Zebra crossing without beacons
Discussion
The neighbouring council think it needs beacons to be a Zebra crossing. A mistake by Stirling?
https://www.clacks.gov.uk/transport/pedcrossings/
In 2022 it appears zebra markings without lights are illegal on public roads.
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.a...
https://www.clacks.gov.uk/transport/pedcrossings/
In 2022 it appears zebra markings without lights are illegal on public roads.
https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.a...
Edited by irc on Wednesday 30th August 17:23
Edited by irc on Wednesday 30th August 17:24
My instinct would be that without the Belisha Beacons, they would be illegal. In crowded traffic, the zebra stripes across the road are not visible, but the beacons would be. Simply put, the beacons are an advanced warning to the road traffic, the stripes indicate where the pedestrians have to cross.
Pica-Pica said:
My instinct would be that without the Belisha Beacons, they would be illegal. In crowded traffic, the zebra stripes across the road are not visible, but the beacons would be. Simply put, the beacons are an advanced warning to the road traffic, the stripes indicate where the pedestrians have to cross.
Or..."Simply put, the beacons are an advanced warning to the road traffic, the stripes indicate where the pedestrians
It's pedantry, I suppose, but there are interpretations of the law regarding zebra crossings written into the law and set by precedent. Importantly, here in the UK there are no laws preventing pedestrians from crossing anywhere on the majority of our roads (motorways and some new-build sections of 'A' roads being notable exceptions). Therefore there is no specific place on a "normal" road where pedestrians have to cross, but there are locations (zebra/PeLiCon/TwoCan/etc crossings) where traffic on carriageways may be legally required to stop to allow pedestrians to cross.
Miserablegit said:
Same as this crossing in Newmarket- a request to highways to provide beacons to protect pedestrians crossing merely resulted in a Putin-esque statement that “it isn’t a crossing so beacons not needed”
I dont think the Newmarket one can be a "proper" crossing due to its proximity to the roundabout, its only about 20 yards down the high street. Always amazed me that they put this in...bnseven said:
I dont think the Newmarket one can be a "proper" crossing due to its proximity to the roundabout, its only about 20 yards down the high street. Always amazed me that they put this in...
Bridgwater has two proper crossings, both only 10 yards away from the exits of the same roundabouts! Mental!
Agreed but they did it regardless.
After a request for signs or markings on the road following a few near misses on the roundabout with people cutting across from the right hand lane when going straight across highways merely said “there’s only one lane on the roundabout” which was news to me and all other roundabout users. I’m thinking of not paying my council tax this year and when chased I’ll say “it’s not a dwelling- it’s merely a collection of bricks and slate organised in an aesthetically pleasing manner” but I’m not sure that approach works for the general public.
After a request for signs or markings on the road following a few near misses on the roundabout with people cutting across from the right hand lane when going straight across highways merely said “there’s only one lane on the roundabout” which was news to me and all other roundabout users. I’m thinking of not paying my council tax this year and when chased I’ll say “it’s not a dwelling- it’s merely a collection of bricks and slate organised in an aesthetically pleasing manner” but I’m not sure that approach works for the general public.
It's an interesting question. Bit like a nearby road, lots of double white lines, but fairly sporadically, ie stretches double continuous solid, then stretches one solid one dotted.
At least that's the intention, except they are so worn that the solid continuous whites are anywhere down to one barely visible other not at all, especially in wet. Plus you can get sections where start off in a stretch where although worn you can see it's double solid, fair enough, then the one nearest you disappears, and by the time reappears it's clearly a dotted line.
Could cause an argument if pulled for crossing, I'd reckon they are not legal. Just another symptom of lack of attention to detail and maintenance.
At least that's the intention, except they are so worn that the solid continuous whites are anywhere down to one barely visible other not at all, especially in wet. Plus you can get sections where start off in a stretch where although worn you can see it's double solid, fair enough, then the one nearest you disappears, and by the time reappears it's clearly a dotted line.
Could cause an argument if pulled for crossing, I'd reckon they are not legal. Just another symptom of lack of attention to detail and maintenance.
Miserablegit said:
Same as this crossing in Newmarket- a request to highways to provide beacons to protect pedestrians crossing merely resulted in a Putin-esque statement that “it isn’t a crossing so beacons not needed”
So *pedestrians* are expected to know the minutiae of the Highway Code and not expect drivers to give way because there are no beacons?That’s *why* we used to have world-class consistency of regulations, so people could rely upon what they saw (or thought they saw) to make choices.
It *should* IMHO be illegal to paint these markings without beacons - not least because (especially) partially-sighted pedestrians should be able to rely upon traffic being required to yield to them.
yellowjack said:
Pica-Pica said:
My instinct would be that without the Belisha Beacons, they would be illegal. In crowded traffic, the zebra stripes across the road are not visible, but the beacons would be. Simply put, the beacons are an advanced warning to the road traffic, the stripes indicate where the pedestrians have to cross.
Or..."Simply put, the beacons are an advanced warning to the road traffic, the stripes indicate where the pedestrians
It's pedantry, I suppose, but there are interpretations of the law regarding zebra crossings written into the law and set by precedent. Importantly, here in the UK there are no laws preventing pedestrians from crossing anywhere on the majority of our roads (motorways and some new-build sections of 'A' roads being notable exceptions). Therefore there is no specific place on a "normal" road where pedestrians have to cross, but there are locations (zebra/PeLiCon/TwoCan/etc crossings) where traffic on carriageways may be legally required to stop to allow pedestrians to cross.
I don’t believe they think…
They just “do”
The new roundabout on a143 in Haverhill is a perfect example of monumental cock-up. Angle on entry means “straight ahead” isn’t really at 12 but is at 2.00 - very few seem to use the right hand lane for it, some just straddle both lanes. Left hand lane looks as though it should be used to access new housing development but…
They just “do”
The new roundabout on a143 in Haverhill is a perfect example of monumental cock-up. Angle on entry means “straight ahead” isn’t really at 12 but is at 2.00 - very few seem to use the right hand lane for it, some just straddle both lanes. Left hand lane looks as though it should be used to access new housing development but…
We have some trial black and white stripes at 2 junctions by me. I know they aren't zebra crossings but most people treat them like that and give pedestrians priority. It can be a bit awkward to have your arse hanging out a junction when turning left as someone crosses but it does encourage comms between peds and vehicles and prob makes things safer.
guitarcarfanatic said:
bnseven said:
I dont think the Newmarket one can be a "proper" crossing due to its proximity to the roundabout, its only about 20 yards down the high street. Always amazed me that they put this in...
Bridgwater has two proper crossings, both only 10 yards away from the exits of the same roundabouts! Mental!Pedestrians walk along roads and, one might assume, would walk along the roads that go into and come from the roundabout. If the crossings are not in convenient locations for the pedestrians, they won't use them. 20 yards seems a reasonable distance for them to walk, or 40 yards in total from each road they wish to cross.
I fail to see why it is mental that fully marked pedestrian crossings should be close to roundabouts. It seems sensible.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure there is any restriction on distance from a roundabout.
Pedestrians walk along roads and, one might assume, would walk along the roads that go into and come from the roundabout. If the crossings are not in convenient locations for the pedestrians, they won't use them. 20 yards seems a reasonable distance for them to walk, or 40 yards in total from each road they wish to cross.
I fail to see why it is mental that fully marked pedestrian crossings should be close to roundabouts. It seems sensible.
Both seem to be accident hotspots because traffic often backs up on only one side - so coming the other way, you can't see if anyone is waiting / crossing. Most weeks, I see reports of people being injured.Pedestrians walk along roads and, one might assume, would walk along the roads that go into and come from the roundabout. If the crossings are not in convenient locations for the pedestrians, they won't use them. 20 yards seems a reasonable distance for them to walk, or 40 yards in total from each road they wish to cross.
I fail to see why it is mental that fully marked pedestrian crossings should be close to roundabouts. It seems sensible.
But it's poor road management as it encourages bad driving. Get a few people crossing and the cars end up backed up across the roundabout. It shouldn't, but driving standards are pretty poor these days.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff