Legality of zig-zag markings at Zebra Crossing
Discussion
Following on from Snow : if you can't see the lines, it doesn't count, what does the SP&L collective(especially our resident road signs expert, DVD) make of the legality of this Zebra Crossing:
?
The satellite image on Google Maps is too poor to be of any value and the road is not covered by Street View, so I have sketched the markings as accurately (albeit not to scale) as I can. Note the shorter zig-zags on one side and the presence of additional terminal (?) bars within the zig-zags.
Streaky
?The satellite image on Google Maps is too poor to be of any value and the road is not covered by Street View, so I have sketched the markings as accurately (albeit not to scale) as I can. Note the shorter zig-zags on one side and the presence of additional terminal (?) bars within the zig-zags.
Streaky
I'll leave this to the expert DVD.
But if it was me, I'd say that the lines which have been worn / painted out mean that the markings don't comply with TSRGD. Unlike yellow lines under a TRO, though, I am not sure that makes them unenforceable if the remaining markings make it clear enough that this is the approach to a crossing and should be kept clear.
AFAIK, the markings on the approach side are standard, should extend a minimum distance from the crossing (4 zigs and 4 zags). There is no requirement for all the zig-zags to be the same length. Under the Zebra, pelican and puffin crossing regulations 1997, the kerbside markings can be shorter, if necessary, to avoid running into say a bus stop.
So the basic layout as you have drawn it, appears to comply.
The specific offence is not "parking on the zig-zags" but "stopping on the approach to the crossing other than to let people cross (or a few other exceptions) so tt comes down to whether or not the wearing away of one or two zigs and zags derogates from the overall message of the rest.
But as I say, I know nussink. Over to DVD.
But if it was me, I'd say that the lines which have been worn / painted out mean that the markings don't comply with TSRGD. Unlike yellow lines under a TRO, though, I am not sure that makes them unenforceable if the remaining markings make it clear enough that this is the approach to a crossing and should be kept clear.
AFAIK, the markings on the approach side are standard, should extend a minimum distance from the crossing (4 zigs and 4 zags). There is no requirement for all the zig-zags to be the same length. Under the Zebra, pelican and puffin crossing regulations 1997, the kerbside markings can be shorter, if necessary, to avoid running into say a bus stop.
So the basic layout as you have drawn it, appears to comply.
The specific offence is not "parking on the zig-zags" but "stopping on the approach to the crossing other than to let people cross (or a few other exceptions) so tt comes down to whether or not the wearing away of one or two zigs and zags derogates from the overall message of the rest.
But as I say, I know nussink. Over to DVD.
saaby93 said:
Those are white in the picture - are they advisory?
In the lining guidance we saw last week, weren't they yellow?
Yellow lines are found outside schools, fire stations etc.In the lining guidance we saw last week, weren't they yellow?
White zig zags aren't advisory - they're the ones used at pedestrian crossings ...
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Hig...
[quote]191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Edited by Citizen09 on Tuesday 2nd February 11:44 something's wrong with my quote tags
Edited by Citizen09 on Tuesday 2nd February 11:46
Edited by Citizen09 on Tuesday 2nd February 11:49
saaby93 said:
What about colour tvrgit?
Those are white in the picture - are they advisory?
In the lining guidance we saw last week, weren't they yellow?
zebras and other crossings - white. No they aren't advisory - they are more enforceable than yellow lines - summary offence, fine and points.Those are white in the picture - are they advisory?
In the lining guidance we saw last week, weren't they yellow?
school keep clear last week - yellow. Only enforceable if accompanied by a TRO - many aren't.
As per regs.
Ooops should have left that for DVD and all...
saaby93 said:
School keep clears in this neck of the woods are white 
- advisory?
(and used for setting down)
I'm sure DVD will advise that "white" is not a permitted variant under TSRGD 2002. They should be yellow. White ones are not enforceable or even advisory - they are technically meaningless as they are not recognised traffic signs.- advisory?(and used for setting down)
The police could still turn up and book for inconsiderate driving or stopping, though, whether the lines are there or not.
The markings for Zebra, Pelican and Puffin crossings
are prescribed in the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin
Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General
Directions 1997 (the Pedestrian Crossings
Regulations).
Toucan and equestrian crossings are
marked using diagrams 1001.3, (white zig zags and blk white bars) 1055.1 and 1055.2 (Studs)
prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
Direction 27(2) of TSGD places a prohibition in that drivers are not to stop on the controlled area created by the zig zags except for certain common sense exceptions.
Directions 11 and Reg 7 also states that any prohibition has to be signed in accordance with TSGD.
In this case it is not so signed as a major part of the lines are missing and therefore not as shown in the Diagram 1001.3.
Seems to me Tvrgit that this gives rise to the argument that as not signed correctly and beyond the 'de mininimus' rule (minor departures allowed) then probition does not apply.
dvd
are prescribed in the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin
Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General
Directions 1997 (the Pedestrian Crossings
Regulations).
Toucan and equestrian crossings are
marked using diagrams 1001.3, (white zig zags and blk white bars) 1055.1 and 1055.2 (Studs)
prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
Direction 27(2) of TSGD places a prohibition in that drivers are not to stop on the controlled area created by the zig zags except for certain common sense exceptions.
Directions 11 and Reg 7 also states that any prohibition has to be signed in accordance with TSGD.
In this case it is not so signed as a major part of the lines are missing and therefore not as shown in the Diagram 1001.3.
Seems to me Tvrgit that this gives rise to the argument that as not signed correctly and beyond the 'de mininimus' rule (minor departures allowed) then probition does not apply.
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Seems to me Tvrgit that this gives rise to the argument that as not signed correctly and beyond the 'de mininimus' rule (minor departures allowed) then probition does not apply.
dvd
Yes it may give rise to that argument - or there may be an argument that because of the wording of the offence (ie "approaches to the crossing" rather than "on the zig-zags") the overall message of the zig-zags, in indicating the limits of the overall crossing "zone", may still apply.dvd
I don't get paid enough to be a lawyer, so I don't know how that argument might go in court, if it got that far.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff