As a retired Traffic Police Officer and an ex ADI I can confirm that I was taught as a class one advanced driver and taught others as an ADI of the need to wait until pedestrians are totally clear of the crossing area. This would cover the sudden change of direction of a child, in particular on the crossing, as they be apt to do.
That is how I was taught and I have had 4 test's. Original test, defensive driving test, instructors advanced test and psv test. You must be prepared to stop on approach and allow all pedestrians to exit before moving off.
@@iangornall5885Yes, I'm not sure that we should really be arguing the legalities of this. It's a matter of common sense. If someone does get run down at a Z Crossing, they'll probably get chged with something more serious anyway.
😢My dad failed his first test because he stopped at a crossing during his test but the person stepped back onto the crossing as he began to move off, so although the pedestrian was on the other side of the road and in no danger he failed because he had crossed a zebra crossing in use. That was 1967 before the current legislation but the requirement was the crossing had to be empty in order to cross.
Still watching and half doing other stuff but he’s just said “they have precedence within the limits of the crossing” Which suggests to me that they have priority yes BUT doesn’t say “do not go if within the limits” I’ve always waited until fully crossed but based on that line I’d lean towards you being able to go if the pedestrian is far enough away to not cause issue Another example being that on any road a pedestrian has priority (precedence) on the road and you have to allow them to move out the way but that doesn’t mean you can’t use a road at all if there’s anyone on it… Hmm 🤔
When I learned to drive, many years ago, my instructor told me to wait until the crossing was clear because the person crossing might change their mind and go back. This has only happened to me once. A small boy was walking over the crossing when he suddenly turned round and ran back to the pavement. I was so very glad that I was still waiting, as I had been told to do.
I always assume that they might change their mind and go back too - although I wasn't taught that. I know on several occasions I've got halfway across and thought "cr*p! I'm going the wrong way!" although I always continue on and cross back later as I assume that the time I turn back part way across is the time a driver thinks the way is clear and ends up running me over.
You always have to be careful of that , but it is not an offence to proceed once a pedestrian has safely passed . In many jurisdictions is is illegal for pedestrians to turn back and here in the UK it is illegal for them to stop , loiter or fail to cross without reasonable despatch .
I think all the rules have to change when kids are involved, not just on crossings. I always slow for young kids if I pass them on the pavement. We live on a street with a 30 limit with houses all the way along it, there are loads of mothers walking with strollers, in some cases 12 inches from the road because the pavement is narrow. The usual lunatics still driving at 35+. Unfortunately the law doesn't help much with this kind of stupidity, such people will never wait for anything.
How would you be able to prove they were turning back if they walking in a certain direction they could say they were walking that direction - always best practice to let them get to whichever side they want to completely.
As motorists we are required to be competent, capable and alert (eg by passing a driving test, being able to see, not being impaired by drink or drugs, etc). This is right and proportionate because we’re piloting a ton of metal that can easily kill a more vulnerable road user. There is no such onus on pedestrians. They can be blind, infirm, senile, too young to judge risk, pissed or off their faces. They’re still entitled to walk around and very much entitled to have those more capable etc look out for them, especially when those others are piloting the aforementioned motor vehicles. It takes a couple of seconds out of our day to satisfy ourselves that the pedestrian has safely reached the other side before moving off. Anyone who doesn’t think they should have to wait those short seconds probably needs re-education, or to forfeit their driving licence.
As a driver and a pedestrian for over 55 years, employed in repairing and driving forklift trucks, have always erred upon the side of caution. As many drivers do not look behind then either. As the pedestrian/s may change their minds, drop something or simply stumble and fall (state of some of our roads.) However sadly some drivers cannot wait and do not, as always wishing to be wherever they are going ten minutes ago. Hopefully I will continue to be `aware `of what`s in front and read the road not one but two or more cars afront of me. Thank you, you take care too.
@@Must_not_say_thatnot necessarily. That might have been the case then, but the problem is that we don’t have periodic re-testing and very few people bother to re-read the Highway Code.
Ex ADI here. I have read and re-read the rule several times over many years. Quite simply you must give way to pedestrians, which means they must not be inconvenienced or scared etc. by your actions. In many circumstances it is perfectly safe (and legal) to drive off when a pedestrian is still just on the crossing, but it depends on the degree and whether or not that person was inconvenienced. If your movement or noise from the revved engine scares or distracts the pedestrian, then they have been inconvenienced. Now on driving tests, many years ago, driving examiners found a new way to fail people if, for some reason, they needed to fail a test candidate. This is when the "The pedestrian wasn't completely off the crossing" 'rule' was written into folklore and many driving instructors started teaching this - not so the candidate obeyed the law, but simply to avoid one of the many pitfalls of the driving test. If the person is still on the crossing, then you're on thin ice. But if you wait until they are off, then you can't be faulted. You can understand why many instructors teach this as a matter of routine without confusing their pupils (or even knowing themselves) the actual wording of the law.
@@jamescollins408 ...or has to leap backwards out of the way of some homicidal speeding maniac who decides to overtake and cut between the queues of waiting traffic!
If it's a pedestrian crossing with lights and they start flashing amber while they are crossing you straight have to wait. To me you wait till they have crossed no matter the type of crossing
Car = hard. Human = soft. Time saved: 3-5 seconds. Possible consequences: Injury, death and prison. Worth it? No. Do 70% of people care about anyone but themselves? No.
Got one minute in before Ashley's part started and haven't read any comments before posting this, but when I learned to drive, my instructor taught me if there was someone waiting to cross, I need to stop. If someone put their foot down on the crossing, I need to stop. I wasn't to move before that person had both feet off the crossing and on the kerb. Unless that rule has changed in the last 30+ years and I haven't spotted it, I've always done that.
In my young day the orange lights were called Belisha beacons. The name Belisha was used after Leslie Hore-Belisha (1893-1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added beacons to pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in the road surface. The crossings were later painted in black and white stripes and were then named zebra crossings.
Very interesting. A few years ago I was summoned to appear at Wells St Magistrates’ court in London for contravening the rules at a pedestrian crossing in Tottenham Court Road junction with Store Street. The crossing in Store Street was only 7 yards on from the junction. At 1pm on a sunny day the flow of pedestrians along Tottenham Court Road was unbroken and stopping the car completely blocked the outside lane in the main road. I awaited a suitable break but feet were definitely on the crossing. If I’d not driven off I would still be there now. The magistrate dismissed the case saying the crossing was badly located rendering compliance almost impossible. He reprimanded the police for wasting the court’s time. I think the crossing has never been moved.
@@quantisedspace7047 I was reading about these and apparently rainbow crossings are considered to be "road art" and not actually a crossing at all. Although I dare say you'd get into a lot of trouble if you were to hit someone that's on one! Comes down to whether a "reasonable" person would consider it a crossing I guess. Apparently guide dogs and the like aren't actually able to recognize them.
I witnessed an 8 year old boy who was halfway across a zebra crossing. He changed his mind, turned around and was hit by a car that had stopped for him but accelerated over the crossing when he was clear of his side of the road. He wasn't badly hurt, he was taken to hospital.
The same thing would have happened if it had been a crossing with an island except the driver would not have been blamed. The kid learned a lesson though; have your wits about you on the road, it's not a playground.
>this is incorrect< Actually, unless the crossings are staggered, even with an island in the middle, the crossing is counted as one! (edited as I now see the rules have changed - see below)
I’m not so sure about this interpretation as it talks about ‘precedence’ which was defined as priority and not ‘exclusivity’. So if the pedestrian has cleared the path of the vehicle they have been given precedence and the vehicle has fulfilled the requirement of the legislation.
@@ianholloway3778 yes but the rule doesn’t define what giving precedence means , it certainly doesn’t say exclusive use of the zebra crossing, merely priority. The expectation of exclusivity is not defined in law, just in courtesy or even custom.
Exactly my thoughts. I don't think anyone was disputing that the pedestrians have "precedence" while anywhere within the area of the crossing. The driver that starts moving before the pedestrian reaches the other side considers that they have already given the pedestrian their due "precedence", and it is no longer required as the pedestrian is sufficiently clear of that part of the crossing.
This was my thought, too. Getting into what is meant by the limits of a zebra crossing is irrelevant here. The important part of the legislation is what is meant by "precedence" and what it means to give someone precedence in this context.
I passed my test in '87, and was taught by my father, ex-police, that the pedestrian(s) must be fully clear of the crossing before preceeding. I had 7 lessons with an instructor between applying for the test and the test date, and he too confirmed that I must wait for any pedestrians to fully clear a crossing. I remember it as clear as day, and have followed that instruction ever since.
My son aged 10 was knocked down on a crossing just outside a school. The local council saved money by cancelling the crossing patrol lady. She got her job back shortly after. My point, my son was hit by a car that was looking to see another lad just clear the centre line and she set off hitting my lad. He was airlifted to hospital and recovered ok. I am very opinionated about people who can't wait 5 seconds longer.
I fully agree. A few seconds can be the difference between someone hurt and someone safe as proved in your sons incident. I am pleased he recovered well.
Problem in that case though is the driver not paying attention and checking if another kid was about to cross before moving off, if they had waited and the other child was a few seconds faster and had reached the other side the end result would've still been the same. Glad to hear your lad recovered okay from his encounter with a plonker.
Ok so I paused at 02:41, here is my understanding of the law, If the crossing is not staggered (I.e it crosses the whole road without having a central waiting area in the middle of the road) then you MUST wait for any pedestrians crossing to completely clear the zebra. If ther is a central island then each half of the crossing is treated separately.
It says to give precedence, it does not say to stay outside the area, were that the intent, it would describe not allowing the vehicle to enter as the overtaking rules for zig-zags describe not passing the front of another. If one decides to give a mother & child precedence on an escalator, one allows them on first & then mount it yourself once they're sufficiently on you're not making them feel crowded or nervous. One doesn't stand at the bottom like a lemon holding everyone else behind you up till they get off the top. At least, that's how I'd argue it were I defending myself because some jobsworth had decided to prosecute because I'd moved onto the crossing when a pedestrian had a few steps left to be off the opposite side. I HAVE given them precedence, the fact I then proceeded after them has no relevance.
I was taught all those years ago to WAIT(ofcourse you wait) untill they have cleared the crossing and the only exception is if there is an island for refuge.......i cant beleive people are arguing about this.
In East London, where I live, it is unlikely that the person driving will have a full UK licence / insurance -- and in reality, would be unlikely to stop, even if he/she hit a pedestrian on a Zebra Crossing. Videos like this bring into sharp relief how much the UK has changed, at least in our cities.
An issue that is totally ignored, the amount of people who are just not trained and unfamiliar with our system is crazy. Not to mention no tax, mot, insurance etc
@@johnnyherne know it well, used it weekly to drive out to my parents ... it's a fast route out to the home counties, so used by drugs dealers ... The A13 which takes you into the East End from the A406 is totally lawless... There are frequent signs appealing for witnesses to some fatal accident or other... To say anymore on UA-cam would be a mistake. Take care
@@derekheeps1244 "You were probably also taught to signal all the time ..." Which is good practise as it informs road users and pedestrians that you may have not seen. Hence why it was drilled into us. If it is not now, then it is merely further evidence of poor driving skills being taught today.
Looking through these comments, I find it amazing that people who passed their tests in the 1900's can remember basics but (a hell of a lot of) people who have passed their tests in the 2000's can't remember the basics. Bravo to you all.
My wife failed her 1st driving test, not at a zebra crossing but at a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing. An elderly couple were slow in crossing and had not completed by the time the lights changed back to green. My wife waited until they were clear of the front of her vehicle but moved off just before they stepped off the crossing onto the pavement. The examiner applied the brake and it was game over as far as the test was concerned. The examiner pointed out, correctly in my opinion, that until a pedestrian completely clears the crossing area a vehicle should not proceed. I have personally witnessed people stop halfway across and retrace their steps. Children are particularly prone to this, often because their parents call them back if they've run ahead. I always wait.
I have seen motorists drive through a crossing with a lollipop person after the pedestrian had crossed but still on the crossing. The lollipop person shook her head but let it pass.
... there can be 3 lanes each way, and just most humans wont stop for person 5 lanes over. the system needs rule that are followed.... we give precedence but not exclusive use, the rule says precedence... pretending one is super nice is fake, most people wont stop if 5 lanes over a person is over there in crossing....
Should have appealed and asked which section of the highway code they think she had breached 🤨 Under section 198 you only have to ‘give way’ to anyone still crossing’! This she had complied with !
I passed in the 70s, and remember my driving instructor saying you must stop until the person is completely off the crossing unless there's a island in the middle
Traffic Engineer here. Just to add a little interesting snippet. IF the crossing is broken by a central refuge, it becomes two crossings. Therefore you can proceed once they are beyond the refuge.
Interestingly enough, Iearning to drive way back in 1989, my driving instructor specifically pointed out an example of this commonly used on driving test routes in my area and I’m pretty sure it was for the reason exactly opposite to this; i.e. it was to be treated as a single crossing and often caught students out on their test. Would be interesting to know if this had changed sometime in the past (or whether my recollection is flawed!).
Australian here: Legally you must wait until the pedestrian crossing is clear of all pedestrians (meaning you have to wait for them to finish). In reality, not even cops completely wait
I have ALWAYS STOPPED until any pedestrians have COMPLETELY CLEARED the entire crossing, regardless of which direction they are crossing. And it is only common courtesy/polite to stop if you see someone waiting to cross. Patience and courtesy are key to safe driving!
@@derekheeps1244 Care ? surely if you are competent, you are careful. If you have knowledge and understanding, that covers care and competence. Sitting at a zebra because some old boy told you that 40 years ago and in that time you haven't expanded your knowledge and understanding is pretty poor.
@@georgeedwards6694 One must confess to violent agreement with you both. One also takes particular umbrage with the special definition of "precedence". In the opening clip, the vehicle has clearly yielded precedebce to the pefestrian, yet it's interpretted as a violation.
ADI and ex Police. I Always wait until clear but playing devil's advocate, surely if the pedestrian has passed onto the opposite side of the crossing you have afforded them precedence and therefore complied?
I disagree. In my mind the meaning is clear. If the pedestrian is no in the relevant zone - there is no need to give precedence. If they are in the zone then you do need to give precedence, but that does not mean that once you have done so, that you cannot move once the pedestrian is clear. Once they are clear they you have fulfilled your obligation and have given precedence so you ought to be able to move.
@@andrewknight665 Errr I doubt the law says anything. The highway code is NOT the law and the highway code mentions precedence and not exclusive right. Just like a road which has 3 lanes and the middle land might have precedence for oncoming traffic. You can still use it even if other cars are in that lane.......so long as you are not in the lane at the same time/place as they are.
@derekheeps1244 true that. The reason I was given made sense. It is just incase they turn back on the crossing. Something I've seen happen and this was before most people had smartphones that took up their attention.
@@MrTwiglet like I said people can do random things. I was just using something I've seen more than once as an example. I looked this up on theory test training materials I had access to. Under the vulnerable road users section it confirms that you must wait for people to fully cross before moving on.
I remember in 1976 a fellow was charged and fined for not waiting until the pedestrian had fully crossed the road and stepped on the opposite pavement.
when I was taking driving lessons in 1988, My instructor told me that 1 foot on the crossing means you stop, and dont drive off again until the crossing is completely clear. He even added that if kids or teenagers wanted to mess around on and off the crossing.... dont get impatient- you must wait until the crossing is clear.... I have always remembered this and have done exactly what he advised.
Loitering on the crossng is ataxy an offence HC rule 18 18 At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous. You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing. Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5) Legislation ZPPPCRGD reg 19 www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19 Pedestrians not to delay on crossings 19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.
I was taught that if there is an island, you can proceed if they reach the middle island. If no island, you have to wait until they reach the other side.
It's stated in his video at 3.38m if you look down the regulations - where there is a refuge (i.e. the middle "island"), the crossings are considered to be two separate crossings, and you do not need to wait once they make it to the refuge.
I passed my M/C test and driving test in early 1980's and was taught when a pedestrian is waiting or on the zebra crossing the pedestrian has priority until they have fully exited the crossing. I have also witnessed a pedestrian turning back because they forgot something at the pavement of the crossing. But it can happen anytime. It was also explained like that when I passed took driving lessons for car driving and also on the motorcycle certificate of basic training. Therefore this has been in existence for a lot longer than the current law which supercede the legislation when I took my tests
I failed my first PCV test because I passed a crossing where a pedestrian was walking in the general direction of it, no way of telling whether they were wanting to cross or not. I checked my mirror and the pedestrian arrived at the crossing as the back of the bus cleared it.
The law has not changed ; it is just that many misunderstand it . The legislation DOES NOT state that you have to wait for crossers to exit the crossing ; however it DOES state to pedestrians that it is an offence to loiter on the crossing , and turning back halfway could be so interpreted . it is a specific offence in many countries to turn back .
If a driver stops for a pedestrian on the crossing they are giving precedence as required. However on having passed the vehicle the pedestrian has now received the due "precedence" given by the driver so the precedence is extinguished, unless the pedestrian chooses to walk backwards or turn around or hold a dance party. Then the issue becomes for the pedestrian who has not "walked smartly over" as instructed. "Smartly over" should mean straight from one side to the other at ones normal walking pace, determined by the pedestrians normal ability, no need to run, rush or hurry, but no intentional dawdling, a slow gait or handicap is not dawdling.
@@jeremypnet Perhaps people don't get taught like they once were or maybe you were just inattentive. Even the BBC carried it as a learning thing on TV.
Loitering on the crossing is an offence , although I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it ; the law could however be used against those people with the orange vests who block roads .
This was so helpful it has reassured me that I am not out of date nor misinterpreted all of this. Thank you. Would never have been able to find that information for myself.
I've been an ADI for over 30 years and I've always taught as long as the pedestrian is out of the danger zone you can continue. Common sense needs to be applied and allow enough room to be given in case the pedestrian should decide to change their mind and return to the kerb.. All ADI's should teach according to the Highway Code and the DVSA Driving the essential skills. Nothing mentioned in either publication about waiting until pedestrian has cleared the crossing.. As with most things driving related there are so many grey areas but again common sense needs to be applied..
The area of the crossing is kerb to kerb. Does the Highway Code mention pedestrians being out of a "danger zone"? No, because it far too vague. Highway Code rule 20 states crossings with a central refuge are separate crossings which implies islands without a central refuge are to be treated as a single area which is the area of the crossing.
@@Soupdragonism prove me wrong. Does the highway code say pedestrians must reach the kerb on the other side. No it doesn’t. 30 years as an ADI and over 500 test passes, I think I’d have had issues if I was doing anything wrong.
I too was taught to wait until a pedestrian completes their crossing. The reason I was told to wait until they vacate the crossing is to allow for the pedestrian to change their mind and turn around on the crossing. With that said, I was also taught that if a pedestrian walks off the crossing onto the road, passing over the white dotted line then as my driving instructor put it, "they are fair game".
I still think there's wiggle room there. Having precedence would not exclude a vehicle moving off over part of the crossing that the pedestrian is not attempting to traverse, having already done so, and the driver already having given precedence to the pedestrian. If it had said that no vehicle shall enter the limits while occupied by pedestrians then I think the argument would be much more clear cut. Use of the word precedence simply means that the pedestrian gets to go first. I think it would be a pretty mean-spirited police officer that took action against a motorist based on this interpretation of the law.
I agree. It doesn't seem clear that giving a pedestrian precedence requires a driver to let them fully exit the controlled area before the driver can proceed after giving way. It might well be prudent to do so, but that's a different matter.
Yes...my thoughts too....one the pedestrian has proceeded passed you then the right of precedence is completed , so the vehicle should be allowed to proceed.....on a side note, is a pedestrian allowed to turn back halfway through a crossing or must they complete the crossing and then re- enter the return trip?
I agree. "precedence within those limits" The interpretation of this would be Pedestrians walk first while they are on the crossing and as long as the car let the pedestrian walk first then they can proceed even if pedestrian is on the crossing. If the wording changed into "precedence OF those limits", then I would agree that cars cannot enter until the pedestrian leaves as now this implies the pedestrian have the right to use THIS AREA before drivers. So the drivers need to wait until pedestrian is done with that area.
Watched a series of Jonathan Pie videos leading up to the election. These were filmed in central London, in the background was a pelican crossing. Not a single cyclist stopped for it when it was red. Interesting watch.
I passed my drivers licence in Australia in the eighties. Australia and the UK have the same driving laws before people want to express opposition. I was taught for my test that you have to wait until the pedestrian has reached the end of the crossing no matter which direction they are travelling before proceeding.
As sensible as that may be, what you were taught is not what is said in the road rules (at least in Victoria!). Road Rule 81 (2): A driver must give way to any pedestrian on or entering a pedestrian crossing. For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision-see the definition in the dictionary. As long as a collision is avoided, the driver has complied with the road rules.
So glad you have covered this. I thought of you as soon as i saw Ashley’s video. It seemed clear that creeping onto the crossing behind pedestrians was not allowed. I really like Ashley and his whole ethos for driving. I was disappointed that he chose to highlight this and throw doubt on what would appear to be an obvious offence.
Pedestrians have precedence on the crossing , you must let them go first , but once they have safely passed you , it is permissible to proceed with due caution .
@@derekheeps1244 I understand what you are saying. It's just that I have not seen the text in the law/highway code that sets that out. The video's author MERELY INFERS this is the case. He does not PROVE it.
Having precedence within the limits to me would just mean that they only have precedence while they are within those limits, not that the entire area within those limits is theirs.
Having precedence within the limits means they have precedence to the *whole* crossing while they are on *any* of the crossing *within the limits* that define the crossing. How hard can this be?
@@ado543 I would suggest exclusive use is implied by fact that the limits for which to give precedence has been defined. By putting limits on the crossing boundaries the law is saying "only one of you can use it at a time". Otherwise you're sharing, not giving precedence. You gotta wait for the pedestrian to be done with the whole.thing as defined by the limits or boundaries.
It doesn't, but it is implied in the highway code rule H2. "You MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing" Why would anyone think that means you can drive if they are still anywhere on the crossing. It seems pretty basic to me.
A different section of TRGD 2016 says you must stop while a pedestrian is on the carriageway for purposes of using the crossing. Which I think clears up the issue, however I think the law is still bad in that it is very hard to find the answer. UK Statutory Instruments2016 No. 362SCHEDULE 14PART 1Paragraph 22 -(1) (b)a requirement to stop at, or before, the stop position, if a pedestrian or cyclist is on the carriageway, for the purposes of using the crossing, within the part of the crossing intended for (as the case may be) pedestrians or cyclists.
for zebra crossing, give way means give way, i cant block them, but i can go when they are 4 lanes over.. if they meant pedestrian gets exclusive use then say "exclusive"... precedence means their movement has priority, it doesnt mean they get extra space to feel safe, .... , , , in parts of UK there are 6 lanes , and no the cars 5 lanes over dont stop..... i think
There are two pedestrian crossing on the nearest main road to where I live. Where if I was stupid enough to step onto the crossing while traffic was still moving I would be dead. The drivers who use that main road appear to have no understanding of the law or simply choose to ignore it all together.
Very interesting, thank you. My driving, "rule of thumb," is to "err on the side of caution" if in doubt, which means to always be ready to give way to the pedestrian.
I disagree personally. Having precedence means effectively the pedestrian has priority/right of way. This has probably become more of a talking point since people have started crossing them whilst scrolling on their phone and taking a LIFETIME to cross the damn road.
I think you have the wrong approach to driving, even though that is the case. If indians can turn off their engines when a cow falls asleep in front of their car, you can do likewise.
The pedestrian has priority. If they are clearly past the vehicle and it is safe to go, then that’s fine, the driver does not have to wait for the pedestrian to finish crossing. Within the white zig zag markings, a driver must not overtake the lead motor vehicle, or any vehicle that is stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross. As with almost everything in driving, it is not a one-size-fits-all law. The driver has the responsibility to assess the situation and act safely. So in short, once the pedestrian is well past and clearly not going to be affected, the driver may proceed as long as this doesn’t involve breaching these rules about overtaking.
@@JulianJLW thanks. People look for a very definitive answer but traffic law is so subject to circumstances at the time. The laws are deliberately vague because they assume a level of competent decision making on the part of the driver. What’s the right thing to do one day might be fatal the next, even if it’s the same exact junction
The 2nd image used at around 8:10 on the video was not a Zebra crossing. It was Toucan crossing. Unless the regulation separates the two crossings of pedestrians and cyclists as two separate crossings, it only refers to a Zebra crossing.
It was a Parallel crossing not a Toucan crossing. There are separate regulations for them with seperate diagrams. The meaning of the parallel lines of the large squares in the photo is different to the tiny squares shown in the diagram from zebra crossing
Back when we had road safety training at school, 50s and 60s, we were taught that we should stop on the pavement, put our foot on to the zebra crossing and wait for traffic to stop. Before attempting to cris. These days, I often get pedestrians walk seamlessly along the pavement and then curve onto the crossing. Hence, every time I see someone near a crossing, I have to slow right down and be ready to stop. Meanwhile, I have often had a cyclist or motor bike overtake me when I am stopped or slowing for the crossing which then nearly hit the pedestrian. BTW. I was taught when I started driving 60 years ago, that one should wait until the pedestrian has completely cleared the crossing, or has reached the safety island if the crossing is split.;
I'm not a licensed UK driver (I live elsewhere) but I read those rules as shown and I'd agree that the rules give priority or "precedence" to pedestrians but I saw nothing that said the driver MUST then wait until the pedestrian had totally vacated the crossing before proceeding. Accepting, of course that If a vehicle and pedestrian collide on a crossing, the pedestrian will ALWAYS have right of way, I'd argue that if no collision occurs then no offence has been committed.
Interesting because the regulations don’t explicitly say drivers have to “stop and wait” but merely give precedence to the pedestrian? So if the pedestrian has cleared your side of the carriageway are you not then allowed to recommence driving since you have given precedence and continuing to drive doesn’t impact the pedestrian since they are now on the other half of the crossing???
@@chrishartley1210 But then they could equally suddenly turn around and go back (perhaps because they have forgotten something) after they had completed the crossing.
@@chrishartley1210 my understanding is that this is illegal (for the pedestrian), once on the crossing you MUST proceed without delay to cross (to the other side) - once on the other side you can re-cross following the procedure from the beginning if you've forgotten something. see www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19
Many years ago I was already crossing a zebra crossing, a black cab drove through while I was crossing. The driver stopped to scream obscenities at me as I could’ve damaged his taxi by continuing to walk. He swore a bit more and drove off.
I always consider the crossing is in use by a pedestrian, whichever part of it they’re on, so give way until completely clear; doesn’t matter which part, what if they drop something from a pram/bag, and turn quickly to get it? A child turns back, someone trips, falls, or decides to do a moonwalk on it?!? What says, that their seeming trajectory shall continue to be the same, the rest of the way? Nah. Too many potential risks for saving in total, fackall amount of time. Thanks for this it’s really interesting - I like watching Ashley’ videos, as a coming 42 year old driver, who passed at 17, I find him helpful/useful to keeping brushed up on what’s required/happening, particularly in instances of interaction with new types of road infrastructure/rules etc. 🙏🏼👌🏼
I don't agree. Allowing the pedestrian to have precedence doesn't mean the car is not allowed to cross the crossing. It merely means that the entire time they are within those limits they have precedence. If they have completely crossed your path and you are not going to obstruct them by moving on, then you have given them the precedence the law requires. IMHO. Otherwise the law would distinctly say that you are not allowed to drive across the crossing while any pedestrian is on that crossing. No need for the vague term "precedence". Personally I don't think any offence was committed in that last example you showed. I also doubt that any police would see it as an offence either as there was no danger.
It does state that by giving the example of crossings with an island counting as two separate crossings, this is the exception to the rule of waiting until the crossing is completely clear.
Wasn't sure what the law was, but I have always waited, in case another driver assumes the crossing is clear if they see me go. I think that's what my instructor told me to do as well, many years ago.
The limits of the crossing is the area of road space to be used. Giving precedence is simply allowing the pedestrian to use that space FIRST. As they progess through the space their precedence has been afforded and they are no longer using the space behind them. Therefore, the precedence aspect has been adhered to and the vehicle can continue to go. There is no requirement to give precedence once the need for precedence has ceased. The need arises from the car yielding to the pedestrian before carrying on. I can't see how it could be argued that the pedestrian is "using" the space they have just left. Given all the tables, diagrams, definitions and legislation, there is enough doubt there to screw up a prosecution relating to letting the pedestrian reach the other side fully. Drivers are required to make maximum safe progress, avoid undue hesitancy, and promote good use of road space. All nice having a fancy complicated law about one thing when adhering to it results in non compliance elsewhere!!! 🙄
How does "within limits of a zebra crossing" turn precedence from meaning "the pedestrian gets to go first" into "the pedestrian is the only one who gets to be within the limits of the zebla crossing"? I think you and Ashley both got this wrong. You started with the conclusion and read more into the law than is actually there. But it seems to be a common enough misconception, including among the police, that one is probably better off following the law as imagined.
Agreed , yet this is not rocket science . perhaps Werner Von Braun would have made a good lawyer , or driving instructor . I can understand novice drivers being taught to err on the side of safety , but rivers are meant to evolve and improve as they gain experience , yet many seem to still drive as though they were learners .
The question is about the area of the crossing which is kerb to kerb or kerb to central reservation if there is one and not just the lane in front of you. You have said this but adding a simplified version or image would help.
maybe the drivers became more impatient, because the pedestrians take the absolute piss. Crossing as and when the want, on crossings or not, on red lights, etc, not paying any attention whatsoever to what's happening on the road, because they think - rightly or wrongly - that they always have the right of way, as if this would save their lives when hit by two tonnes of steel. One time this guy just casually walks out in front of my car on a red light, not an emergency stop, but I had to brake quite firmly. He walks across giving me this look, like trying to pick a fight. "What ya gonna do bruv, innit".
@@wrightwoodwork I'm not looking for pitty, but you know that, don't you. I'm giving just one example of pedestrians behaving like pricks. Common courtesy should work both ways.
@@prusak26 Drivers manage in other countries under the same rules. Waiting a few seconds saves a lot of time in filling paperwork when you hit a pedestrian.
You forgot to mention that the pedestrian does not have right of way until they step onto the crossing. Just waiting at the crossing does not give you right to cross. Just as a cyclist is not a pedestrian when they are mounted on their cycle, unless they are constructed in the manner shown in this video with a definite bicycle painted on the road. They theoretically should dismount and cross as a pedestrian to afford them right of way. But how many do? Remember that a zebra crossing that is split with a traffic island has to be considered as two separate crossings. You don't have to wait until they have crossed on to your side of carriageway. Frustrating for the pedestrian, but it is what the Highway code indicates. It is only through culture that we have accepted that a waiting pedestrian will not step on to the crossing until a car is slowing or stopped and given way. Highway Code Rule 19 Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing . Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped. Highway Code Rule 20 Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra crossing, wait on the island and follow Rule 19 before you cross the second half of the road - it is a separate crossing.
One should stop if there are people waiting to cross at a zebra crossing. You are lucky they do not cross in front of you like a car at a junction with right of way, the only reason they are not stepping out is because drivers haven’t stopped, they are not going to throw themselves in front of cars like lemmings.
@@QueenBabylonnia you stop because they WILL cross. its called hazard perception, thats why the highway code tells you to slow/stop when approaching a zebra crossing, when someone is waiting to cross because once they step ON TO that crossing, THEY then have priority over you, which means you could be forced to make a sudden stop when instead you could have followed the normal procedure of slowing to a stop
@@mandowarrior123 puts the ped in trouble "Highway Code Rule 18 At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous. You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing."
States in the highway code "You must give way to pedestrians ON the crossing" So by that I would say you have to wait for pedestrians to clear the crossing before moving which is what I was told by my driving instructor 50 years ago.
Give way does not mean you have to wait until they have cleared the crossing but that you must allow them to proceed first. Give way lines at junctions do not mean you have to wait until the car has disappeared. Give way means what it says, they go first.
@@Must_not_say_that But if the pedestrian decides to turn round halfway across and you've started to drive off and hit them then you're at fault because they were still on the crossing. The wording is "give way to the pedestrian ON the crossing" not "give way to the pedestrian on your half of the road"
@@bobp6742 Yes, absolutely in your example. Then you would not have given them precedence. But if they were the other side of the crossing and you can drive on easily without any liklihood of that, then fine. That is what precedence means. The give way bit means essentially the same thing.
@@Must_not_say_that that isnt what precedence means at all, precedence is by definition "priority" so when it clearly states "has precedence within those limits over that vehicle" its literally the pedestrian has priority over that vehicle. You might want to brush up on your English because the wording is plain and simple. pedestrian has priority and any vehicles within those limits DO NOT as made clear by the wording and where such limits exist when at a crossing. pedestrian even if they are on the other half of the crossing STILL have priority over any vehicle, I mean lets say the individual falls and stumbles backwards in a car that partly crossed? it can happen and as such you would be at fault because YOU ARE NOT meant to be on the crossing when a pedestrian is. Your example is irrelevant because the pedestrian still has priority regardless of where they are on the crossing in relation to the vehicle attempting to cross.
Passed my first test when I was 18, i'm now 71. I took I have taken 6 tests on various vehicles up to class 1 HGV. I can remember many instructors telling me that I could pass to the rear of pedestrians on a zebra crossing.
A crossing with an island refuge in the middle is actually classed as 2 separate and distinct crossings. I googled it later on, and highway code states a staggered crossing is 2 crossings.but I'll stay with my system and consider a centrally island separated crossing as 2 separate crossings . (16.54 29/10/24. )
As a bog standard retired Police Officer, we were taught this at Hendon training school, before being let loose on the streets. Great video, which confirms my suspicions that legislation hasn't changed, and painting crossings in LGBT colours effectively makes the crossing illegal. An issue that to my knowledge has never been challenged!
When I started PCV instructing in the mid 1980s, it was considered that once the pedestrian was clear, the vehicle could proceed, precedence having been given. However, at some stage the examiners started marking this down as a minor and eventually a serious.
I was trained to drive in 1965, and it was the case then, (and when I passed my M/C test in '64), as far as I recall, that you had to wait until they had left the crossing, so the question need not even be considered! Those who 'veer off' the crossing when nearing the end, need to be careful, because they are NO LONGER ON THE CROSSING!
If they are on the road, they still have right of way as if they had crossed on any other part of the road although you don't necessarily have to observe the Do not proceed until.... It doesn't mean you can simply drive over them for stepping off the crossing boundary.
Interesting, I understand that precedence simply means that the pedestrian has the right to go first, not that the driver may not pass a safe and non-frightening distance behind them, whilst they are still crossing the far side of the road.
You would think if they meant the driver must wait for the pedestrian to completely clear the crossing, they would say so. It’s not a hard concept to describe in simple language.
Road Traffic Act 2022 - pedestrians have new priority when crossing road junctions, while cyclists have priority when passing a turning car, under a new hierarchy of road users. Few road users seem to be aware of these changes.
Cat. Pigeons. I was taught that the requirement was to accord precedence to the pedestrian. To give them priority. For them to walk in front of your vehicle. Once the pedestrian has passed you have accorded precedence and complied with the law and are free to proceed. Comments about children, collapses ,changes of direction are all red herrings since they could occur at any time during, before or after the pedestrian transit. The offence used to be "Failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing." It could only be committed by driving across the crossing in front of that persons direction of travel. Not behind them because, by then , one had complied with the law. Also, that this referred only to pedestrians and not cyclists riding across the crossing from kerb to kerb.
Since another post has been pinned I should state that I was taught this at the Hampshire Constabulary Driving School, Hulse Rd Southampton in 1975. I will always remember what the instructor said "The pedestrian has passed safely in front of you, you don't have to wait until he's walked home and had a cup of tea before proceeding. "
It could have been so simple: don't move until a pedestrian has left the crossing! 😊 In fact, precedence also means to treat someone/something as more important - which is its use in the law here. 'Allow to go first' is what most people think.
Except on a Puffin crossing with a lane for cyclists to ride across , it is an offence for cyclists to ride across : they MUST dismount and wheel their cycles across ; other crossings are for PEDESTRIANS ONLY to cross the road ; cyclists are not pedestrians unless they dismount .
I was taught that a crossing can be the whole width of the road or part thereof but is delimited by the beacons. If a pedestrian is on any part of the crossing you must wait until they have completely cleared the crossing before proceeding. It seems straight forward to me.
As a driver, I was taught to wait until the pedestrian had cleared the crossing completely. As a pedestrian on a crossing, I get pissed off if a car enters the crossing behind me. It’s something else you have to be aware of that’s going on behind your back and I don’t have a rear view mirror. But, if allowed to drive over before a pedestrian has fully crossed, what is the cutoff line? Is it when the pedestrian is 1 foot passed your car? Maybe 2 feet, or 3 feet. I’ve been in Europe and they drive behind you when you have cleared their car by inches! 😮 Just wait, you will be delayed by another 10 seconds.
I’m old enough to remember being taught to allow people to fully cross before proceeding. HOWEVER… I’m a bit confused by the logic of your argument here. You start by talking about the ordinary English meaning of the word precedence, suggesting it means to allow the pedestrian to go first. You further suggest this means it would be fine to go once they’re no longer in front of your vehicle, as long as you’d allowed them to cross first. But you then suggest this is no longer the case based upon an argument which merely clarifies the limits of the crossing zone. I don’t understand how this affects your earlier argument? Personally, I’ll still allow people to fully cross, but I’m left confused as to how arguing about the size of the crossing zone, somehow changes the definition of precedence. Clarification gratefully received.
Another in agreement here. It seems to me the law permits a driver to proceed once priority has been granted, even if the pedestrian is still within the controlled area. It may not be sensible to drive whilst the ped is still crossing, but don't see a legal barrier to prevent driving once precedent has been granted
I would have thought it could be much more clearly expressed if the law required the vehicle not to proceed at all when someone was within the bounds of the controlled area.
As a retired Traffic Police Officer and an ex ADI I can confirm that I was taught as a class one advanced driver and taught others as an ADI of the need to wait until pedestrians are totally clear of the crossing area. This would cover the sudden change of direction of a child, in particular on the crossing, as they be apt to do.
@@adrianpearson8727 did you score full marks on both sides of the modern theory test tho?
That is how I was taught and I have had 4 test's. Original test, defensive driving test, instructors advanced test and psv test. You must be prepared to stop on approach and allow all pedestrians to exit before moving off.
You sound proud that you was a traffic cop lol
What about if there’s an island in the road?
@@iangornall5885Yes, I'm not sure that we should really be arguing the legalities of this. It's a matter of common sense. If someone does get run down at a Z Crossing, they'll probably get chged with something more serious anyway.
I passed my drivers test 40 odd years ago and unless the laws have changed you must wait until the pedestrian has completely cleared the crossing.
I was just about to say the same 😅😉 One of the first things you're taught as I remember 👍
Yes, exactly the same here.
😢My dad failed his first test because he stopped at a crossing during his test but the person stepped back onto the crossing as he began to move off, so although the pedestrian was on the other side of the road and in no danger he failed because he had crossed a zebra crossing in use. That was 1967 before the current legislation but the requirement was the crossing had to be empty in order to cross.
Still watching and half doing other stuff but he’s just said “they have precedence within the limits of the crossing”
Which suggests to me that they have priority yes BUT doesn’t say “do not go if within the limits”
I’ve always waited until fully crossed but based on that line I’d lean towards you being able to go if the pedestrian is far enough away to not cause issue
Another example being that on any road a pedestrian has priority (precedence) on the road and you have to allow them to move out the way but that doesn’t mean you can’t use a road at all if there’s anyone on it…
Hmm 🤔
My instructor back in 70s advised not to move until pedestrian has crossed, as they may change their direction and walk back.
When I learned to drive, many years ago, my instructor told me to wait until the crossing was clear because the person crossing might change their mind and go back. This has only happened to me once. A small boy was walking over the crossing when he suddenly turned round and ran back to the pavement. I was so very glad that I was still waiting, as I had been told to do.
I always assume that they might change their mind and go back too - although I wasn't taught that.
I know on several occasions I've got halfway across and thought "cr*p! I'm going the wrong way!" although I always continue on and cross back later as I assume that the time I turn back part way across is the time a driver thinks the way is clear and ends up running me over.
You always have to be careful of that , but it is not an offence to proceed once a pedestrian has safely passed . In many jurisdictions is is illegal for pedestrians to turn back and here in the UK it is illegal for them to stop , loiter or fail to cross without reasonable despatch .
I think all the rules have to change when kids are involved, not just on crossings. I always slow for young kids if I pass them on the pavement. We live on a street with a 30 limit with houses all the way along it, there are loads of mothers walking with strollers, in some cases 12 inches from the road because the pavement is narrow. The usual lunatics still driving at 35+. Unfortunately the law doesn't help much with this kind of stupidity, such people will never wait for anything.
How would you be able to prove they were turning back if they walking in a certain direction they could say they were walking that direction - always best practice to let them get to whichever side they want to completely.
As motorists we are required to be competent, capable and alert (eg by passing a driving test, being able to see, not being impaired by drink or drugs, etc). This is right and proportionate because we’re piloting a ton of metal that can easily kill a more vulnerable road user.
There is no such onus on pedestrians. They can be blind, infirm, senile, too young to judge risk, pissed or off their faces. They’re still entitled to walk around and very much entitled to have those more capable etc look out for them, especially when those others are piloting the aforementioned motor vehicles.
It takes a couple of seconds out of our day to satisfy ourselves that the pedestrian has safely reached the other side before moving off. Anyone who doesn’t think they should have to wait those short seconds probably needs re-education, or to forfeit their driving licence.
As a driver and a pedestrian for over 55 years, employed in repairing and driving forklift trucks, have always erred upon the side of caution. As many drivers do not look behind then either.
As the pedestrian/s may change their minds, drop something or simply stumble and fall (state of some of our roads.)
However sadly some drivers cannot wait and do not, as always wishing to be wherever they are going ten minutes ago.
Hopefully I will continue to be `aware `of what`s in front and read the road not one but two or more cars afront of me.
Thank you, you take care too.
I was taught you have to wait until the crossing is clear, that was back in the 70,s.
You were taught wrongly.
@@Must_not_say_thatnot necessarily. That might have been the case then, but the problem is that we don’t have periodic re-testing and very few people bother to re-read the Highway Code.
Just try not to hit people.... done
Same here in 2019
Ex ADI here. I have read and re-read the rule several times over many years. Quite simply you must give way to pedestrians, which means they must not be inconvenienced or scared etc. by your actions. In many circumstances it is perfectly safe (and legal) to drive off when a pedestrian is still just on the crossing, but it depends on the degree and whether or not that person was inconvenienced. If your movement or noise from the revved engine scares or distracts the pedestrian, then they have been inconvenienced. Now on driving tests, many years ago, driving examiners found a new way to fail people if, for some reason, they needed to fail a test candidate. This is when the "The pedestrian wasn't completely off the crossing" 'rule' was written into folklore and many driving instructors started teaching this - not so the candidate obeyed the law, but simply to avoid one of the many pitfalls of the driving test. If the person is still on the crossing, then you're on thin ice. But if you wait until they are off, then you can't be faulted. You can understand why many instructors teach this as a matter of routine without confusing their pupils (or even knowing themselves) the actual wording of the law.
I've been driving 30+ years and always waited until the person has crossed the crossing fully .
....because the person crossing can change their mind and turn around and walk back to the pavement they started crossing from.
They could also have a medical episode, fall to the pedestrian crossing
@@jamescollins408 ...or has to leap backwards out of the way of some homicidal speeding maniac who decides to overtake and cut between the queues of waiting traffic!
jeez, i've just set off when they are on the opposite lane
If it's a pedestrian crossing with lights and they start flashing amber while they are crossing you straight have to wait. To me you wait till they have crossed no matter the type of crossing
A lot of people don’t realise that parking on the zigzags carries a 3 point penalty!
That would include Lancashire Police who let happen regularly near me.
If there was only a group or body that could enforce that penalty 🤔😂
They could invent such a body@@richbrown8174
A lot of people don't seem to care.
On the approach only carries 3 points..
Car = hard. Human = soft. Time saved: 3-5 seconds. Possible consequences: Injury, death and prison. Worth it? No. Do 70% of people care about anyone but themselves? No.
Got one minute in before Ashley's part started and haven't read any comments before posting this, but when I learned to drive, my instructor taught me if there was someone waiting to cross, I need to stop. If someone put their foot down on the crossing, I need to stop. I wasn't to move before that person had both feet off the crossing and on the kerb.
Unless that rule has changed in the last 30+ years and I haven't spotted it, I've always done that.
Yep. Me too.
In my young day the orange lights were called Belisha beacons. The name Belisha was used after Leslie Hore-Belisha (1893-1957), the Minister of Transport who, in 1934, added beacons to pedestrian crossings, marked by large metal studs in the road surface. The crossings were later painted in black and white stripes and were then named zebra crossings.
They always were , and still are , called Belisha Beacons .
They abandoned the first idea of calling them Hore Beacons. I have no idea why.
@@rogerthedodger5788That would be funny... as that's exactly how it's spelt in my language.
Ah nice - I knew their name but didn't know where the name came from - that was really interesting - thankyou!
Very interesting. A few years ago I was summoned to appear at Wells St Magistrates’ court in London for contravening the rules at a pedestrian crossing in Tottenham Court Road junction with Store Street. The crossing in Store Street was only 7 yards on from the junction. At 1pm on a sunny day the flow of pedestrians along Tottenham Court Road was unbroken and stopping the car completely blocked the outside lane in the main road.
I awaited a suitable break but feet were definitely on the crossing. If I’d not driven off I would still be there now.
The magistrate dismissed the case saying the crossing was badly located rendering compliance almost impossible. He reprimanded the police for wasting the court’s time. I think the crossing has never been moved.
This legal ambiguity is strange on such a black and white issue.
Although the ‘black stripes’ may be another colour so confusion occurs! 😂
Well, what about rainbow crossings ? Do you have to stop at them?
@@quantisedspace7047 I was reading about these and apparently rainbow crossings are considered to be "road art" and not actually a crossing at all. Although I dare say you'd get into a lot of trouble if you were to hit someone that's on one! Comes down to whether a "reasonable" person would consider it a crossing I guess. Apparently guide dogs and the like aren't actually able to recognize them.
badum tsss
@@quantisedspace7047 if you didn’t you’d have ‘bender fender’ .. 😂😂😂
I witnessed an 8 year old boy who was halfway across a zebra crossing. He changed his mind, turned around and was hit by a car that had stopped for him but accelerated over the crossing when he was clear of his side of the road. He wasn't badly hurt, he was taken to hospital.
The same thing would have happened if it had been a crossing with an island except the driver would not have been blamed.
The kid learned a lesson though; have your wits about you on the road, it's not a playground.
>this is incorrect< Actually, unless the crossings are staggered, even with an island in the middle, the crossing is counted as one!
(edited as I now see the rules have changed - see below)
@@erebus5170Thought so.
@@mikecrimlis3366He should have completed the crossing, turned on his heel and walked back again.
Precisely why you wait for a pedestrian to step off the crossing completely.
I’m not so sure about this interpretation as it talks about ‘precedence’ which was defined as priority and not ‘exclusivity’. So if the pedestrian has cleared the path of the vehicle they have been given precedence and the vehicle has fulfilled the requirement of the legislation.
Exactly, and that rule applies if the pedestrian is in the area defined in TSRGD 2016
@@ianholloway3778 yes but the rule doesn’t define what giving precedence means , it certainly doesn’t say exclusive use of the zebra crossing, merely priority. The expectation of exclusivity is not defined in law, just in courtesy or even custom.
Exactly my thoughts. I don't think anyone was disputing that the pedestrians have "precedence" while anywhere within the area of the crossing. The driver that starts moving before the pedestrian reaches the other side considers that they have already given the pedestrian their due "precedence", and it is no longer required as the pedestrian is sufficiently clear of that part of the crossing.
yes precedence is far far from exclusive... criminal laws are interpreted narrowly
This was my thought, too. Getting into what is meant by the limits of a zebra crossing is irrelevant here. The important part of the legislation is what is meant by "precedence" and what it means to give someone precedence in this context.
I passed my test in '87, and was taught by my father, ex-police, that the pedestrian(s) must be fully clear of the crossing before preceeding. I had 7 lessons with an instructor between applying for the test and the test date, and he too confirmed that I must wait for any pedestrians to fully clear a crossing. I remember it as clear as day, and have followed that instruction ever since.
My son aged 10 was knocked down on a crossing just outside a school. The local council saved money by cancelling the crossing patrol lady. She got her job back shortly after. My point, my son was hit by a car that was looking to see another lad just clear the centre line and she set off hitting my lad. He was airlifted to hospital and recovered ok. I am very opinionated about people who can't wait 5 seconds longer.
@@chrispomphrett4283 That is terrible! 😲
I fully agree. A few seconds can be the difference between someone hurt and someone safe as proved in your sons incident. I am pleased he recovered well.
Glad your son recovered well. The driver wasn’t paying anything like enough attention, though, especially near a school!
I've heard of another case. Similar, but a teenage girl coming out of school. She was on crutches for months.
Problem in that case though is the driver not paying attention and checking if another kid was about to cross before moving off, if they had waited and the other child was a few seconds faster and had reached the other side the end result would've still been the same.
Glad to hear your lad recovered okay from his encounter with a plonker.
My common curtesy answers this question
Sadly, laws need to be made for those without any
Good works Sir ❤
*courtesy. 🤣
Noted 💜
Ok so I paused at 02:41, here is my understanding of the law, If the crossing is not staggered (I.e it crosses the whole road without having a central waiting area in the middle of the road) then you MUST wait for any pedestrians crossing to completely clear the zebra. If ther is a central island then each half of the crossing is treated separately.
Sounds like a realistic interpretation
@@PeterJames-cr1ul Correct! ✅
I does not say that , deliberately . Legislation is always very precisely worded .
That's what I was taught, too, but apparently, I was taught wrong!
"If the crossing (...) of the road)"
How would that make the crossing staggered?
It says to give precedence, it does not say to stay outside the area, were that the intent, it would describe not allowing the vehicle to enter as the overtaking rules for zig-zags describe not passing the front of another.
If one decides to give a mother & child precedence on an escalator, one allows them on first & then mount it yourself once they're sufficiently on you're not making them feel crowded or nervous. One doesn't stand at the bottom like a lemon holding everyone else behind you up till they get off the top.
At least, that's how I'd argue it were I defending myself because some jobsworth had decided to prosecute because I'd moved onto the crossing when a pedestrian had a few steps left to be off the opposite side. I HAVE given them precedence, the fact I then proceeded after them has no relevance.
I was taught that you have to wait as they are STILL on the crossing
I was taught all those years ago to WAIT(ofcourse you wait) untill they have cleared the crossing and the only exception is if there is an island for refuge.......i cant beleive people are arguing about this.
It's often the case that when you are "taught" something, you'll have trouble believing that others have a different opinion. Just let that sink in.
As I recall, if there is an island each side is regarded as a separate crossing
I was taught the same, but where is the law that says you must wait until they have cleared the crossing?
@@CrazedFandango
He's literally just explained that in the video. The pedestrian has president over the entirety of the crossing while on it.
Agreed.
In East London, where I live, it is unlikely that the person driving will have a full UK licence / insurance -- and in reality, would be unlikely to stop, even if he/she hit a pedestrian on a Zebra Crossing. Videos like this bring into sharp relief how much the UK has changed, at least in our cities.
Driving on the A406 in East London is pretty much lawless. Some drivers use it like a race track…
That's what I was told about USA cities a while ago. The police were Keystone.
Also, "Beware the pink Cadillac".
An issue that is totally ignored, the amount of people who are just not trained and unfamiliar with our system is crazy. Not to mention no tax, mot, insurance etc
I know exactly what you mean. Bradford is the same. All you need is to know someone with a driving licence and that’s good enough.
@@johnnyherne know it well, used it weekly to drive out to my parents ... it's a fast route out to the home counties, so used by drugs dealers ... The A13 which takes you into the East End from the A406 is totally lawless... There are frequent signs appealing for witnesses to some fatal accident or other... To say anymore on UA-cam would be a mistake. Take care
I was taught in the 70's that you had to wait until the crossing was completly clear before moving forward
You were probably also taught to signal all the time ...
@@derekheeps1244Does that mean that you do not signal all the time? It is a good habit, whether necessary or not.
I was taught this back in the 1960s
@@derekheeps1244
"You were probably also taught to signal all the time ..."
Which is good practise as it informs road users and pedestrians that you may have not seen. Hence why it was drilled into us.
If it is not now, then it is merely further evidence of poor driving skills being taught today.
Looking through these comments, I find it amazing that people who passed their tests in the 1900's can remember basics but (a hell of a lot of) people who have passed their tests in the 2000's can't remember the basics. Bravo to you all.
My wife failed her 1st driving test, not at a zebra crossing but at a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing. An elderly couple were slow in crossing and had not completed by the time the lights changed back to green. My wife waited until they were clear of the front of her vehicle but moved off just before they stepped off the crossing onto the pavement. The examiner applied the brake and it was game over as far as the test was concerned. The examiner pointed out, correctly in my opinion, that until a pedestrian completely clears the crossing area a vehicle should not proceed.
I have personally witnessed people stop halfway across and retrace their steps. Children are particularly prone to this, often because their parents call them back if they've run ahead. I always wait.
More likely to drop something and turn back for it too.
I have seen motorists drive through a crossing with a lollipop person after the pedestrian had crossed but still on the crossing. The lollipop person shook her head but let it pass.
Trash take by someone who can't use common sense.
... there can be 3 lanes each way, and just most humans wont stop for person 5 lanes over. the system needs rule that are followed.... we give precedence but not exclusive use, the rule says precedence... pretending one is super nice is fake, most people wont stop if 5 lanes over a person is over there in crossing....
Should have appealed and asked which section of the highway code they think she had breached 🤨 Under section 198 you only have to ‘give way’ to anyone still crossing’! This she had complied with !
I passed in the 70s, and remember my driving instructor saying you must stop until the person is completely off the crossing unless there's a island in the middle
I was told that this was the case only if the island was raised. If the crossing was flat all the way through the island then you had to wait.
I always wait -always have
Why are you telling us this?
Why not?@@eadweard.
Traffic Engineer here. Just to add a little interesting snippet. IF the crossing is broken by a central refuge, it becomes two crossings. Therefore you can proceed once they are beyond the refuge.
Interestingly enough, Iearning to drive way back in 1989, my driving instructor specifically pointed out an example of this commonly used on driving test routes in my area and I’m pretty sure it was for the reason exactly opposite to this; i.e. it was to be treated as a single crossing and often caught students out on their test. Would be interesting to know if this had changed sometime in the past (or whether my recollection is flawed!).
Australian here: Legally you must wait until the pedestrian crossing is clear of all pedestrians (meaning you have to wait for them to finish). In reality, not even cops completely wait
I have ALWAYS STOPPED until any pedestrians have COMPLETELY CLEARED the entire crossing, regardless of which direction they are crossing.
And it is only common courtesy/polite to stop if you see someone waiting to cross.
Patience and courtesy are key to safe driving!
That is reasonable for most crossings that are 1-2 lanes, but some are like 6 lanes and then its not as reasonable.
Knowledge and understanding are are key to safe driving.!
Care and competence are the primary requirement .
@@derekheeps1244 Care ? surely if you are competent, you are careful. If you have knowledge and understanding, that covers care and competence. Sitting at a zebra because some old boy told you that 40 years ago and in that time you haven't expanded your knowledge and understanding is pretty poor.
Law is written to be able to confuse and convict any person, of any crime, at any time.
Stop smoking so much cannabis you nutter.
I would add " The law is written by lawyers for lawyers to be able to confuse and convict any person, of any crime, at any time"
"People should be able to drive through zebra crossings at any time, however they wish" is that what we're saying here?
@@georgeedwards6694 One must confess to violent agreement with you both. One also takes particular umbrage with the special definition of "precedence". In the opening clip, the vehicle has clearly yielded precedebce to the pefestrian, yet it's interpretted as a violation.
@@Martin-bx1et no
Am I the only one that still calls them a Belisha beacon?
No, my 86 yo dad does too. You are only the second person I've ever known call it that.
No. I also use that term.
@@YesYes-xb6he. By calling them Belisha Beacon you identify as a soul from the last century 😂😂👍
No. I thought that's what they were called. Everyone calls them that.
@@clivenewton7609 ... As the majority of people were born in the last century, I'd call them educated.
i was taught to wait in till they are fully a cross the road unless there was an island separating the sides.
