Close call for mother and child

[Psamathe]

Here is a quote lifted from AskYahoo which looks like it comes from the relevant RTA.

"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."

So it looks like the crucial point of law is whether the ladies foot (or in this case the buggy's most forward point) was off the pavement before the cars bumper had entered the ZigZag zone.

From looking at the video (pausing/ manually positioning) the entire vehicle is within the zig-zag lines before the buggy wheels have left the pavement.

Ian

[beardy]

Yes, that appears to show that the motorist had not broken that law.

However there isnt even any law for the pedestrian to break because they are not the problem!

To say that the motorist had just managed to be within the letter of the law (with a camera finish) is far from saying that they are in the right.
They were possibly not breaking the speed limit either but that doesnt mean they were not going too fast.

[broadway]

So it looks like the crucial point of law is whether the ladies foot (or in this case the buggy's most forward point) was off the pavement before the cars bumper had entered the ZigZag zone.

The Zig-Zags only relate to parking so they are not a crucial point of law.

[beardy]

Why do you think that they only relate to the parking?

I assumed they marked out the limits of the Zebra crossing.


If it was the black and white strip then the motorist would be wrong by a long way, in fact I quite like your definition.

but feel it is too good to be true.

[Psamathe]

The Zig-Zags only relate to parking so they are not a crucial point of law.

Why do you think that they only relate to the parking?

I assumed they marked out the limits of the Zebra crossing.

If it was the black and white strip then the motorist would be wrong by a long way, in fact I quite like your definition. :D

but feel it is too good to be true. :cry:

I thought they also applied to no overtaking (hence probably in effect "marking out the limits of the Zebra crossing").

Ian

[Vorpal]

The zig zags mark out what is known as the 'controlled' zone. Motor vehicles are not permitted to stop within the controlled zone, except for pedestrians using the crossing, to make a turn, if the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control, or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid injury or damage to persons or property. Each line is 2 metres long, and there must be at least 8 and not more than 18 of them.

I think that the primary purpose of them is to ensure full visibility to the crossing. While that doesn't only relate to parking, it also doesn't imply anything about whether the driver in the video has driven illegally.

The the Highway Code says about overtaking

You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

and nothing to do with zigzags.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.co ... crossings/ is a good analysis of this sort of problem.

[beardy]

The the Highway Code says about overtaking

Quote:
You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

and nothing to do with zigzags.

If you were to take that as you have written then nobody could ever overtake on a road which has a Zebra crossing on it at some point ahead of you, no matter how far ahead.

So clearly that only applies within a certain distance of a Zebra crossing, that distance being defined by the zigzags.

[Trigger]

I hate zebra crossings, they're too vague.

Neither pedestrian nor driver ever seems to know who has priority- some pedestrians approach them and wait for traffic to stop and let them across (which is how I do it) others just seem to walk up to them and step out in the hope nobody runs them over.

In a town near me the main road which has shops on both sides, has speed humps along it, but they're the sort that are raised for a good 10 feet or so, so most pedestrians seem to gather at them and treat them like zebra crossings. No end of times I've been driving down there and someone just steps out thinking it's a crossing, they think the traffic that is slowing down to go over the hump is slowing to let them across and they just go.

[Bicycler]

I hate zebra crossings, they're too vague.

Neither pedestrian nor driver ever seems to know who has priority- some pedestrians approach them and wait for traffic to stop and let them across (which is how I do it) others just seem to walk up to them and step out in the hope nobody runs them over.

You find that motorists can find anything vague when it suits them. Many seem unable to grasp something a simple as an amber light meaning stop...

Aside from the legal niceties of when cars commit an offence by not stopping, what they should be doing is actually quite simple. If you can understand a priority crossroads you can understand a zebra crossing. It just requires an amazing suspension of disbelief in realising that pedestrians have priority over the road traffic. On approach, look out for pedestrians approaching the crossing. If they are, slow down and prepare to stop. If you are able to pass safely by before they reach the crossing then proceed with caution. If they will reach the crossing first then stop and allow them priority. Before starting off again look to see if more are about to cross.

[JimL]

I hate zebra crossings, they're too vague.

It can't be clearer . Stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the road.

[Trigger]

Yeah, I know how they work, I was talking from experience of watching others when walking/cycling/driving

[kwackers]

others just seem to walk up to them and step out in the hope nobody runs them over.

That's me. I also walk straight across side roads and expect traffic turning in to give way.

[Postboxer]

And how is turning into the sideroad traffic to know you are going to step out in front of their heavy, moving, indicating vehicle and not walk down the sideroad?

If it's only illegal to pass once the pedestrian is in the road it means there's a will they/won't they decision whenever a pedestrian near the crossing. It also seems dangerous. Much clearer to have a marked area on the pavement for pedestrians to step into, at which point vehicles have to stop, then the pedestrian crosses in safety.

[Bicycler]

And how is turning into the sideroad traffic to know you are going to step out in front of their heavy, moving, indicating vehicle and not walk down the sideroad?

To reverse the question, why should the driver assume the pedestrian to be turning? A vehicle is generally presumed to be continuing the way it is heading. Are pedestrians to be assumed to be turning or walking around aimlessly? There's some more motor-centric logic at work here; a vehicle travelling along a road is cut up by another vehicle which turns across its path, whereas a pedestrian travelling along a road steps out in front of a turning vehicle... The subservience of pedestrians has become ingrained into the way we understand the roads

[Bicycler]

If it's only illegal to pass once the pedestrian is in the road it means there's a will they/won't they decision whenever a pedestrian near the crossing. It also seems dangerous. Much clearer to have a marked area on the pavement for pedestrians to step into, at which point vehicles have to stop, then the pedestrian crosses in safety.

Drivers are perfectly able to understand the concept of giving way where they meet any number of roads. All that is needed is for them to apply the same logic to zebra crossings. The problem isn't ambiguity, it is selfishness