Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Overtaking at a pedestrian crossing
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Stenno
So I was pulled over by the police for filtering through a pedestrian crossing during stopped traffic in both directions in Maidenhead. My biggest crime was failing to see the Policeman stood at the roundabout watching laugh.gif however due to the gridlock I was trying to squeeze down the centre line whilst avoiding clipping any mirrors, lesson learnt. tongue.gif

My question is, can I get off on a technicality that there are no zig zag lines down the centre line on the lead up to the pedestrian crossing (even though there are beyond the crossing), or do they not define a pedestrian crossing and thus I was a very naughty boy who shouldn't dream of contesting? Photo below.



Having checked the ZEBRA, PELICAN AND PUFFIN PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS REGULATIONS 1997 they seem to show that there should be a zig zag line on the approach in the centre.

Many thanks.
PASTMYBEST
Try TSRGD 2016 schedule 14 part 2

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made
Jlc
What were you given at the time?

What does it state the offence was?
andy_foster
AIUI the offence would be failing to comply with an indication given by a prescribed sign (s. 36(1) Road Traffic Act 1988) - presumably the indication is question would be not to allow any part of your vehicle to pass the front of the vehicle stopped nearest to the crossing.
If the sign is not prescribed, then the offence is not committed.

N.B. It would probably be prudent to dig up the relevant diagram from TSRGD 2016 before deciding on a course of action.
notmeatloaf
You might trip up on the exact legislation you quoted.

QUOTE
Non-compliance with requirements of this Section

10.—(1) Where, as respects a crossing or controlled area, the requirements of this Section of these Regulations as to the placing of traffic signs and road markings to indicate the crossing or controlled area have not been complied with in every respect, the crossing or, as the case may be, the controlled area shall nevertheless be treated as complying with these Regulations if the non-compliance—

(a)is not such as materially to affect the general appearance of the crossing or the controlled area;

(b)does not, in the case of a Pelican or Puffin crossing, affect the proper operation of the vehicular and pedestrian signals at the crossing; and

©does not relate to the size of the controlled area.

(2) Nothing in any other provision of these Regulations shall be taken to restrict the generality of paragraph (1).


Although as others have said it depends on what offence(s) you were warned that you may be prosecuted for by the policeman, and/or what it said on any documentation he gave you. Nowadays it is pretty common for the police to fill out a Traffic Offence Report and then someone in an office to decide how to progress it.
andy_foster
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 5 Mar 2017 - 20:36) *
You might trip up on the exact legislation you quoted.

QUOTE
Non-compliance with requirements of this Section

10.—(1) Where, as respects a crossing or controlled area, the requirements of this Section of these Regulations as to the placing of traffic signs and road markings to indicate the crossing or controlled area have not been complied with in every respect, the crossing or, as the case may be, the controlled area shall nevertheless be treated as complying with these Regulations if the non-compliance—

(a) is not such as materially to affect the general appearance of the crossing or the controlled area;

(b) does not, in the case of a Pelican or Puffin crossing, affect the proper operation of the vehicular and pedestrian signals at the crossing; and

© does not relate to the size of the controlled area.

(2) Nothing in any other provision of these Regulations shall be taken to restrict the generality of paragraph (1).


Although as others have said it depends on what offence(s) you were warned that you may be prosecuted for by the policeman, and/or what it said on any documentation he gave you. Nowadays it is pretty common for the police to fill out a Traffic Offence Report and then someone in an office to decide how to progress it.


If you are on a motorcycle, riding pretty much along the straight broken white lines separating the lanes of traffic, which obscure the zigzag lines, I would say that the non-compliance does materially affect the appearance of the controlled area.
Stenno
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 5 Mar 2017 - 18:57) *
What were you given at the time?

What does it state the offence was?


I'm awaiting the fixed penalty or offer of the 6hr and £95 RIDE awareness course.

The offence wrritten down is ZP97005 "overtake on approaching crossing".
666
Schedule 4 of the ZPP etc. Regs says:

"3.—(1) Where a crossing is on a two-way street the road markings to indicate each controlled area and stop line shall consist of ...

(b)two or more longitudinal zig-zag lines or, in the case of a road having more than one carriageway, two or more such lines on each carriageway, each zig-zag line containing not less than 8 nor more than 18 marks and extending away from the crossing."

And "2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the limits of a crossing on a two-way street and of its controlled areas and stop lines shall be indicated by road markings consisting of lines and studs on the carriageway of the size and type shown

(a)in diagram 1 where there is no central reservation;"

So diagram 1 (as in the above post) does not define the number of lines, and the crossing in question appears to be compliant.
Logician
The width of the road may be of significance in view of :
2. The central zig-zag line may be reversed, or where the road is not more than 6 metres wide, may be omitted
facade
Wait and see what the offence is.
The regulations are specific about passing the vehicle nearest to the crossing that has stopped to allow pedestrians to cross, or because of the red light.
If the traffic is gridlocked, then you could argue that this is not the case.

