I’m getting mixed signals here, who has the right of way? Pedestrians or cars?
Posted Apr 15, 2023, 10:29 AM UTC
2756
Is it also a bike lane?
49
Cyclists should treat it as 'give way'. Pedestrians should treat it as a regular crossing.
The reason is quite straightforward:
Pedestrians travel slowly and will usually stop to look before stepping onto a crossing. They aren't traveling with momentum. Drivers will notice them approaching and stop to give way.
Cyclists travel faster than pedestrians, and if they approach the crossing at speed without stopping to check for cars, the chances of an accident are increased . Cyclists have to understand and follow the rules of the road, so it can be reasonably expected of them to understand the 'give way' markings.
Drivers should, of course, stop to give way for anyone waiting to use the crossing, and certainly for any cyclists or pedestrians already on the crossing. The scenario that needs to be avoided is having a cyclist approach and continue over the crossing at speed, without slowing down, just as a car is passing.
Imagine being a driver approaching the crossing. There are no pedestrians in sight, so you proceed straight ahead. Suddenly an unseen cyclist emerges onto the crossing from behind the bush, traveling at 10-15mph, directly into the path of your vehicle. Who's fault is it?
23
I get what you’re saying, but only for the sake of argument: shouldn’t cyclists dismount when crossing (unless it’s a toucan crossing, which it is not) in theory?
6
If it's a cycle path then I don't think they're required to dismount. In which case, more the reason for the give way lines to make sure that cyclists stop to check for passing traffic.
Edit: I've had a little search and I think that technically the correct procedure for cyclists is to dismount before crossing. In practice I think it makes sense to just stop and look before cycling across.
8
You're wrong that drivers need to stop to give way to cyclists on the zebra, they only need to do that for pedestrians, hence the give way lines for the benefit of cyclists.
3
Yeah, after a quick read up I realise that technically cyclists should dismount before crossing (at which point they become pedestrians).
Drivers should, however, stop for any obstacle in their path regardless of the existence of a crossing, and whether it be a pedestrian or a cyclist or even an inanimate object. That's more what I was getting at.
3
However this is not a proper zebra crossing as there is no belisha beacon. Would imagine this is a shopping centre or similar so most of thrroad traffic acts don't apply. Wouldn't like to try and sort it out in the aftermath.
3
So if someone gets off their bicycle and pushes it to the crossing, are they then a pedestrian and drivers have to give way?
Edit: never mind, someone states elsewhere that they then are pedestrians, apparently. I wasn't looking for an argument, just seems a bit odd. On the bicycle cars don't need to stop. Pushing the bicycle they do.
1
You've been conned by the stripey floor into thinking this is a zebra crossing, but unless it has Belisha beacons this is not the case.
The give way markers are simply to indicate that cars have right is way and you should stop before crossing the road (on foot or on a bike).
I suspect it's due to limited visibility.
1
these look like markings for bike lanes maybe?
never seen road markings on a pedestrian walkway
22
In theory pedestrians.
In practice you need to be careful because there are too many shit drivers.
Edit: also it's pointless expecting non-drivers to know what road markings mean.
12
Agreed - lots of drivers blow through zebra crossings, including a couple whilst I was on the crossing itself !
1
Zebras - with all due respect, this is basic knowledge.
11
So. In your opinion, what is the meaning of the pavement markings? Or are you just ignoring them?
2
I've had a little look - & am of course willing to be corrected if need be - but it'd seem that they're there to indicate to the cyclists on the path that they must give way to the traffic on the carriageway, as per this legislation:
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 9, Part 7, Paragraph 8
Pedestrians, however, still have right of way, as with any Zebra crossing.
I also found this paper, which says the following:
'It is not illegal to cycle across a Zebra crossing if there is shared-use to either side, but it is contrary to Rule 64 of the Highway Code which states that cyclists should dismount and walk across Zebra crossings. Breach of the highway code could be used as evidence of an offence, e.g. cycling dangerously, or of evidence of negligence in the event of a collision. [To date, there is insufficient evidence to suggest a change in Rule 64 of the Highway Code is needed and it is therefore not TfL’s intention to pursue this aspect]'
So, the 'give way' markings immediately before the Zebra crossing presumably take precedence over it for the cyclists on the path, which makes for a fairly confusing layout, considering some say you're not really supposed to ride across, although most cyclists do & TfL generally don't get pernickety about it, afaik.
2
I mean, I agree, I just can’t see the point of the yield sign and road markings then.
1
“To be legally compliant in the UK, every zebra crossing must be equipped with two Belisha beacons.”
I see no such beacons.
