Zebra crossings?

my3cents

This is a small annoyance of mine and I've no idea if I'm even right to be annoyed so I thought I'd ask here what the actual rules are for drivers and zebra crossings?

What I always do is wait until the crossing is clear before I drive over a zebra crossing, however what I notice most drivers doing is wait till the section of the road in front of them is clear but the pedestrians are still on the crossing and then drive across.

To explain further I could walk up to a pedestrian crossing and cars on both sides of the road stop for be but when I'm half way across the car I've already walked in front of will then drive on while I finish crossing.

So are drivers supposed to wait till the crossing is clear even if there is no chance of them hitting the person that is on the other side of the road but still on the crossing?

MadDog76

I'm not sure of the rules myself, I assume the driver is supposed to wait until the crossing is completely clear ........ but, come on, what difference does it really make to you as a pedestrian? The car stopped, you got to cross safely and the driver gets on with his journey ......... everybody's happy ....... or should be!

GM228

This is all the law has to say about it:-

Traffic and Parking Regulations 1997 (as amended):-

8(6) A driver of a vehicle approaching a zebra pedestrian crossing where traffic sign number RPC 001 (zebra pedestrian crossing) is provided shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian who has commenced crossing the road at the zebra pedestrian crossing.

GBX

So if they are passed your car why not carry on as long as it's safe to do so. No big deal. Just a peeve of yours OP.

iguana

I imagine it's ok to drive on if the pedestrian has passed you but you'd want to be 100% sure the way is clear. In cases where the crossing is broken by a traffic island between the lanes of traffic my driving instructor told me that they are effectively two separate crossings.

my3cents

GM228 wrote: »

This is all the law has to say about it:-

Traffic and Parking Regulations 1997 (as amended):-

Thats interesting. I had looked (googled) before posting the question and couldn't find a definitive answer and it seems there may not be one to be found.

my3cents

GBX wrote: »

So if they are passed your car why not carry on as long as it's safe to do so. No big deal. Just a peeve of yours OP.

Indeed, but I have noticed drivers getting more aggressive in moving forward so some will start when the pedestrian is still in front of them so they just about drive over the pedestrians heels.

Locally you have to add cyclists into the mix as we have lots of "zebra crossings" that are part of cycle ways and cyclists seeing cars stopped for a pedestrian can be a lot quicker getting onto a crossing than drivers expect.

kirving

The driver should wait until the crossing is completely clear. Completely understand the OP's point, where aggressive drivers pass very close behind pedestrians who have only just crossed out of that lane.

GM228

my3cents wrote: »

Thats interesting. I had looked (googled) before posting the question and couldn't find a definitive answer and it seems there may not be one to be found.

That's the only thing written about them on the books, anything else you may find would simply be a suggestion or recommendation on how to act as opposed to a legal rule.

MadDog76

Kevin Irving wrote: »

The driver should wait until the crossing is completely clear. Completely understand the OP's point, where aggressive drivers pass very close behind pedestrians who have only just crossed out of that lane.

Why exactly?

Tell me how

MadDog76 wrote:

Why exactly?

It's bordering on being pedantic, I know, but my view is to let the finish passing based on the following scenario.

What happens if a pedestrian had passed half of the crossing and then suddenly realises they forgot something and turn sharply back in the direction they came from. They were on the crossing thus "in control of it" and wouldn't expect to see a car driving on to it.

So, like yourself OP, I'm generally inclined to let them finish crossing. For larger roads with some sort of an island in the middle, I do drive on once they've passed my side.

Think the law in such a case would generally involve a discussion around "driving with due care and attention".

Muhammed_1

What happens if a person keeps on crossing back and forwards?

Are they committing an offence?

What if a group of people conspire amongst themselves to keep a crossing occupied?

It seems to me that the cars would have no choice but to yield.

Could the Guards prevent this behaviour?
On what grounds?




It's similar to how some people think that a car canot be undertaken in any circumstances. What happens if a person drives in the rightmost lane at 50km/h on the M50?
Must all traffic travel below that speed?

Some people say yes as a car cannot be undertaken.

redbel05

When I was learning to drive, I was reprimanded by my driving instructor for doing what the op said, ie. driving on once the pedestrian had left my lane, but not finished crossing the road.

He told me that the only time that you can do this is where there is an island in the centre. In which case you treat it as if it were two separate zebra crossings.

my3cents

redbel05 wrote: »

When I was learning to drive, I was reprimanded by my driving instructor for doing what the op said, ie. driving on once the pedestrian had left my lane, but not finished crossing the road.

He told me that the only time that you can do this is where there is an island in the centre. In which case you treat it as if it were two separate zebra crossings.

Thats how I was taught but my lessons where 40 years ago in the UK so I've no idea what is taught here.

