PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Zebra Crossing Question, The Law.
Ziggyplayedguita...
post Sun, 19 Jun 2022 - 08:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 90
Joined: 16 Jan 2021
Member No.: 111,260



The law states that "You Must stop at a Zebra Crossing for waiting Pedestrians"....True or False??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 43)
Advertisement
post Sun, 19 Jun 2022 - 08:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Glitch
post Sat, 25 Jun 2022 - 07:26
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,364
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
From: Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 40,127



My wife got a PCN when purely through a coincidence of timing as our son walked onto a ped xing outside Leytonstone tube station causing her to stop and let him cross.
Half way across he approached her car, opened the passenger door and got in.

I argued that she had no option but to give way and couldn't safely move because of the danger to pedestrians. She hadn't deliberately stopped to pick him up. The adjudicator saw it differently but what else could the wife have done? Lock the doors and drive off leaving him in the road? Appeal thankfully allowed on a technicality.

Does the law allow you to ignore pedestrians outside of the crossing area - which I think is within the broken white line either side of the black and white bit?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 25 Jun 2022 - 09:12
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Glitch @ Sat, 25 Jun 2022 - 08:26) *
........
Does the law allow you to ignore pedestrians outside of the crossing area - which I think is within the broken white line either side of the black and white bit?

The limits of the crossing is generally shown by the black and white stripes...there can be small, square, white dotted lines just outside.
The broken whiote "give way" line is further away and not the boundary of the crossing.
Not that I'd want to be pedantic if a pedestrian was cutting a corner and stepped off of the stripes.
Once someone is not within the limits there is no legal obligation to give way to them, you can treat passing them or waiting or whatever exactly the same as a pedestrian anywhere on the normal carriageway.

Extreme example
A pedestrian steps onto the crossing on the far side of the carriageway.
You being the good, careful, law abiding driver wot you are, stops at the give way line, ceding precedence to the pedestrian crossing towards you.
The pedestrian gets to the centreline of the carriageway and turns right, walking away from you down the road.
Leaving the limits of the crossing.
You no longer must wait, you can continue on your way, passing the pedestrian, with care.
Even if they decide to turn again and continue crossing, they have no right to expect you to stop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 10:28
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 25 Jun 2022 - 10:12) *
Even if they decide to turn again and continue crossing, they have no right to expect you to stop.

I disagree, what they don't have is a right to expect you to expect to have to stop for them. But if you can you still have to stop if failure to do so would cause a collision.

QUOTE (Glitch @ Sat, 25 Jun 2022 - 08:26) *
Appeal thankfully allowed on a technicality.

Out of interest, what was the technicality?

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 10:27


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Glitch
post Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 15:05
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,364
Joined: 28 Aug 2010
From: Centre of the Universe
Member No.: 40,127



I had to search for the case summary to remind myself!

The Appellant also calls into question the validity of the procedural steps undertaken by the Enforcement Authority.

Essentially claiming to have considered initial reps that just said 'see attached' and there were no attachments!

QUOTE
The Appellant indicated the manner of his initial representation: an on-line submission in the details box of which the Appellant referred the recipient to read 'attachments.' The Appellant had typed out his representation and attached that, together with other documentation, by way of PDF documents which he took time and trouble to upload to accompany the on-line form.

The Appellant therefore asserts that the Notice of Rejection, containing the emboldened sentence that the PDF attachments were not received, establishes that his representations could not possibly have been "carefully considered" as stated in the first paragraph of the Notice of Rejection, because in the absence of those attachments the only words readable by the Enforcement Authority would have been "see attached."

I note that the correspondence file in the Evidence Pack is devoid of the Appellant's initial representation; indeed it omits the Appellant's subsequent attempt to re-send his representation although it includes the Enforcement Authority's letter in response.

An Appellant's initial representation is an item requisite for inclusion in the case papers, even if that is by way of on-line submission.

The Appellant's Formal Representation deserved proper consideration; the Enforcement Authority cannot deem the words "see attachments" as such, the sender should have been alerted in order to re-submit the representations by other means. I find that the premature issue of a Notice of Rejection to demonstrate that the Enforcement Authority had not accorded requisite consideration to the Appellant's representations as it is obliged so to do.

I conclude that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a 'procedural impropriety' on the part of the Enforcement Authority.

In this context, 'procedural impropriety' means a failure by the Enforcement Authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the Traffic Management act 2004 or Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if I conclude that a Ground specified in Regulation 4(4) applies I shall Allow the Appeal.

This Appeal is allowed.


This post has been edited by Glitch: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 - 15:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here