1
I did think about that, but from the same legislation, Schedule 14, Part 1, Paragraph 25, Clause 3 we have 'In relation to a Zebra or Parallel crossing which only crosses a cycle track, a yellow globe (provided for at item 27 of the Part 2 sign table) is not required.'
Don't get me wrong, it's somewhat labyrinthine to sift through this shit.
The Belisha beacon wiki links to this legislation via citation 7, but it's an outdated page - thankfully, though, the link preview provided the navigation to the relevant clause on the current page.
1
This isn't a zebra crossing as there are no Belisha beacons.
It's just a stripey floor. As such, cars have right of way.
1
There are ‘give way’ markings on the pavement though. That’s what the backwards arrow and dotted double line means.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-markings.html
I would still always assume the zebra crossing has priority but it makes no sense to me the give way marking is there. They can’t co-exist!
-1†
Pretty sure OP is making a joke that zebras (the animal) have priority because this is a zebra crossing. Maybe not though.
5
I was, yes, with the confidence that many others would almost certainly provide serious replies.
As echoed elsewhere, priority is for pedestrians, but be cautious regardless, for errant drivers (& these bastards).
5
Damn, I didn’t get it…
I’ll go downvote myself and see myself out.
2
Haha. Good joke if so. Perhaps a little subtle.
-2†
Shared pedestrian and cycle lane. Pedestrians have priority crossing based on highway code and cars must stop when you are on the crossing (not approaching), same for cycles. The give way lines are there to encourage cyclists to slow and stop to give drivers a chance to stop before they zip over. That just looks like an argument waiting to happen and be ranted about online
6
It's not "same for cycles" unless it's a dual use pedestrian and cycle zebra, which this one isn't - there are only a few of them in the country. Therefore there's no requirement for drivers to accord precedence to cyclists on a zebra.
1
So just plough them down then?
Says nothing about requirements to stop for dogs either so fuck em huh
0†
Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and must give way at a Zebra.
4
I don’t see any Belisha beacons though.
1
Looks like a redway, is this in Milton Keynes? I believe the pedestrian would have the right of way, but you should always make sure the cars are actually stopping for you before you cross. You would be surprised how often people just dart out into crossings out of nowhere and expect cars to do an emergency stop for them.
4
It is in Milton Keynes yes (sign says left to Woburn Sands, right to Northampton M1)
3
You don’t have to stop unless they on the crossing.
-1
Cars, if they had the flashing lights like a zebra crossing then the cars would treat it like a traffic light on Amber, there are no lights so it's just a marking for people to cross and to let drivers know people cross here.
That what I was taught 12 years ago learning to drive
3
Thanks, been looking for this comment.
-1
This is Milton Keynes, probably Kingston? That's a Redway, the give way is for the cyclists, not pedestrians.
3
Spot on. And yeah, as someone who walks a lot but doesn’t really cycle (or drive), I didn’t think about cyclists in this case.
2
This looks like it's off the public highway somewhere, like in a retail park. It's definitely not a TSRGD compliant zebra crossing as there are no Belisha beacons, no zigzag markings and no tactile paving.
The give way markings are most likely intended for cyclists. If it was a "real" zebra crossing then yes pedestrians would have priority on the crossing.
Edit: it's here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o1mS3mJjjYRbVoTC9
That seems to be in a retail park so really all bets are off.
3
Remind me not to play GeoGuessr with you! And yeah, as you and many others have pointed out, it seems like it’s for cyclists, whom I didn’t even consider as someone who who walks 99.9% of the time.
1
The moment i saw the picture i knew it was Milton Keynes lol
Redway's here are shared between pedestrians and cyclists so any similar markings like that are likely to be of benefit to cyclists.
Glad you managed to have your query answered!
3
It's also a bike lane/cycle way. Bikes and pedestrians have right of way, cars should stop. But the bike and walker should stop and look, particularly as car drivers can be Pratt's.
Other answer:anyone who needs a burger in a hurry.
2
the dashed lines are for bikes. Pedestrians have right of way but bikes are required to stop before they cross.
2
[deleted]
1
Pedestrians. I’m pretty sure the markings are for people on bikes.
1
Yes
1
I think the markings are for cycling.
1
The only question I have is, is it adopted highway or privately owned?
1
This is Milton Keynes, so it’s a reminder to cyclists that they’ll get run over if they ride straight out onto the crossings. The cars should stop for them but it’s easier to stop safely when you’re not anchoring on because a bike has appeared from nowhere.
1
Guessing the give way markings might be for the benefit of cyclists rather than pedestrians?
That’s plausible.
This is what I'm thinking; cars give way to pedestrians, cyclist give way to vehicles. Buts it's a rathe Rodd way of doing things, and clearly poorly designed.