Positive response from Birmingham City Council

[Vigilies]

No. If it is clear that they are intending to cross then you should stop. The idea that pedestrians have to have one foot on the crossing is an urban myth predicated by selfish motorists.

As it is, the 'crossing' itself includes part of the pavement either side of the road, normally that area delimited by the dropped kerb and/or special surfacing. The black and white stripes are only part of the crossing.

Can you tell me where it says this please? I can only find the reference quoted by Gambatte in section 195 of the Highway Code.

 

[Drago]

Thsi is from the PNLD, the definitive standard to which the Police arrest and charge:

Regulation 25 - NOT GIVING PRECEDENCE TO PEDESTRIANS (ZEBRA)Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
Where there is a refuge for pedestrians or a central reservation on a Zebra crossing, the parts of that crossing situated on each side of the refuge for pedestrians or central reservation shall, for the purposes of this regulation, be treated as separate crossings.


Regulation 26 - VEHICLE NOT GIVING PRECEDENCE AT FLASHING AMBER LIGHT (PELICAN)
When the vehicular light signals at a Pelican crossing are showing the flashing amber signal, every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway or a central reservation within the limits of the crossing (but not if he is on a central reservation which forms part of a system of staggered crossings) before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian.
It's quite complex, so I'll let you fellers interpret it.

 

[mumbo jumbo]

This was supposed to be a feel good thread about a positive response following a complaint. But as the crossing [non]-"incident" seems to have taken over let me be clear... If he had been on the crossing, I would have stopped. He wasn't, but because he might have stepped out I took an extra wide line over the crossing. Simples.

 

[Hip Priest]

I wonder if this was the fella driving?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sacked-caught-camera-sleeping-lorry-work.html

 

[CopperCyclist]

Good result. However, contrast it with this response from Trafford Council about the included overtake:

No apology (although they're sorry that I complained), no mention of the danger posed to me, no mention of any action taken against the driver.

I haven't yet decided what to do about this.

The letter could be read as 'The examiner failed the chap and he isn't driving for us, so we aren't going to take any further action and also aren't going to tell you that'. It could also be read as 'The examiner didn't think anything was wrong so we aren't doing anything'.

If it was me, I'd ask them to clarify that point for me, to enable me to make a decision on whether I report the matter to the police.

 

[Nofers]

for self preservation in my experience, i would put the break on when the vehicle is just starting to overtake especially traffic is approaching the other way.

Rubbish