ADI and ex Police. I Always wait until clear but playing devil's advocate, surely if the pedestrian has passed onto the opposite side of the crossing you have afforded them precedence and therefore complied?
I disagree. In my mind the meaning is clear. If the pedestrian is no in the relevant zone - there is no need to give precedence. If they are in the zone then you do need to give precedence, but that does not mean that once you have done so, that you cannot move once the pedestrian is clear. Once they are clear they you have fulfilled your obligation and have given precedence so you ought to be able to move.
Yeah, but that’s not what the law says.
🙄
@@andrewknight665is explicitly what the law says. Precedence is priority not exclusivity. Not that i'd try it.
The rule that states you have to give way to pedestrians ANYWHERE on the roads (as opposed to hitting them) overrides this.
@@johno4521 please show me that rule
@@andrewknight665 Errr I doubt the law says anything. The highway code is NOT the law and the highway code mentions precedence and not exclusive right. Just like a road which has 3 lanes and the middle land might have precedence for oncoming traffic. You can still use it even if other cars are in that lane.......so long as you are not in the lane at the same time/place as they are.
I passed my test over 20 years ago. Back then I was taught, yes you have to wait for the person to cross.
Not all instructors teach correctly
@derekheeps1244 true that. The reason I was given made sense. It is just incase they turn back on the crossing. Something I've seen happen and this was before most people had smartphones that took up their attention.
@@GauBan2501 Surely they can 'turn back' from the opposite kerb.
@@MrTwiglet like I said people can do random things. I was just using something I've seen more than once as an example.
I looked this up on theory test training materials I had access to. Under the vulnerable road users section it confirms that you must wait for people to fully cross before moving on.
I remember in 1976 a fellow was charged and fined for not waiting until the pedestrian had
fully crossed the road and stepped on the opposite pavement.
That was in 1976, 48 years ago, think they would really bother these days?
There wouldnt' be any police around to witness it and the few that are about are dealing with violent people from abroad these days
And what if the crossing in abbey road with the Beatles fans/tourists continue to traverse !?
@@tonypacke6954 There will soon be AI cameras which will make everyone's life more miserable.
@@AnthonyWeston-g6g Drivers will be very lucky to find that crossing clear!
when I was taking driving lessons in 1988, My instructor told me that 1 foot on the crossing means you stop, and dont drive off again until the crossing is completely clear. He even added that if kids or teenagers wanted to mess around on and off the crossing.... dont get impatient- you must wait until the crossing is clear.... I have always remembered this and have done exactly what he advised.
Loitering on the crossng is ataxy an offence
HC rule 18
18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should
always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.
Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)
Legislation
ZPPPCRGD reg 19
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19
Pedestrians not to delay on crossings
19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.
I always wait. Just in case someone stumbles backwards.
I was taught that if there is an island, you can proceed if they reach the middle island. If no island, you have to wait until they reach the other side.
Correct.
Supposed to be treated as two separate crossings.
Then you were taught incorrectly , how much time have you wasted waiting needlessly ...
@derekheeps1244 Why hurry? It pays to be patient.
I don't have a blue flashing light on my vehicle...
It's stated in his video at 3.38m if you look down the regulations - where there is a refuge (i.e. the middle "island"), the crossings are considered to be two separate crossings, and you do not need to wait once they make it to the refuge.
I passed my M/C test and driving test in early 1980's and was taught when a pedestrian is waiting or on the zebra crossing the pedestrian has priority until they have fully exited the crossing. I have also witnessed a pedestrian turning back because they forgot something at the pavement of the crossing. But it can happen anytime. It was also explained like that when I passed took driving lessons for car driving and also on the motorcycle certificate of basic training. Therefore this has been in existence for a lot longer than the current law which supercede the legislation when I took my tests
I failed my first PCV test because I passed a crossing where a pedestrian was walking in the general direction of it, no way of telling whether they were wanting to cross or not. I checked my mirror and the pedestrian arrived at the crossing as the back of the bus cleared it.
The law has not changed ; it is just that many misunderstand it . The legislation DOES NOT state that you have to wait for crossers to exit the crossing ; however it DOES state to pedestrians that it is an offence to loiter on the crossing , and turning back halfway could be so interpreted . it is a specific offence in many countries to turn back .
If a driver stops for a pedestrian on the crossing they are giving precedence as required. However on having passed the vehicle the pedestrian has now received the due "precedence" given by the driver so the precedence is extinguished, unless the pedestrian chooses to walk backwards or turn around or hold a dance party. Then the issue becomes for the pedestrian who has not "walked smartly over" as instructed. "Smartly over" should mean straight from one side to the other at ones normal walking pace, determined by the pedestrians normal ability, no need to run, rush or hurry, but no intentional dawdling, a slow gait or handicap is not dawdling.
I’d live to read the source of your waffle…..
Is it the Rosie and Jim First book of bullshit? 🤔
Who instructed the pedestrian to walk smartly over?
@@jeremypnet Perhaps people don't get taught like they once were or maybe you were just inattentive. Even the BBC carried it as a learning thing on TV.
Loitering on the crossing is an offence , although I have never heard of anyone being prosecuted for it ; the law could however be used against those people with the orange vests who block roads .
Hit a 9 year old child who turns halfway across and runs back and you think you wouldn't be prosecuted and convicted? Dream on! ;)
You must until the pedestrian has cleared the crossing…unless you are in a hurry.
This was so helpful it has reassured me that I am not out of date nor misinterpreted all of this. Thank you. Would never have been able to find that information for myself.
Wait until both the pedestrians feet have touch the other side
I let a wheelchair user cross 2 days ago, I’m still there now waiting for feet to touch the ground
What if they're wearing shoes?
@@manchegocheese997 🤣🤣🤣
Or moonwalking with giant clown shoes.
Only if you are a novice who has not developed sound judgement .
If they are on the z-crossing, your vehicle is not supposed to be.
Not correct , equally , if a vehicle is already on the crossing , pedestrians MUST NOT step onto it .
I've been an ADI for over 30 years and I've always taught as long as the pedestrian is out of the danger zone you can continue. Common sense needs to be applied and allow enough room to be given in case the pedestrian should decide to change their mind and return to the kerb.. All ADI's should teach according to the Highway Code and the DVSA Driving the essential skills. Nothing mentioned in either publication about waiting until pedestrian has cleared the crossing.. As with most things driving related there are so many grey areas but again common sense needs to be applied..
The area of the crossing is kerb to kerb. Does the Highway Code mention pedestrians being out of a "danger zone"? No, because it far too vague. Highway Code rule 20 states crossings with a central refuge are separate crossings which implies islands without a central refuge are to be treated as a single area which is the area of the crossing.
@@Soupdragonism prove me wrong. Does the highway code say pedestrians must reach the kerb on the other side. No it doesn’t. 30 years as an ADI and over 500 test passes, I think I’d have had issues if I was doing anything wrong.
@@Soupdragonism it’s all opinion.
@@supermansbigsister3012 See the video above
@@Soupdragonism My job is to teach according to the highway code and the DVSA Driving Manual.
I was wrong, I thought you would say “ it depends “ 😂 thanks for the explanation
I too was taught to wait until a pedestrian completes their crossing. The reason I was told to wait until they vacate the crossing is to allow for the pedestrian to change their mind and turn around on the crossing. With that said, I was also taught that if a pedestrian walks off the crossing onto the road, passing over the white dotted line then as my driving instructor put it, "they are fair game".
I still think there's wiggle room there. Having precedence would not exclude a vehicle moving off over part of the crossing that the pedestrian is not attempting to traverse, having already done so, and the driver already having given precedence to the pedestrian. If it had said that no vehicle shall enter the limits while occupied by pedestrians then I think the argument would be much more clear cut. Use of the word precedence simply means that the pedestrian gets to go first. I think it would be a pretty mean-spirited police officer that took action against a motorist based on this interpretation of the law.
I agree. It doesn't seem clear that giving a pedestrian precedence requires a driver to let them fully exit the controlled area before the driver can proceed after giving way. It might well be prudent to do so, but that's a different matter.
That's my thinking too.
Yes...my thoughts too....one the pedestrian has proceeded passed you then the right of precedence is completed , so the vehicle should be allowed to proceed.....on a side note, is a pedestrian allowed to turn back halfway through a crossing or must they complete the crossing and then re- enter the return trip?
I agree.
"precedence within those limits"
The interpretation of this would be
Pedestrians walk first while they are on the crossing and as long as the car let the pedestrian walk first then they can proceed even if pedestrian is on the crossing.
If the wording changed into "precedence OF those limits", then I would agree that cars cannot enter until the pedestrian leaves as now this implies the pedestrian have the right to use THIS AREA before drivers. So the drivers need to wait until pedestrian is done with that area.
We visited London yesterday and we stopped at zebra crossings but a lot of cyclists did not,
I'm really surprised at that.
Cyclists are mostly of the opinion that THEY ARE AT LEAST 3 LEVELS ABOVE GOD.
Cyclists magically change from being vehicles to being pedestrians when crossings are involved
Watched a series of Jonathan Pie videos leading up to the election. These were filmed in central London, in the background was a pelican crossing. Not a single cyclist stopped for it when it was red. Interesting watch.
@@asteve4914 Well, I have picked my own up and walked across with everyone else.
I passed my drivers licence in Australia in the eighties. Australia and the UK have the same driving laws before people want to express opposition. I was taught for my test that you have to wait until the pedestrian has reached the end of the crossing no matter which direction they are travelling before proceeding.
As sensible as that may be, what you were taught is not what is said in the road rules (at least in Victoria!).
Road Rule 81 (2): A driver must give way to any pedestrian on or
entering a pedestrian crossing.
