Who has right of way?

[Gloves1980]

People like you give cyclists a bad name.

Just wait and smile.

People seem in so much of a rush these days!

[DadOf4]

These tabletops are deliberately designed to b ambiguous IMO. The logic is that that ambiguity causes everybody to slow down. I do think they work pretty well for cars & other vehicles - but they can be dangerous in the situations like the op outlines above.

I've had a similar thing (at different junctions) happen a couple of times - one ended up with me on the floor

[katanita]

I find there are a number of points when cycling around town that confusion of this sort occurs. These weird tabletops, as Dadof4 says, cycling lanes that cross busy pedestrian paths with only markings on the ground (e.g. crossing Lancaster Place from Wellington street), ditto cycling contraflows etc. In a way, it doesn't really matter who technically had right of way, and who knows the correct Highway code, the real issue is poor design. You shouldn't have to know the code inside out to navigate the streets safely, it should be obvious and intuitive. Or maybe it's more that you just can't *expect* that people will know all the rules and regs, and be constantly alert all the time, so should design it so it doesn't matter.

It's definitely always annoying when a pedestrian steps out though, is in the wrong, and then get shirty. But I think it partly happens because people get defensive when feeling unsafe or under threat and especially if they might be in the wrong. It seems to be human nature! I know I'm not immune to this.

Not sure that helps with finding a solution though! Apart from maybe working with people like the London Cycling Campaign to ask councils and TFL for better design in this area maybe?

[JohnL]

I'm sure I've said before

Pedestrians in the road ALWAYS have right of way - even if they shouldn't be there.

(which is kind of common sense)

That doesn't mean pedestrians can just step into the road - just that if they do they then take priority.

in that photo - it's so much easier for the pedestrian to use common sense (I would)

[HappyFamily]

It can be annoying when people just step into the road to cross there- although on the other hand its fair to assume it DOES happen, and its nothing personal.

I find it odd that a mother with family felt compelled to say actually something to you - I only would if someone was going too fast or got a bit close - given you clearly got miffed by them ambling in front of you whos to say she didnt find any manoeuvre you took a to be bit threatening/aggressive ( if you are honest with yourself could it have been interpreted that way?)

I do sympathise with you but agree with previous posters on 2 points - 1) think of it more as priority than right of way (or common sense!) and 2) try not to let it anger you despite the fact it can be annoying when people do this at that junction

Im a cyclist (sometimes get impatient/ annoyed at crossings) and a pedestrian ( sometimes get annoyed/impatient at busy crossings!!!)

[Mugglesworth]

Endorse everything that HappyFamily says. It's all about perception; as Rowantree states in an earlier post his/her perception may have been "courteous cyclist" whereas the mother may have picked up more on the "grumpy face" element.

[bermygirl]

If a pedestrian sees a car/cycle coming and there is no zebra crossing then the cycle/car has the right of way. It's ridiculous for anyone to say that a car/cycle should always give way to a pedestrian already crossing. The reason we have zebra crossings and traffic lights is to give pedestrians the right of way. As far as I am concerned the family saw you, had no right to just cross in the absence of a zebra crossing and should have waited for you. I find however that pedestrians in ED seem to think they can walk across any road whenever they fancy and traffic should just give way.

[bermygirl]

The red raised bricks are also not pedestrian crossings! I don't know what twit thought that. They are to warn blind people that they have arrived at a crossing. Good grief.

[edcam]

Pedestrians had right of way.

[JimH]

bermygirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The red raised bricks are also not pedestrian

> crossings! I don't know what twit thought that.

> They are to warn blind people that they have

> arrived at a crossing. Good grief.

What? Where did you get that from?!? They do not warn blind people about crossings by raising the crossing!! They are informal crossings which are there to alert drivers to frequent crossings of pedestrians.

[uncleglen]

I would always err on the side of pedestrians having the right of way after I came across an incident in the City where a complete drunken suit was staggering around in the road and was hit by a very slowly moving car....it looked as if the suit had staggered into the car....the car driver got the blame!

[Loz]

bermygirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The red raised bricks are also not pedestrian

> crossings! I don't know what twit thought that.

> They are to warn blind people that they have

> arrived at a crossing. Good grief.

You're thinking of the pavement slabs with raised dots on the edges of junctions. Different beastie.

[Asset]

bermygirl says "It's ridiculous for anyone to say that a car/cycle should always give way to a pedestrian already crossing." Err, so they have to scamper out of the way or you'll hit them yes?

[Jeremy]

"Right of way" is kind of a moot point as a driver or cyclist doesn't really have any choice but to brake! But should pedestrians walk out in front of moving vehicles? Clearly not.

[tomskip]

I suspect that jollyrogers on the previous page has it. It wouldn't actually occur to me to look for a cyclist coming down that street towards Lordship Lane as I know it to be one way, and did not realise cyclists could use it as a two way street. I would be concentrating on any traffic potentially turning in from LL.