(The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997: Section IV 24, refers back to 23,25 & 26)

QUOTE
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.


Clearly only the vehicle nearest the crossing is stopped because of the red light, or to allow pedestrians to complete their crossing, everyone else is stopped because of the vehicle in front.
PASTMYBEST
ZPP revoked by TSRGD 2016 see schedule 19


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/19/made
DancingDad
Question is, is the cop alleging that you were overtaking vehicles within the controlled area or that you overtook the lead vehicle on the approach?
That is the vehicle closest to the crossing when you overtook.

TSRGD16 Schedule 14 Part 1 (15)

Overtaking vehicles on the approach isn't a contravention.
Overtaking the lead vehicle is.
southpaw82
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 6 Mar 2017 - 15:33) *
Question is, is the cop alleging that you were overtaking vehicles within the controlled area or that you overtook the lead vehicle on the approach?
That is the vehicle closest to the crossing when you overtook.

TSRGD16 Schedule 14 Part 1 (15)

Overtaking vehicles on the approach isn't a contravention.
Overtaking the lead vehicle is.

What about

QUOTE
6.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (“the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a section 25 crossing controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing to which the controlled area relates, the driver of the vehicle must not cause it or any part of it to pass ahead of the foremost part of—

(a) any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction
andy_foster
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 6 Mar 2017 - 17:48) *
What about

QUOTE
6.—(1) Whilst any motor vehicle (“the approaching vehicle”) or any part of it is within the limits of a section 25 crossing controlled area and is proceeding towards the crossing to which the controlled area relates, the driver of the vehicle must not cause it or any part of it to pass ahead of the foremost part of—

(a) any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction



Where is that from?
facade
Must be from the TSGRD16 version, as it is number 6, not 24.

Reads the same as the 1997 version I quoted, except the 1997 goes on to explain in the paragraph below that "any other motor vehicle" actually means the one nearest the crossing.

I cannot find the new version, all the links I follow go into great detail about the markings, not the act of overtaking, and the online Highway code still refers to the 1997 I quoted.
Logician
The Wording in TRSGD 2016 Sch 14 is the same as the 1997 version:

Zig-zag lines in a signal-controlled crossing facility controlled area

15.—(1) Without prejudice to paragraph 14, a zig-zag line in a signal-controlled crossing facility controlled area conveys the requirement that, whilst any motor vehicle (“the approaching vehicle”), or any part of it, is within the limits of the controlled area and is proceeding towards the signal-controlled crossing facility to which the controlled area relates, the driver of the vehicle must not cause it or any part of it to pass ahead of the foremost part of—

(a) any other motor vehicle proceeding in the same direction
.

(b) a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) the reference to a motor vehicle in 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 signal-controlled crossing facility crossing to which the controlled area relates; 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 the indication given by a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic, a reference to the stationary vehicle nearest the signal-controlled crossing facility to which the controlled area relates.



So in answer to SP's question, "any other vehicle" in sub-para 1 is given a restricted meaning in sub-para 2
DancingDad
QUOTE (facade @ Mon, 6 Mar 2017 - 18:39) *
Must be from the TSGRD16 version, as it is number 6, not 24.

Reads the same as the 1997 version I quoted, except the 1997 goes on to explain in the paragraph below that "any other motor vehicle" actually means the one nearest the crossing.

I cannot find the new version, all the links I follow go into great detail about the markings, not the act of overtaking, and the online Highway code still refers to the 1997 I quoted.


Logican quoted it, Schedule 14 and keep scrolling.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/14/made

Note, there are two sections that relate to crossing Zig Zags
Part 1(15) that relates to Signal Controlled Crossings and is the case here

Then Part 5(6) which relates to Zebra Crossings and is the section SP alluded to.

Wording is the same in both, both include the definition of "any vehicle" to restrict it to the one nearest the crossing.

TBH I work on the do not overtake anything within ZZs (unless on two lane carriageway) but the law states different.

And that difference may be critical to the OP.
TonyS
QUOTE (Stenno @ Sun, 5 Mar 2017 - 18:45) *
So I was pulled over by the police for filtering through a pedestrian crossing during stopped traffic in both directions in Maidenhead. My biggest crime was failing to see the Policeman stood at the roundabout watching laugh.gif however due to the gridlock I was trying to squeeze down the centre line whilst avoiding clipping any mirrors, lesson learnt.

According to the original post he was overtaking stationary vehicles, is that the case? And if so was the relevant vehicle "stationary for the purpose of complying with a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic"?

A situation that I see every day is where congestion further on beyond the crossing means that traffic is at a standstill at the crossing, even when the lights for the crossing are green.
Stenno
So I've not read anything to suggest I have any chance of getting off of the charge due to any technicality regarding the zig zag lines so I guess I will just take the charge on the chin.