From the point of view of passing a test I would totally agree with your driving instructor, but once you have passed it seems there isn't any law that specifically says thats the way it should be done.

kirving

MadDog76 wrote: »

Why exactly?

Because it's only a single zebra crossing, so the pedestrian still has control of it.

Take the reverse scenario, but is exactly the same from the pedestrians point of view - do you think it's okay to drive through your side of the crossing before the pedestrian has reached that side?

An island in the middle and it's a different story of course.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Special Circumstances

redbel05 wrote: »

When I was learning to drive, I was reprimanded by my driving instructor for doing what the op said, ie. driving on once the pedestrian had left my lane, but not finished crossing the road.

He told me that the only time that you can do this is where there is an island in the centre. In which case you treat it as if it were two separate zebra crossings.

Some instructors spout awful rubbish though.

"If you're parking facing down a hill put the car in reverse or first if you are facing up a hill but NEVER first if you you're facing down the hill or reverse if you are facing up"

"You should indicate right if going for the twelve of clock exit on the standard 4 point roundabout"

Etc etc.

my3cents

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Some instructors spout awful rubbish though.

"If you're parking facing down a hill put the car in reverse or first if you are facing up a hill but NEVER first if you you're facing down the hill or reverse if you are facing up"

"You should indicate right if going for the twelve of clock exit on the standard 4 point roundabout"

Etc etc.

I don't think the instructor was wrong in this case. Would you on a test drive across a zebra crossing when their was someone still on it?

Special Circumstances

my3cents wrote: »

I don't think the instructor was wrong in this case. Would you on a test drive across a zebra crossing when their was someone still on it?

I wouldn't be sitting there revving it ready to launch it the minute the pedestrians heel left "my" half of the road.
Likewise, would I always 100% wait until the person had fully departed the crossing on the other side... no.

It's one of these grey areas like disabling or removing emissions control equipment on a diesel engine. Really you shouldn't but who's really going to stop you up over it?

I'm just saying... driving instructor "facts" would historically have been somewhere between taxi driver "facts" and pubtalk.
Not sure if they go through any formal training themselves in more modern times? Off topic I suppose.

Oh... a test drive. Of course I would drive all the time exactly as I would on a test drive. For shizzle.

MadDog76

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Because it's only a single zebra crossing, so the pedestrian still has control of it.

Take the reverse scenario, but is exactly the same from the pedestrians point of view - do you think it's okay to drive through your side of the crossing before the pedestrian has reached that side?

An island in the middle and it's a different story of course.

The Law is unclear on the issue so I think I'll continue to use reasonable logic, ie. proceed when it's safe to do so.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

The Law is unclear on the issue so I think I'll continue to use reasonable logic, ie. proceed when it's safe to do so.

The law means you cannot obstruct a pedestrian who is crossing. Passing behind the pedestrian and in close proximity, is not expressly prohibited but could be deemed to be inconsiderate and could bring a sanction if a Garda formed an opinion and brought a successful prosecution.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

The law means you cannot obstruct a pedestrian who is crossing. Passing behind the pedestrian and in close proximity, is not expressly prohibited but could be deemed to be inconsiderate and could bring a sanction if a Garda formed an opinion and brought a successful prosecution.

Is being inconsiderate illegal in your world?

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

Is being inconsiderate illegal in your world?

It is in Ireland.

"51A.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place."

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

It is in Ireland.

That doesn't apply to proceeding through a zebra crossing when safe to do so though.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

That doesn't apply to proceeding through a zebra crossing when safe to do so though.

One can be inconsiderate without endangering anyone.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

One can be inconsiderate without endangering anyone.

I am allowed to proceed onto a zebra crossing when it's safe to do so, the Law doesn't say otherwise.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

I am allowed to proceed onto a zebra crossing when it's safe to do so, the Law doesn't say otherwise.

Only if you do so in a considerate manner.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

Only if you do so in a considerate manner.

Inconsiderate/considerate is based on personal opinion and nothing more ........ best ignored when driving safely on the road.

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

Inconsiderate/considerate is based on personal opinion and nothing more ........ best ignored when driving safely on the road.

Your opinion of your driving would be weighed against the opinion of a Garda and ultimately, a court.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

Your opinion of your driving would be weighed against the opinion of a Garda and ultimately, a court.

Well, as any Garda will tell you, Gardai are very careful when it comes to their own personal opinion when charging an individual with a "crime" ........ there's nothing more embarrassing, both personally and professionally, for a Garda than a Judge viewing their opinion as unreasonable, illogical or pedantic which it most certainly would be in regards the situation you described on a zebra crossing.

Garda: "Your Honour, I observed the driver driving through the zebra crossing after the pedestrian walked past his car."

Judge: "And?"

Garda: "Well, your Honour, it was ....... em ........ eh ........ just kinda rude in my opinion."

Judge: "Get the f*ck outta here!!!"

