Give way to pavement cyclist when turning into side road?

[boliston]

Cycling home today I was making a right turn into a narrow side road and there was a pavement cyclist coming towards me on the pavement and had started crossing the side road. Had it been a pedestrian I'd have been legally obliged to give way, but does a pavement cyclist have the same rights as a pedestrian?

Luckily they did stop and even said "sorry" but it's not really something I have come across before.

[Bicycler]

People argue as to the rights of pedestrians as the highway code does a good job of confusing the situation. Some taking the view that pedestrians should not start to cross if they can see a vehicle wanting to turn. Others view that they have priority over the turning traffic. Once they are crossing everybody is in agreement that the turning vehicle should give way to the pedestrian.

Had the pavement been an official shared use cycle path then there would probably have been white lines indicating that the cyclist ought to give way, though now it is possible for cycle paths to have priority over the turning traffic so this does depend on local circumstance. I don't think you will get a definitive answer about pavements where cycling is not permitted because obviously cyclists should not be cycling along them. If I had to hedge a bet I would say that the general rule applies that turning traffic should give way to traffic which is proceeding along a road.

More important than the wording of the law is the safety of yourself and others. It is unwise to ever rely on any road user obeying rules about priority, particularly one who is behaving illegally to begin with. When making a turn I always keep an eye out for any traffic which my manoeuver might conflict with. I would not start to turn into a road until I was sure that any person or cycle on the pavement had either cleared the junction or had seen me and stopped to allow me to turn

[snibgo]

It is unwise to ever rely on any road user obeying rules about priority, particularly one who is behaving illegally to begin with.

I entirely agree. And we have a duty not to collide with each other, whatever wrongs people might have done.

I would point out that, at the moment of possible impact, both cyclists were on the road, and both were cyclists. The fact that one might previously have been cycling where it wasn't allowed isn't relevant.

A case could be made that one cyclist was following the line of the road, while another was turning off it. So the priority lies with the one following the line of the road.

[Bicycler]

A case could be made that one cyclist was following the line of the road, while another was turning off it. So the priority lies with the one following the line of the road.

Agreed, and if anybody were to take the opposite view - that the other cyclist was crossing the side road - then, again, traffic turning into the side road should give way to road users already on the road into which they are turning

[beardy]

I would argue that one cyclist was already on the road and that the other was starting to use the road and whilst on the pavement they should have waited until it was clear before getting on to the road and cycling.
Though the road could be considered clear if the cyclist on the road had not bothered to indicate that they were turning.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Would you put a foot on the road before looking
If cyclist on pavement had looked then they would have to give way to road users.

Where does it say that a pedestrian walking on to road has priority over traffic thats moving or waiting to move along the road

It does'nt, it says pedestrians should look before crossing to see its safe.

A pedestrian should also consider their actions should not force the road user to brake sharply

Its like road users pulling out of a junction in to the path of moving traffic, dangerous and inconsiderate.

A paper boy did that to me one morning, he said sorry as I just missed him (I was comming out of a junction with lights, I have priority, all others have a red) he came across in front of me along pavement hiden by houses, if I had hit him what would his defence be, If I was a car he could probably be dead.

If you had hit him and injured him what would his defence be, any crossing road is done pushing bike, unless there is a sign saying cycle path etc, then the crossing lights would be green for you red for him or vise versa. (Toucan)

Only a pedestrian crossing works in favour of the pedestrian.
https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1- ... ad-7-to-17
"D. If traffic is coming, let it pass. Look all around again and listen. Do not cross until there is a safe gap in the traffic and you are certain that there is plenty of time. Remember, even if traffic is a long way off, it may be approaching very quickly."

[Bicycler]

I think that guidance is for pedestrians actually crossing roads rather than walking along them. It separately refers to crossing at junctions in the next rule:

8. At a junction. When crossing the road, look out for traffic turning into the road, especially from behind you. If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way (see Rule 170).

This is what I meant before about the HC being unclear. It is very similar to the section you quoted earlier about crossing roads but curiously omits any mention of letting traffic pass. All it says is to look round for turning traffic which we can all agree is sensible. It clearly states that pedestrians have priority once they have started to cross the junction but not whether they ought to give way to vehicles about to turn. As I said above priority cannot be expected and nor would it be responsible to step in front of a vehicle in a dangerous manner, but it is far from clear to me that pedestrians cannot legitimately start to cross despite the fact that a vehicle may be waiting to turn.

The wording of the above section is not a million miles away from the section on Zebra Crossings:

19. Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.

