I have noticed that some boroughs have started marking out their zebra crossings in coloured rainbow patterns meaning that they are not marked out according to the regulations.
Does that make them invalid so far as crossings are concerned? ie, if there's an accident, or you are prosecuted for not stopping at such a crossing, can your defence be that they were not marked out correctly.
I知 not sure you can run down pedestrians willy-nilly just because they池e on an unapproved crossing.
I知 not sure you can run down pedestrians willy-nilly just because they池e on an unapproved crossing.
You can't and I wouldn't but if an accident were to occur or ifd a police officer stopped you, could your defence be that the crossing was not a crossing because it was not marked out as such?
It would be a defence to an allegation of contravening the road sign, if it is substantially non-compliant. However, it would not be a defence to careless etc driving.
Are you referring to zebra crossings being repainted or is it Pelican, Puffin or Toucan crossings that don't normally have any road markings apart from metal studs? If it's the latter then it's just road art. If the former it sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
The TSRGD 2016 does not prescribe the use of the coloured LGBTQ+ crossing and I've not seen any authorisation from the secretary of state for such use. Therefore, this paragraph from the
Chapter 1 manual seems to apply to such use.
3.4.1. Traffic signs in use on the highway must either be prescribed by TSRGD as amended,
or be specially authorised by the national authority. Signs that are neither prescribed nor
authorised are obstructions on the highway and must be removed.
I知 not sure paint on a road can be an obstruction of the highway.
To say that these make up just 1.7% of the general population and keep harping on about how they want to be left alone to do their own thing and be treated equal, they do their very best to to get up peoples noses at every opportunity. And before anyone calls me bigoted or a homophobe there is a gay couple on the next street and I couldnt care less.
To say that these make up just 1.7% of the general population and keep harping on about how they want to be left alone to do their own thing and be treated equal, they do their very best to to get up peoples noses at every opportunity. And before anyone calls me bigoted or a homophobe there is a gay couple on the next street and I couldnt care less.
You are Alf Garnett and I claim my ｣5.
I知 not sure paint on a road can be an obstruction of the highway.
Fair point but neither are traffic signs on a pole an obstruction and yet the paragraph from the DfT seems to think unauthorised signs may be an obstruction. The obstruction point is not my main focus. My main focus is that signs must be either prescribed or authorised by the secretary of state. If a painted traffic sign is neither of these it is unlawful. Section 64(2) RTRA 1984 says
(2)Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the [F1relevant authority] authorises the erect-ion on or retention of a sign of another character;
A rainbow coloured crossing is not prescribed and no authorisation appears to be have given by the relevant authority (sec of state for DfT). Ergo unlawful.
I agree that they are unlawful.
Funny x 2
View List