What's next!??!!? Being charged with "bad manners" because a Garda observed me not holding a door open for a lady!!?!!??!!! :rolleyes:

Veloce150

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well, as any Garda will tell you, Gardai are very careful when it comes to their own personal opinion when charging an individual with a "crime" ........ there's nothing more embarrassing, both personally and professionally, for a Garda than a Judge viewing their opinion as unreasonable, illogical or pedantic which it most certainly would be in regards the situation you described on a zebra crossing.

Garda: "Your Honour, I observed the driver driving through the zebra crossing after the pedestrian walked past his car."
Judge: "And?"

"The driver passed, revving the engine, less than 1 metre away at more than 50kph and the elderly pedestrian, using a walking aid, who felt in fear for her safety has been afraid to go to Church since. Would you like to hear her?"

Muhammed_1

The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?

Sleeper12

MadDog76 wrote:

Judge: "Get the f*ck outta here!!!"

Don't believe he'd say it like that. It's inconsiderate.

Veloce150

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?

The Garda would describe how he was operating a speed trap in response to complaints from residents and recorded the incident before going to the aid of the visibly upset lady.

We're straying into fantasy. It is a fact that motorists can be prosecuted for inconsiderate behaviour and there is no onus to prove it was also dangerous.

eeguy

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?

They defence usually wouldn't.

Reasonable doubt is all they need, which they'll get when it's the word of a garda against you.

His witness testimony is all the proof they need, seeing as the most punishment you'll get is a fine and points.

MadDog76

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

The defence would ask the guard how the guard determined the speed of 50km/h.

The defence would ask the guard how the distance of 1 meter was determined.

The defence would ask the guard if revving an engine is an offence.

Did the pedestrian declare that they felt in fear for their safety?

+1

IsaacWunder

MadDog76 wrote: »

Well, as any Garda will tell you, Gardai are very careful when it comes to their own personal opinion when charging an individual with a "crime" ........ there's nothing more embarrassing, both personally and professionally, for a Garda than a Judge viewing their opinion as unreasonable, illogical or pedantic which it most certainly would be in regards the situation you described on a zebra crossing.

Garda: "Your Honour, I observed the driver driving through the zebra crossing after the pedestrian walked past his car."

Judge: "And?"

Garda: "Well, your Honour, it was ....... em ........ eh ........ just kinda rude in my opinion."

Judge: "Get the f*ck outta here!!!"

What's next!??!!? Being charged with "bad manners" because a Garda observed me not holding a door open for a lady!!?!!??!!! :rolleyes:

I don't think you have a clue what you're on about. Firstly, nobody with any knowledge of the judicial system would ever refer to a judge as "your honour", particularly not Gardai. Secondly a judge will never fault a garda for being pedantic, particularly in respect of road traffic offences.

As for the main point, Gardaí can give on the spot fines for driving without reasonable consideration (€80 and two points), so the only reason it would ever come to court is because either the guard decided it was a more serious offence, or the motorist challenged it. In general garda evidence is taken very seriously as Gardaí don't routinely perjuer themselves to get convictions. Unless you, as an accused person, show that the Garda was somehow prejudiced against you you're going to be convicted and fined heavily.

MadDog76

Veloce150 wrote: »

"The driver passed, revving the engine, less than 1 metre away at more than 50kph and the elderly pedestrian, using a walking aid, who felt in fear for her safety has been afraid to go to Church since. Would you like to hear her?"

Well if you want to just make up a scenario to fit your opinion why don't you add in that the driver fired a couple of warning shots at the elderly lady with a 9mm beretta. :rolleyes:

MadDog76

IsaacWunder wrote: »

I don't think you have a clue what you're on about. Firstly, nobody with any knowledge of the judicial system would ever refer to a judge as "your honour", particularly not Gardai. Secondly a judge will never fault a garda for being pedantic, particularly in respect of road traffic offences.

As for the main point, Gardaí can give on the spot fines for driving without reasonable consideration (€80 and two points), so the only reason it would ever come to court is because either the guard decided it was a more serious offence, or the motorist challenged it. In general garda evidence is taken very seriously as Gardaí don't routinely perjuer themselves to get convictions. Unless you, as an accused person, show that the Garda was somehow prejudiced against you you're going to be convicted and fined heavily.

Fine ........... examples of drivers being prosecuted for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car based on a Garda's testimony here in Ireland?

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

Fine ........... examples of drivers being prosecuted for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car based on a Garda's testimony here in Ireland?

Why don't you throw up some examples of a similar case being thrown out because the judge didn't believe the Garda?

There's plenty of court appearances for dangerous and inconsiderate driving up and down the country where the only evidence is that it was witnessed by the Gardai.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

Why don't you throw up some examples of a similar case being thrown out because the judge didn't believe the Garda?

There's plenty of court appearances for dangerous and inconsiderate driving up and down the country where the only evidence is that it was witnessed by the Gardai.

I can't find any cases at all of a Garda bringing a driver to Court for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car ......... can you?

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

I can't find any cases at all of a Garda bringing a driver to Court for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car ......... can you?

I'm not going to bother looking.

The section

"51A.— (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without reasonable consideration for other persons using the place."

is a catch all term, so if a Garda forms the opinion that you're being inconsiderate in this hypothetical scenario s/he can call you out on it, with fines penalty points etc.

You could plead your case that it's not explicitly said that you can't proceed over a zebra crossing, once your side is clear, but the law can't be explicit for every eventuality.

Besides, the judge will nearly always side with the Garda over you. Such is life.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

I'm not going to bother looking.

The section is a catch all term, so if a Garda forms the opinion that you're being inconsiderate in this hypothetical scenario s/he can call you out on it, with fines penalty points etc.

You could plead your case that it's not explicitly said that you can't proceed over a zebra crossing, once your side is clear, but the law can't be explicit for every eventuality.

Besides, the judge will nearly always side with the Garda over you. Such is life.

Don't bother looking, they don't exist .......... making the rest of your post, along with the point you're attempting to make, redundant regarding zebra crossings which, in case you missed it, is the topic for discussion in this thread.

IsaacWunder

MadDog76 wrote: »

Fine ........... examples of drivers being prosecuted for driving through a zebra crossing after a pedestrian has walked past his/her car based on a Garda's testimony here in Ireland?

As other posters have pointed out the Gardaí have a retinue of offences with which to prosecute someone in the circumstances as outlined. Only an idiot would engage with your weak straw man argument.

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

Don't bother looking, they don't exist .......... making the rest of your post, along with the point you're attempting to make, redundant regarding zebra crossings which, in case you missed it, is the topic for discussion in this thread.

I never said they existed.

All I said was that if a Garda thought you were being inconsiderate for crossing while a ped was only halfway across the road, you could get points for it, in the same way you can get points for being inconsiderate in any other number of scenarios.

There's nothing that says you are in the right, and nothing that says you are explicitly wrong, which leaves it to the judgement of the Garda, or a district court judge, should you wish to pursue it.
And in that eventuality, the judge would more than likely side with the Garda.

Just because you can't find a specific example, and I can't be arsed, doesn't mean that it can't and won't ever happen.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

I never said they existed.

All I said was that if a Garda thought you were being inconsiderate for crossing while a ped was only halfway across the road, you could get points for it, in the same way you can get points for being inconsiderate in any other number of scenarios.

There's nothing that says you are in the right, and nothing that says you are explicitly wrong, which leaves it to the judgement of the Garda, or a district court judge, should you wish to pursue it.
And in that eventuality, the judge would more than likely side with the Garda.

Just because you can't find a specific example, and I can't be arsed, doesn't mean that it can't and won't ever happen.

The fact that it never has happened holds a lot more weight than your simple opinion on "what if's" ........

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

The fact that it never has happened holds a lot more weight than your simple opinion on "what if's" ........

Who said it never happened?
You just can't find a report of it.

Considering most newspaper reports usually just say "So and so was convicted of inconsiderate driving. He was fined X amount" I'm not surprised you can't find one.
I'm sure if you had access to PULSE you'd have more luck.

I just said that if a Garda wanted to fine you for it s/he could. Which is true.

MadDog76

eeguy wrote: »

Who said it never happened?
You just can't find a report of it.

Considering most newspaper reports usually just say "So and so was convicted of inconsiderate driving. He was fined X amount" I'm not surprised you can't find one.
I'm sure if you had access to PULSE you'd have more luck.

I just said that if a Garda wanted to fine you for it s/he could. Which is true.

No way of knowing if that's true unless it's ever actually happened ........ and it hasn't happened.

eeguy

MadDog76 wrote: »

No way of knowing if that's true unless it's ever actually happened ........ and it hasn't happened.

My only statement in this matter is that if a Garda thinks you're being an inconsiderate driver s/he can fine you. That is true and that is law.

Whether or not this applies to this particular scenario would depend on the Garda and their impression of the event.

By all means give it a go and report back.

GM228

MadDog76 wrote: »

No way of knowing if that's true unless it's ever actually happened ........ and it hasn't happened.

Seeing as how DC offences are rarely reported how could you know it hasn't happened?

Section 51A offences though not the more common offence do happen and there is no tick box list of what it can or can't apply to, it can apply to anything which a Guard chooses to apply to, generally they use it for a driver who is basically being a nuisance. If someone is acting the maggot at a Zebra crossing the Gardaí can use it if they wish.

Muhammed_1

What can the Guard do about a pedestrian who is acting the maggot?

Nothing, I'd suggest.

What happens if a pedestrian keeps on crossing, and recrossing, the zebra crossing?

What offence could they be charged with?