I don't see any reason for thinking that pedestrians are a special lowly category of road user to whom the normal rules do not apply. Or is it that we are attributing some significance to the fact that there is a pavement there#? Do we think that pavement kerbs are effectively give way lines? What if the road didn't have pavements, would that change matters or would pedestrians still give way? Pavement cycle paths normally have give way lines where they do not have priority over the road which implies that they otherwise would have. As I noted earlier, pavement cycle paths can now have priority over side junctions. Are the lowly pedestrians elevated to our level at these places and able to take their priority or are they to remain subservient, give way and doff their caps to turning traffic?

It is far from clear

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
But common sense prevails.

I dont see anywhere where it it says that a pedestrian can wonder about willy nilly on the highway.
A pedestrian has a duty to look and also listen before crossing any road........just like a railway crossing.
And at junctions that means looking behind them.
So it says that vehicles should take care of pedestrians crossing at junctions with their back to the traffic.
And if they do cross blind then you will have to wait for them.
But in all cases unless there is a pedestrian crossing or light controled crossing the pedestrian is negligent if they do not look and listen.
When I cross the road I make all attempts to get to the other pavement before the vehicle is apon me.

You know that many pedestrians dont do this with good effect because you are constantly having to brake.

So if you saw a vehicle comming along the road you would time it to cross before it gets to you or wait for it to pass, junctions are the same and the highway code also says for pedestrians to predict that a vehicle if turning etc, to be wary where it will be when they cross.

The highway code says a vehicle does have to give way to pedestrians if they are already crossing, but they should cross safely at all cost, even allowing for road conditions so the car can stop safely

Yes a pedestrian is the lowest when it ventures onto the road unless the already stated conditions apply.
And cyclist that use pavements are too.

Because what I think you are not saying is that road users watch pedestrians and predict when they will cross so they can stop for them.
Road users are watching the road and only when the pedestrian is on the road does the attention switch to include them.

If a vehicle is stationary then a pedestrian could cross and take priority, but if it moves first the pedestrian should wait.

Of course this is not reality as we know it, if it was then a lot of deaths / injures to pedestrians could be avoided (20%) at or near junctions (IIRC).

We the road user have to be decisive because we know that pedestrians sometimes play russian roulette...........

[thirdcrank]

If something like this resulted in serious injury or even death and a claim for compo, who knows what the courts would decide? If we knew, there'd be no need for civil courts and fancy lawyers.

It seems to me that a road user, be they driving a 40 tonne juggernaut or on foot, has above all, a duty to try to prevent collisions. Relying on some imagined right rather than taking avoiding action surely cannot be justified in any moral sense. Avoiding collisions has the benefit that benefit that nobody gets hurt and beyond that, the lawyers make no money.

[axel_knutt]

It seems to me that a road user, be they driving a 40 tonne juggernaut or on foot, has above all, a duty to try to prevent collisions. Relying on some imagined right rather than taking avoiding action surely cannot be justified in any moral sense.

This seems to be the whole point to me, right of way is not the same as the right to deliberately cause an accident.

I used to drive to camera club with my cousin along a route that crossed a narrow bridge with a sign giving priority to one direction over the other. When it was my cousins turn to drive, if someone coming in the opposite direction didn't give way she would put her foot down and accelerate at him. Right of way = right to cause an accident?

On the opposite side of the same coin, my driving instructor once asked me when does a pedestrian have right of way? His answer: Always, "because you wouldn't run him over". No right to cause an accident = no right of way?

[Bicycler]

It seems to me that a road user, be they driving a 40 tonne juggernaut or on foot, has above all, a duty to try to prevent collisions. Relying on some imagined right rather than taking avoiding action surely cannot be justified in any moral sense. Avoiding collisions has the benefit that benefit that nobody gets hurt and beyond that, the lawyers make no money.

Agreed, but it helps all road users if there is clarity about which party has priority even though that doesn't convey a right to proceed. There is, of course, a big difference between having priority and being entitled to abuse, intimidate or collide with other road users*. I think the driving instructor's mantra is "priority is always given, never taken" or words to that effect.

*The sense of entitlement which allows some drivers (and for that matter some cyclists) to honk horns, accelerate towards and shout abuse at pedestrians they feel to be in the wrong is truly abhorrent.

[thirdcrank]

Bicycler

You are right of course: it's only by people generally sticking to accepted norms of conduct that we don't have to start learning from scratch with every encounter. There are some on this forum - and here cunobelin comes to mind - who don't share your benevolent view of driving instructors, especially when they are driving and not instructing.

... . I think the driving instructor's mantra is "priority is always given, never taken" or words to that effect...

[Mark1978]

Those going straight on have priority over those turning. That's always the basic principle of UK priority rules. And yes that includes a pedestrian crossing a junction. Just because most drivers don't respect that right or are even aware of it doesn't make it ok.

[Mark1978]

I've watched quite a few videos about NL bike paths and apart from the obvious of width and maintenance but the complete lack of the legions of dog walkers you get on every path here.

[beardy]

So where do Dutch dog owners take their dogs for a toilet stop then?