Speed Humps vs Pelican Crossings
Discussion
I recently came across a peice of road engineering that beggars belief. There is a road in Edinburgh, near Inverlieth, that is a notorious rat run, and the council have placed about four speed humps (more like ramps) along it. There is a school on the road, so I won't necessarily bitch about it. However, they have placed a new Pelican crossing BETWEEN the humps. Now that really is dumb. The humps are wide enough to take a full width crossing, so why not put the crossing on a hump. Irresponsible drivers will speed up between humps, and are forced to slow for the hump, so surely it makes sense to combine the two.
Is there a legal reason why they cannot combine a hump with a pelican crossing, or is it just too easy?
Is there a legal reason why they cannot combine a hump with a pelican crossing, or is it just too easy?
A great potential danger that comes with putting pedestrain crossings in speed bumps (or other raised sections) is thatpedestrains can then think that all speed bumps / rasied sections are crossings - requiring the motorist to give way to them.
I posted this tale some time ago in the thread www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=61959, but reproduce it for ease of reading.
"Outside Farnham Railway Station in Surrey there is a speed bump. It has white triangles painted on it. It does not have pedestrian crossing lights of any kind.
Yet many pedestrians have stepped off the footway in front of my car and other cars as if the speed bump was a pedestrian crossing and they had the right of way. In such cases I usually give them an 'audible warning of approach" (air horns) and in reply they usually indicate that they have heard it with both ears!
But on one glorious occasion ...
As I approached, a man stepped off the footway on my off-side and a car coming in the opposite direction stopped to let them cross. I, however, continued at moderate speed over the speed bump, giving the pedestrian a melodious tootle on the horn as I did so. A few seconds later the car that had stopped appeared in my mirrors with flashing blue lights on the roof and an altogether different horn sound blaring. It was one of Surrey's marked 'Area Cars' (BTW - I had recognised it as such at the time). I stopped and waited. The 'observer' (a sergeant) arrived at my window demanding to know why I had failed to stop at a pedestrian crossing! I pointed out that it was not a pedestrian crossing but he insisted that it was. I requested to be shown the evidence for this and returned (in the police car, at my request) to the scene of the so-called 'incident'. The officer and I got out (to the interest of a small crowd and the delight of the person who had been crossing the road at the time). The 'observer' pointed out that the speed bump had white lines painted on it and therefore was a pedestrian crossing. I pointed out that the lines were triangles not white bars alternating with black tarmac in equal divisions (as for a pedestrian crossing) and were entirely in keeping with the indicative markings for a speed bump. The officer drew my attention to the fact that the 'crossing' joined one 'drop' in the footway on one side of the road with a corresponding 'drop' on the other. I pointed out that the drops existed before the speed bump was installed and neither contributed to nor changed the purpose of the speed bump. I also pointed out the absence of pedestrian crossing lights. I further pointed out that this was a private road (the property of Railtrack at the time, and gated at one end - which gate is closed by 'Railtrack' from time to time to maintain the private status of the road) and therefore any alleged crossing would have no standing under the Road Traffic Acts and, even if it were a pedestrian crossing, Surrey Police would have no immediate jurisdiction over it in any 'incident' such as was alleged.
With that he looked a little puzzled and called 'Control' on his radio and (I presume) spoke to a (more) senior officer. After a while, he returned and 'apologised', explaining that he had been informed that I was correct. I asked whether he was going to speak to the pedestrian (who was still in the small crowd) in regard to his stepping off the footway without regard to his safety or that of other road users (ie. me). "No." replied the sergeant. I then asked whether they would be so kind as to give me a lift back to my car. "F
k off!" he replied, then added, "And don't worry, I've got your number, and I'll be watching out for you!". I traded the car in for my Jeep two days later (a planned sale)!"
Streaky
I posted this tale some time ago in the thread www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=61959, but reproduce it for ease of reading.
"Outside Farnham Railway Station in Surrey there is a speed bump. It has white triangles painted on it. It does not have pedestrian crossing lights of any kind.
Yet many pedestrians have stepped off the footway in front of my car and other cars as if the speed bump was a pedestrian crossing and they had the right of way. In such cases I usually give them an 'audible warning of approach" (air horns) and in reply they usually indicate that they have heard it with both ears!
But on one glorious occasion ...
As I approached, a man stepped off the footway on my off-side and a car coming in the opposite direction stopped to let them cross. I, however, continued at moderate speed over the speed bump, giving the pedestrian a melodious tootle on the horn as I did so. A few seconds later the car that had stopped appeared in my mirrors with flashing blue lights on the roof and an altogether different horn sound blaring. It was one of Surrey's marked 'Area Cars' (BTW - I had recognised it as such at the time). I stopped and waited. The 'observer' (a sergeant) arrived at my window demanding to know why I had failed to stop at a pedestrian crossing! I pointed out that it was not a pedestrian crossing but he insisted that it was. I requested to be shown the evidence for this and returned (in the police car, at my request) to the scene of the so-called 'incident'. The officer and I got out (to the interest of a small crowd and the delight of the person who had been crossing the road at the time). The 'observer' pointed out that the speed bump had white lines painted on it and therefore was a pedestrian crossing. I pointed out that the lines were triangles not white bars alternating with black tarmac in equal divisions (as for a pedestrian crossing) and were entirely in keeping with the indicative markings for a speed bump. The officer drew my attention to the fact that the 'crossing' joined one 'drop' in the footway on one side of the road with a corresponding 'drop' on the other. I pointed out that the drops existed before the speed bump was installed and neither contributed to nor changed the purpose of the speed bump. I also pointed out the absence of pedestrian crossing lights. I further pointed out that this was a private road (the property of Railtrack at the time, and gated at one end - which gate is closed by 'Railtrack' from time to time to maintain the private status of the road) and therefore any alleged crossing would have no standing under the Road Traffic Acts and, even if it were a pedestrian crossing, Surrey Police would have no immediate jurisdiction over it in any 'incident' such as was alleged.
With that he looked a little puzzled and called 'Control' on his radio and (I presume) spoke to a (more) senior officer. After a while, he returned and 'apologised', explaining that he had been informed that I was correct. I asked whether he was going to speak to the pedestrian (who was still in the small crowd) in regard to his stepping off the footway without regard to his safety or that of other road users (ie. me). "No." replied the sergeant. I then asked whether they would be so kind as to give me a lift back to my car. "F
k off!" he replied, then added, "And don't worry, I've got your number, and I'll be watching out for you!". I traded the car in for my Jeep two days later (a planned sale)!" Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff