Pedestrian crossing advice

[speedking31]

Traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing, single carriageway with 2 lanes in each direction, zigzag markings, urban 30 mph limit.

50 m further on is a set of traffic lights where the left hand lane is a filter left and the right hand is for straight on.

Frequently, traffic in the left hand lane queues back across the crossing, even though the crossing lights might be green. That traffic is often moving slowly, creeping forward, or even stationary. Is it legal to overtake the moving vehicle closest to the crossing when the lights are green? The Highway Code is not definitive and other advice e.g. here seems to say not (but only illustrates one lane in each direction). But surely common sense should prevail and vehicles in the right hand lane may proceed with caution past a slow moving left hand lane?

[Riley Blue]

I'd say it's OK provided you continue in the same lane that you're in to turn left or go straight on.

[herewego]

If the other car has stopped to allow peds to cross then don't overtake it. If it's stopped because it's in a queue then you can pass. Should be obvious whether peds are crossing or not since your approach would be very slow.

[speedking31]

Those two scenarios, where the vehicle is stopped, are covered in the HC. What if that queue is creeping forwards?

[scorcher]

You're not overtaking. You're just using the second lane. The overtaking rule (IMO)is for a single carriageway scenario.

[herewego]

I think that's covered by the words:
You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing

[Cat]

Rather than relying on the highway code which can at times be misleading or making up definitions of whether or not it's overtaking, why not look at what the actual law says:-

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings
24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—
(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
(2) In paragraph (1)—
(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

It is quite clear that if you pass the front of the vehicle nearest the crossing, whether moving or stationary, to allow pedestrians to cross, you commit an offence. Whether you would find yourself being prosecuted for doing so in the circumstances described in the OP is debatable.

Cat

Edited by Cat on Wednesday 25th March 16:05

[Foliage]

I personally define overtaking as moving from the lane of the car your passing back into the lane of the car you have passed.

[Derek Smith]

Foliage said:

I personally define overtaking as moving from the lane of the car your passing back into the lane of the car you have passed.

The (precis) definition an appeal court judge prefered was any part of a vehicle moving in front of another.

One way of looking at the likelihood of a prosecution is to ask yourself the purposes of the regulation. This is the safety of pedestrians.

[Cat]

Foliage said:

I personally define overtaking as moving from the lane of the car your passing back into the lane of the car you have passed.

However the law disagrees with your definition in relation to overtaking at pedestrian crossings.

Cat

[Toltec]

Foliage said:

I personally define overtaking as moving from the lane of the car your passing back into the lane of the car you have passed.

There are all sorts of things I personally define as being safe and not discourteous, however I do know that will not stop the law from seeing it differently.

[speedking31]

Cat said:

Rather than relying on the highway code which can at times be misleading or making up definitions of whether or not it's overtaking, why not look at what the actual law says:-

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings
24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—
(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
(2) In paragraph (1)—
(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

It is quite clear that if you pass the front of the vehicle nearest the crossing, whether moving or stationary, to allow pedestrians to cross, you commit an offence. Whether you would find yourself being prosecuted for doing so in the circumstances described in the OP is debatable.

Cat

So according to (1) a and b, if a vehicle in lane 1 is moving then you must not pass it, no matter how slowly it is going, but as soon as it stops, because of traffic, not to let a pedestrian cross, then it is OK to pass.

For the part underlined: You have not quite understood the question. The vehicles in lane 1 are not stationary to let a pedestrian cross, but because of weight of traffic in that lane. The traffic lights are green, the pedestrian lights are red.

[vonhosen]

speedking31 said:

Cat said:

Rather than relying on the highway code which can at times be misleading or making up definitions of whether or not it's overtaking, why not look at what the actual law says:-

Prohibition against vehicles overtaking at crossings
24.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (in this regulation called “the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing, the driver of the vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it—
(a)to pass ahead of the foremost part of any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or
(b)to pass ahead of the foremost part of a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26.
(2) In paragraph (1)—
(a)the reference to a motor vehicle in sub-paragraph (a) is, in a case where more than one motor vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle in a controlled area, a reference to the motor vehicle nearest to the crossing; and
(b)the reference to a stationary vehicle is, in a case where more than one vehicle is stationary in a controlled area for the purpose of complying with regulation 23, 25 or 26, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the crossing.

It is quite clear that if you pass the front of the vehicle nearest the crossing, whether moving or stationary, to allow pedestrians to cross, you commit an offence. Whether you would find yourself being prosecuted for doing so in the circumstances described in the OP is debatable.

Cat

So according to (1) a and b, if a vehicle in lane 1 is moving then you must not pass it, no matter how slowly it is going, but as soon as it stops, because of traffic, not to let a pedestrian cross, then it is OK to pass.

For the part underlined: You have not quite understood the question. The vehicles in lane 1 are not stationary to let a pedestrian cross, but because of weight of traffic in that lane. The traffic lights are green, the pedestrian lights are red.

It looks like he quite clearly understood.

He said whether
a) moving
b) stationary to allow pedestrians to cross.

No mention of stopping for other reasons.

[Cat]

vonhosen said:

It looks like he quite clearly understood.

He said whether
a) moving
b) stationary to allow pedestrians to cross.

No mention of stopping for other reasons.

Thank you.

Cat

[Cat]

For clarity, if the vehicle nearest the crossing is moving, at whatever speed, then by the letter of the law you cannot pass it. If the vehicle nearest the crossing is stopped to either, allow a pedestrian to cross or for a red light at a traffic light controlled crossing you cannot pass it. If it is stopped for any other reason you may pass it.

Cat

[Toltec]

What about the case where the vehicle on the left is stopped due to the queue, however decides to move fractions of a second before you pass it?

Do perform an emergency stop, possibly risking a rear end shunt, or continue and break the law? You could of course take the position of never passing within the controlled zone, but that may lead to a certain amount of unrest in any drivers behind you.

Sorry, I have a bad habit of applying calculus to legal situations, I'd probably score on the autistic scale...

[Foliage]

Derek Smith said:

The (precis) definition an appeal court judge prefered was any part of a vehicle moving in front of another.

One way of looking at the likelihood of a prosecution is to ask yourself the purposes of the regulation. This is the safety of pedestrians.

I will revise my understanding.

And obviously pedestrians are vulnerable road users and should be considered first and foremost.

Doesn't get around the law be an ass though

[vonhosen]

Toltec said:

What about the case where the vehicle on the left is stopped due to the queue, however decides to move fractions of a second before you pass it?

Do perform an emergency stop, possibly risking a rear end shunt, or continue and break the law? You could of course take the position of never passing within the controlled zone, but that may lead to a certain amount of unrest in any drivers behind you.

Sorry, I have a bad habit of applying calculus to legal situations, I'd probably score on the autistic scale...

He already answered that, letter of the law offence, reality is would you really be prosecuted where you had taken great care?

[Pothole]

Toltec said:

You could of course take the position of never passing within the controlled zone, but that may lead to a certain amount of unrest in any drivers behind you.

Why should that colour your judgement?

[Toltec]

vonhosen said:

He already answered that, letter of the law offence, reality is would you really be prosecuted where you had taken great care?

In the age of technology the law is binary and revenue is king.