My recollection (and there has also been a previous thread on this type of subject) is that from the early 1990s private roads and areas used regularly by the public, such as supermarket and pub car parks, came under the Road Traffic Act (1988?) juristiction.
It certainly applies if anyone is over the drink-drive limit.
This link may give some clues:
tinyurl.com/cs8ff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
"My recollection (and there has also been a previous thread on this type of subject) is that from the early 1990s private roads and areas used regularly by the public, such as supermarket and pub car parks, came under the Road Traffic Act (1988?) juristiction."
You are correct Stuartli, however, most of these crossings have no beacons, and therefore have no legal standing.
(or laying down if you've just been run over!)
|
|
|
Oh dear, there seems to be an assumption that I am trying to assert my *rights* on this crossing. In fact I probably use it as frequently in a vehicle as I do on foot and, maybe because of my dismounted experiences, am punctilious in checking for pedestrians and stopping if someone is waiting to cross. I guess in this day and age of motorists running over lollipop persons I am being unreasonable in expecting similar courtesy to be extended to me.
This crossing is not ideally laid out in that, whilst there is a refuge in the centre of the access road, there is room on both sides for two lines of traffic, approaching or leaving the supermarket car park from both directions on the main road, so just because one car has stopped is no guarantee that another one will, eyes in ones derriere are essential.
I once read that when one puts *one* foot on a *real* zebra crossing cars are obliged to stop or commit an offence. Not sure if this still holds true in any case, but my reason in posing question was to inquire if it would an offence to run into me on this particular crossing or would it be me being careless and the driver could sue me for damaging his bumper.
Stuartli, thanks for link; annoyingly I cant read it properly as Firefox immediately closes down, but I got the gist of the article.
To be honest what really annoys me is the attitude of some drivers assuming that as they own a car their time is more important than the humble pedestrians.
|
|
Within the boundary's of the supermarket, a car driver who hit a pedestrian would probably be in trouble whatever the circumstances.
|
|
|
as Firefox immediately closes down>>
I use Firefox so it may be due to your configuration. Most likely Tools>Options>Web Features and checking the first three boxes.
Re a zebra crossing. If someone is still standing on the pavement a motorist doesn't have to stop, but should out of courtesy.
If a pedestrian is touching zebra crossing with, for instance, his/her foot then motorist stops (or should stop) - no matter what!
I use to cover the magistrates' courts when local newspapers published virtually every case going and, at one time, the police really did stamp down on careless or dangerous driving, failure to observe (often seemingly minor) laws such as parking the wrong way after darkness, reversing an unreasonable distance, within the zig-zag markings of a pedestrian crossing, bulb failures etc.
Even then the punishment meted out by magistrates was often harsher for motorists than for someone who may have broken into your property; I remember a little old lady driver who'd run into the back of another car (little damage) who was fined £15 and licence endorsement whilst, in the following case, it was a £5 fine for a burglar.
Things haven't change much....:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
>> viz. what is the status of crossings at, say, Heathrow Airport, >> Terminal 1. they have no flashing poles, are they legally enforceable? >> Good point, it's so easy to digress. I am not certain but I suspect they are not legally enforceable and as already stated common sense & courtesy should rule.
Have often used these crossings, and invariably cars, taxis, buses screech to a halt as I appear at the side; yet one would think these folks are more likely to be in a hurry being as this is an airport with deadlines,
...I suppose it wouldn't be anything to do with the presence of numerous cameras and police...
|
Firstly Stepoe is the area involved a road:
"In England and Wales means any Highway and any other road to which the public have access and inbcludes bridges over which a road passes."
Some Supermarket Car Parks can be classed as a road but all are not because they do not have unfettered access.
If it is a road then has a Pedestrian Crossing Order been made by the LA?. If not unlawful.
If it has then is it signed in accordance with Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002? If not unlawful.
If on a road, an Order made and properly signed then offence if fail to give precedence.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of Supermarket and the like crossings have no weight at law other than they could be used to beef up a carlesss driving charge.
dvd
|
Firstly Stepoe is the area involved a road: Some Supermarket Car Parks can be classed as a road but all are not because they do not have unfettered access.
dvd, this is an interesting point which had not occurred to me.
During the previous supermarkets reign the carpark was owned and operated by the town council, with unrestricted free parking mostly used by shoppers of course. A takeover/buyout a few years ago resulted in the store and carpark being greatly enlarged. A two hour limit, later increased to three hours after protests, was imposed in line with the new supermarkets policy at their other stores, backed up by a private warden.
The council are being a little coy on the matter, but I guess they signed all resonsibility for the car park over to the supermarket. Interestingly enough the crossings only appeared at this stage, which seems to confirm what most posters have suggested, that they have no legal standing.
I will in future treat them as having *asian* status
|
This all raises the interesting (to me anyway) question about pedestrians in supermarket carparks anyway. It's clear I think that the experience of getting from your parked car to the door of the place and back is not the best experience; cars to watch out for everywhere, kids to be watched, unsteerable heavy trolleys etc.
It seems to me that the major supermarkets would positively want to improve that situation by separating drivers and pedestrians more. It might require some creative thinking - bridges, tunnels, valet parking, paths that simply don't lead over any part of the carpark where anyone drives or something even more blindingly obvious and clever I've not thought of but one of you will.
If the reports of many millions of pounds profits are so then I reckon Tescburysons could do some serious carpark improvements and thus make themselves even more attractive. It seems strange to me that they have not.
Maybe someone will find themselves in the situation described in this thread, sue the supermarket for not doing all they could to provide safe crossings and bingo, things will happen. Be a shame if that's what it takes though.
|
See (!):
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=8888
It's an area clearly fraught with many imponderables. Some examples:
www.walmartsurvivor.com/IG.html
See section headed Private Car Parks in this link:
www.disabled-motorist.co.uk/february/letters.php
Last posting in this thread:
tinyurl.com/9nvc3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
There are no "private" roads at Heathrow. For the purposes of the road traffic act they are all normal roads, policed by the met, traffic wardens, speed limits, the full works.
There are however other laws that mean they can stop you using them, but thats not a RTA law at work.
|
|
|
