

QUOTE:
24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the
approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a
controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of
the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—

(a) to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other *motor* vehicle
proceeding in the same direction; or
(b) to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary
for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.

(2) In paragraph (1)—

(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case
where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as
the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor
vehicle nearest to the crossing; and

(b) the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than
one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of
complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the *stationary*
vehicle nearest the crossing.
ENDQUOTE

Observant readers will notice that two separate concepts exist here for
vehicles, the "motor vehicle" and the (any) "vehicle".

Note that 24 (1), as modified by 24 (1) (a), only prohibits the
overtaking of any motor vehicle by another motor vehicle within the
limits of the crossing.

24 (1), as modified by 24 (1) (b), prohibits the overtaking by a motor
vehicle of any vehicle (including a handcart, bicycle, wheelbarrow or
any other equally important class of conveyance) but *only* when that
"vehicle" is *stationary* for the purpose of complying with any of
Regulations 23, 25 or 26. It does not apply to the overtaking of a
moving vehicle other than a motor vehicle.

You can look this up for yourself of course, but for the sake of
convenience, I'll tell you that Regulation 23 applies only at Pelicon or
Puffin crossings where the red light is showing for the relevant
traffic. It is obvious that overtaking the nearest *stationary* vehicle
in such circumstances will usually involve passing a red traffic light
as well, so that's fairly non-controversial, I suggest.

Regulation 25 applies to all vehicles and obliges the driver, rider or
pusher to accord precedence to a pedestrian within the confines of the
crossing. So in order for Regulation 24 91) (b) to apply to the
overtaking of a bicycle, wheelbarrow, handcart, etc), it needs to be
*stationary* (I stress that) and to have stopped for the purpose of
according precedence to a pedestrian on the crossing (!). It does not
apply when the "vehicle" is (still) moving. It does not apply if there
is no pedestrian present.

Regulation 26 applies in the same way as Regulation 23 (at Pelicons and
Puffins, controlled by traffic lights) and extends the prohibition on
passing the nearest vehicle within the marked area when the lights are
flashing amber (so no controversy there either, just as with 23).

If "John" can't "interpret" that, it's because he hasn't read it and
understood it.

The Highway Code, as valuable as it may be, is not a statement of the
law. Only the law is that.

ENDQUOTE

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:34:14 AM UTC, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> On 11/03/2023 11:17, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 9:54:21 AM UTC, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> >
> > QUOTE: The size of the gap is irrevelant for the law for zig zag lines. ENDS
> >
> > Or for drivers blocking the actual crossing in slow moving traffic.
> No, it is relevant for regulation 18.

You're right - I just looked it up.
My error.