On my way to work today on my motorbike I obeyed the law and stopped before the lead vehicle at a Pelican crossing despite a green light. For 30 seconds I felt ridiculous and I imagine a few car drivers wondered if I was colour blind. Thankfully no other bikes came along to see me being a stickler.
peterguk
QUOTE (Stenno @ Wed, 8 Mar 2017 - 18:04) *
For 30 seconds I felt ridiculous


But also felt good you knew you were not breaking the law.
facade
QUOTE (Stenno @ Wed, 8 Mar 2017 - 18:04) *
So I've not read anything to suggest I have any chance of getting off of the charge due to any technicality regarding the zig zag lines so I guess I will just take the charge on the chin.



But several of us, (some are motorcyclists,) read the regulation as clearly forbidding overtaking the leading vehicle if, and only if, it is moving, or has stopped at the line because of the light signals not being green. If the light is green, and it is stationary due to gridlock, you can therefore pass it. If this was the case, you can contest the ticket in court as it is wrongly issued if it is for overtaking within the controlled area.

I may have in the past trundled merrily past gridlocked traffic that extends over a light controlled crossing in the belief that it is perfectly legal to do so when the light is green. (extra care at the crossing in case pedestrians dart across despite the red man)

However, when the traffic is moving very slowly in short bursts, I stay alongside the leading vehicle, and go over the crossing with him, passing him on the other side of the crossing.
BB Law
Facade - I think your post hits the nail on the head.

This case stated appeal dealt with the issue - Brooks v Blackpool Borough Council

BB Law represented Mr Brooks during both his magistrates' court trial (we took over from another firm after an initial cock up) and we also dealt with the case stated appeal. My skeleton argument is currently published on BB Law's website here Fail to comply with pedestrian crossing regulations. It may help the OP to argue how the regulation should be interpreted.

As long as the officer confirms the overtaken vehicles were stationary then the OP should have a defence to a charge of failing to comply with pedestrian crossing regulations. However, I would be a little nervous about the prospect of the prosecution charging it as careless driving or driving without reasonable consideration, although from the facts the OP has described he would seem to have a decent argument that neither of these offences are made out. Plus it might be argued that the NIP requirements have not been met for careless driving / inconsiderate driving.

Note: the regulations may have been updated/replaced since the case of Brooks (2013) and so it would be important to check whether the wording remains the same.

BB Law
DancingDad
QUOTE (BB Law @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 01:11) *
......Note: the regulations may have been updated/replaced since the case of Brooks (2013) and so it would be important to check whether the wording remains the same.

BB Law


Wording still specifically uses "proceeding" and limits "stationary" to "a vehicle which is stationary for the purpose of complying with a traffic light signal for controlling vehicular traffic."
mickR
What was the considered opinion on the zig zags being omitted from one side of the crossing? Are they compliant?
peterguk
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:34) *
What was the considered opinion on the zig zags being omitted from one side of the crossing? Are they compliant?


Looking at OP's photo of the crossing, there is no centre island, so only one crossing. Photo shows zig zags on either side. wacko.gif
mickR
Yes markings are inconsistant, if regs require carridgeways over 16mts wide (looks lik it to me if not why are they the other side of crossing?) mark each side of each direction then surely they are not compliant
Logician
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:41) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:34) *
What was the considered opinion on the zig zags being omitted from one side of the crossing? Are they compliant?
Looking at OP's photo of the crossing, there is no centre island, so only one crossing. Photo shows zig zags on either side. wacko.gif


The original question from the OP concerned the fact that on the far side of the crossing there are zig-zags in the centre of the road, but none on the near side of the crossing. On the far side there are at least two pedestrian refuges and zig-zags beside them on the centre line, which have been continued beyond the refuges as far as the crossing itself.

mickR
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:41) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:34) *
What was the considered opinion on the zig zags being omitted from one side of the crossing? Are they compliant?


Looking at OP's photo of the crossing, there is no centre island, so only one crossing. Photo shows zig zags on either side. wacko.gif


I meant fron the centre of the carridgeway

QUOTE (Logician @ Sat, 11 Mar 2017 - 14:58) *
The original question from the OP concerned the fact that on the far side of the crossing there are zig-zags in the centre of the road, but none on the near side of the crossing. On the far side there are at least two pedestrian refuges and zig-zags beside them on the centre line, which have been continued beyond the refuges as far as the crossing itself.


I understand that but thought if thd carridgeway was 16m or over there had to bd centre lines. Would it also require a centre refuge then?
Stenno
Thanks for all of the replies. The BROOKS test case was an interesting read and I've shared it with others to help with some clarification of the law, if only as interpreted by that magistrate.

For the sake of £98 and a 6hr education course I figured I would just take it on the chin rather than challenge right now.

Thanks again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.