"Correct" thing to do in this situation:pedestrian crossings

[Seigi]

Vaux said:

Yes they have precedence.
Per the OP - initially there was a slow moving man. Let's embellish and add he was walking with sticks/a zimmer. At some point, even if he did turn round, there would be zero risk if the OP had driven off. He could not physically get back in front of the OP's vehicle.
Do you teach to always wait till the crossing is clear, irrespective of crossing width and state of the pedestrian?

The man crossing wasn't the issue, I was going to wait for him to get to the other side regardless, it was the woman who started to cross before the man had reached the other side (The side which the woman was coming from) that posed the risk.

Unless you're speaking just hypothetically about something not necessarily related to my OP.

[daz6215]

Vaux said:

daz6215 said:

martine said:

Mr Classic said:

You WILL get a major fault on your test if you drive across a zebra crossing if there is a pedestrian anywhere on it.

Not true - if the ped is walking away from the car then it's safe to proceed - you don't have to wait until the ped is across the other side and off the crossing.

What if the pedestrian turns around and walks back across?

You'll be gone.
The vehicle behind you will need to give precedence.

The pedestrian has precedence whilst they are in any part of the limit of the crossing, it doesn't stipulate which way they are walking!

[Vaux]

Seigi said:

Vaux said:

Yes they have precedence.
Per the OP - initially there was a slow moving man. Let's embellish and add he was walking with sticks/a zimmer. At some point, even if he did turn round, there would be zero risk if the OP had driven off. He could not physically get back in front of the OP's vehicle.
Do you teach to always wait till the crossing is clear, irrespective of crossing width and state of the pedestrian?

The man crossing wasn't the issue, I was going to wait for him to get to the other side regardless, it was the woman who started to cross before the man had reached the other side (The side which the woman was coming from) that posed the risk.

Unless you're speaking just hypothetically about something not necessarily related to my OP.

I was trying to expand it to imply there would be a situation when moving off would be acceptable to others posting.
For your situation I would say the man crossing was the issue; if you had moved off having given precedence, the Audi would have gone too, and the woman who took advantage of your hesitancy would have complied with her red light.
Be interesting to hear from a DVSA Examiner.

[Vaux]

daz6215 said:

The pedestrian has precedence whilst they are in any part of the limit of the crossing, it doesn't stipulate which way they are walking!

No one's disagreeing with that. I suppose this is one of those driving situations were agreement will not be 100%

[stevensdrs]

Vaux said:

stevensdrs said:

Speaking as a qualified driving instructor, I despair at the poor knowledge and complete bks given as advice on this thread.
Pedestrians have precedence when on a pedestrian crossing and you MUST not move off until they are clear of the crossing.

Yes they have precedence.
Per the OP - initially there was a slow moving man. Let's embellish and add he was walking with sticks/a zimmer. At some point, even if he did turn round, there would be zero risk if the OP had driven off. He could not physically get back in front of the OP's vehicle.
Do you teach to always wait till the crossing is clear, irrespective of crossing width and state of the pedestrian?

Yes, it makes no difference. That said there will always be people who want to interpret the rules to suit themselves.

[Vipers]

But.....

How many pedestrians apart from zero, understands crossings

[tenpenceshort]

stevensdrs said:

Speaking as a qualified driving instructor, I despair at the poor knowledge and complete bks given as advice on this thread.
Pedestrians have precedence when on a pedestrian crossing and you MUST not move off until they are clear of the crossing.

Edit; to avoid confusion, my post below refers to Zebra Crossings

That may be position of the DSA, it might in most cases be best practise, however the law only says you must accord precedence. That it mentions the crossing limits doesn't mean you must wait until they've left them before proceeding, it simply means that outwith those limits pedestrians have no such precedence. For example, a pedestrian waiting at the roadside to enter the crossing has no precedence over vehicles and there is no obligation to stop and allow them to enter (though if they do enter and you impede their progress, you commit the offence, so it's both the decent and prudent thing to concede when they're stood waiting).

The purpose of the zebra crossing and related law is to provide safe, priority passage for pedestrians across the flow of traffic. If you drive across the crossing without impeding pedestrians' progress, you have complied with the requirements.

Edited by tenpenceshort on Friday 22 August 07:38

[7mike]

Vipers said:

But.....

How many pedestrians apart from zero, understands crossings

They're not actually a separate species. Are you never a pedestrian?

[Vipers]

7mike said:

Vipers said:

But.....

How many pedestrians apart from zero, understands crossings

They're not actually a separate species. Are you never a pedestrian?

But you get my drift, of course I am a pedestrian, but as a car driver as well I am well aware of the Highway Code, how many non drivers have even heard of it, let alone understand it, that was my point.

[Vipers]

Something which I don't think is in the HC, pedestrians do not have the right of way until they put a foot on the crossing, our instructor pointed that although you don't have to stop if they are still on the pavement, you should stop for a person pushing a pram, because they would have to push it out before they could step on the crossing.

Then again out of curtisery most of us would stop anyway if we anticipated the person was going to cross.

[martine]

Vipers said:

Something which I don't think is in the HC, pedestrians do not have the right of way until they put a foot on the crossing, our instructor pointed that although you don't have to stop if they are still on the pavement, you should stop for a person pushing a pram, because they would have to push it out before they could step on the crossing.

Good point!

[quote]Then again out of courtesy most of us would stop anyway if we anticipated the person was going to cross.

Absolutely and it's a fine line to judge if you're going to clear the crossing before a foot gets placed on it. Much better to recognise the potential conflict early, ease up, come to a graceful stop - leaving a nice gap in front so the ped doesn't feel threatened. You might even get a nod of thanks. I'm a great believer in trying to be courteous and polite when driving.

Perhaps I'm stuck in the 1950s.

[Vipers]

martine said:

Perhaps I'm stuck in the 1950s.

You are not alone.

[Seigi]

Just a small update, to anyone interested: I passed my driving test just yesterday with 1 minor for undue hesitation joining a major from a minor on a T-junction, there was a couple of gaps I could have taken but they were slim chances. A little disappointed I couldn't get a clean sheet ;p

Same happened with motorcycle test, I got 1 minor for not indicating when leaving a large spiral roundabout in the far left lane, I didn't think it was necessary but apparently it is.

[simoid]

Nicely done


On the "precedence" front, is there a definition in the regulations? I think the confusion comes down to the interpretation of precedence.

Google it and the definition is:

"precedence
noun
the condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in importance, order, or rank."

I read it as "if there's a pedestrian on the crossing, they get to go first."

Has this been put to bed?