For this rule, give way means the driver must slow down
and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision-see the
definition in the dictionary.
As long as a collision is avoided, the driver has complied with the road rules.
Many people here have been taught wrongly .
Short answer..you have to wait till the pedestrian has left the crossing area...
So glad you have covered this. I thought of you as soon as i saw Ashley’s video. It seemed clear that creeping onto the crossing behind pedestrians was not allowed. I really like Ashley and his whole ethos for driving. I was disappointed that he chose to highlight this and throw doubt on what would appear to be an obvious offence.
Still not clear. What is the exact reason that the presence of a pedestrian in the zebra zone MUST deny access to a vehicle?
I'm surprised you have to ask. Pedestrians are No.1 in the hierarchy of vulnerable road users.
Pedestrians have precedence on the crossing , you must let them go first , but once they have safely passed you , it is permissible to proceed with due caution .
@@johno4521 That is advice , not law .
@@derekheeps1244 I understand what you are saying. It's just that I have not seen the text in the law/highway code that sets that out. The video's author MERELY INFERS this is the case. He does not PROVE it.
Having precedence within the limits to me would just mean that they only have precedence while they are within those limits, not that the entire area within those limits is theirs.
Having precedence within the limits means they have precedence to the *whole* crossing while they are on *any* of the crossing *within the limits* that define the crossing. How hard can this be?
@@AndiusPandius They have precedence, not exclusive use. As long as you let them go first, I think 'precedence' has been given.
@@ado543 I would suggest exclusive use is implied by fact that the limits for which to give precedence has been defined. By putting limits on the crossing boundaries the law is saying "only one of you can use it at a time". Otherwise you're sharing, not giving precedence. You gotta wait for the pedestrian to be done with the whole.thing as defined by the limits or boundaries.
That is very bad law. If it is supposed to mean cars should only proceed once pedestrians have completed the crossing, then it should say so.
thats what it says......... and has said for many years
It doesn't, but it is implied in the highway code rule H2.
"You MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing"
Why would anyone think that means you can drive if they are still anywhere on the crossing. It seems pretty basic to me.
It's plain enough to English speakers.
A different section of TRGD 2016 says you must stop while a pedestrian is on the carriageway for purposes of using the crossing. Which I think clears up the issue, however I think the law is still bad in that it is very hard to find the answer.
UK Statutory Instruments2016 No. 362SCHEDULE 14PART 1Paragraph 22 -(1)
(b)a requirement to stop at, or before, the stop position,
if a pedestrian or cyclist is on the carriageway, for the purposes of using the crossing, within the part of the crossing intended for (as the case may be) pedestrians or cyclists.
for zebra crossing, give way means give way, i cant block them, but i can go when they are 4 lanes over.. if they meant pedestrian gets exclusive use then say "exclusive"... precedence means their movement has priority, it doesnt mean they get extra space to feel safe, .... , , , in parts of UK there are 6 lanes , and no the cars 5 lanes over dont stop..... i think
There are two pedestrian crossing on the nearest main road to where I live. Where if I was stupid enough to step onto the crossing while traffic was still moving I would be dead. The drivers who use that main road appear to have no understanding of the law or simply choose to ignore it all together.
Very interesting, thank you. My driving, "rule of thumb," is to "err on the side of caution" if in doubt, which means to always be ready to give way to the pedestrian.
I disagree personally. Having precedence means effectively the pedestrian has priority/right of way.
This has probably become more of a talking point since people have started crossing them whilst scrolling on their phone and taking a LIFETIME to cross the damn road.
I think you have the wrong approach to driving, even though that is the case. If indians can turn off their engines when a cow falls asleep in front of their car, you can do likewise.
The pedestrian has priority. If they are clearly past the vehicle and it is safe to go, then that’s fine, the driver does not have to wait for the pedestrian to finish crossing.
Within the white zig zag markings, a driver must not overtake the lead motor vehicle, or any vehicle that is stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross.
As with almost everything in driving, it is not a one-size-fits-all law. The driver has the responsibility to assess the
situation and act safely.
So in short, once the pedestrian is well past and clearly not going to be affected, the driver may proceed as long as this doesn’t involve breaching these rules about overtaking.
Excellent answer.
@@JulianJLW thanks. People look for a very definitive answer but traffic law is so subject to circumstances at the time. The laws are deliberately vague because they assume a level of competent decision making on the part of the driver. What’s the right thing to do one day might be fatal the next, even if it’s the same exact junction
I always thought it was pretty clear in the Highway code that you are supposed to wait till people have finished crossing before you may proceed.
Right of way only in there
The 2nd image used at around 8:10 on the video was not a Zebra crossing. It was Toucan crossing. Unless the regulation separates the two crossings of pedestrians and cyclists as two separate crossings, it only refers to a Zebra crossing.
It was a Parallel crossing not a Toucan crossing. There are separate regulations for them with seperate diagrams. The meaning of the parallel lines of the large squares in the photo is different to the tiny squares shown in the diagram from zebra crossing
Back when we had road safety training at school, 50s and 60s, we were taught that we should stop on the pavement, put our foot on to the zebra crossing and wait for traffic to stop. Before attempting to cris. These days, I often get pedestrians walk seamlessly along the pavement and then curve onto the crossing. Hence, every time I see someone near a crossing, I have to slow right down and be ready to stop. Meanwhile, I have often had a cyclist or motor bike overtake me when I am stopped or slowing for the crossing which then nearly hit the pedestrian. BTW. I was taught when I started driving 60 years ago, that one should wait until the pedestrian has completely cleared the crossing, or has reached the safety island if the crossing is split.;
I'm not a licensed UK driver (I live elsewhere) but I read those rules as shown and I'd agree that the rules give priority or "precedence" to pedestrians but I saw nothing that said the driver MUST then wait until the pedestrian had totally vacated the crossing before proceeding. Accepting, of course that If a vehicle and pedestrian collide on a crossing, the pedestrian will ALWAYS have right of way, I'd argue that if no collision occurs then no offence has been committed.
You're correct as written. It's always your fault. The never enter part is merely good legal practice to avoid trouble because of that.
Interesting because the regulations don’t explicitly say drivers have to “stop and wait” but merely give precedence to the pedestrian? So if the pedestrian has cleared your side of the carriageway are you not then allowed to recommence driving since you have given precedence and continuing to drive doesn’t impact the pedestrian since they are now on the other half of the crossing???
No, for the simple reason that they may suddenly turn around and go back (perhaps because they have forgotten something).
@@chrishartley1210 But then they could equally suddenly turn around and go back (perhaps because they have forgotten something) after they had completed the crossing.
@@chrishartley1210 my understanding is that this is illegal (for the pedestrian), once on the crossing you MUST proceed without delay to cross (to the other side) - once on the other side you can re-cross following the procedure from the beginning if you've forgotten something. see www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/19
Correct. But it's a bad idea.
That is exactly what you are expected to do
Was always taughtr to wait until the crossing was clear. Just assumed it was law.
No , just bad advice or instruction
Many years ago I was already crossing a zebra crossing, a black cab drove through while I was crossing. The driver stopped to scream obscenities at me as I could’ve damaged his taxi by continuing to walk. He swore a bit more and drove off.
I always consider the crossing is in use by a pedestrian, whichever part of it they’re on, so give way until completely clear; doesn’t matter which part, what if they drop something from a pram/bag, and turn quickly to get it? A child turns back, someone trips, falls, or decides to do a moonwalk on it?!? What says, that their seeming trajectory shall continue to be the same, the rest of the way? Nah. Too many potential risks for saving in total, fackall amount of time. Thanks for this it’s really interesting - I like watching Ashley’ videos, as a coming 42 year old driver, who passed at 17, I find him helpful/useful to keeping brushed up on what’s required/happening, particularly in instances of interaction with new types of road infrastructure/rules etc. 🙏🏼👌🏼
I don't agree. Allowing the pedestrian to have precedence doesn't mean the car is not allowed to cross the crossing. It merely means that the entire time they are within those limits they have precedence. If they have completely crossed your path and you are not going to obstruct them by moving on, then you have given them the precedence the law requires. IMHO. Otherwise the law would distinctly say that you are not allowed to drive across the crossing while any pedestrian is on that crossing. No need for the vague term "precedence". Personally I don't think any offence was committed in that last example you showed. I also doubt that any police would see it as an offence either as there was no danger.
In the real world i think this is fine, but legally you won't hold up in court if anything comes of it.
@@eliaspanayi3465 So the real world and the lawful world are entirely different your honour?
@@eliaspanayi3465 if something comes of it, then it’s clearly the driver’s fault. They decided it was safe to go when it wasn’t.
@@richardsuttill54 if nothing bad happens did it really happen at all?
It does state that by giving the example of crossings with an island counting as two separate crossings, this is the exception to the rule of waiting until the crossing is completely clear.
I was told to wait if anyone was on the crossing regardless of where they are in the crossing
You were misinformed then
So all these Rainbow Crossings have no legal force then...?
No, those crossings have been sprinkled with the same special magic fairy dust that makes a woman grow a p3n15.
Rainbow crossings are normally controlled by traffic lights and are therefore not zebra crossings
They will need to have special signs authorisation otherwise they are illegal markings.
@@Terayonbiker but not always
Extra care must be taken on rainbow crossings because any damage will be regarded as a hate crime.
Wasn't sure what the law was, but I have always waited, in case another driver assumes the crossing is clear if they see me go.
I think that's what my instructor told me to do as well, many years ago.
The limits of the crossing is the area of road space to be used. Giving precedence is simply allowing the pedestrian to use that space FIRST. As they progess through the space their precedence has been afforded and they are no longer using the space behind them. Therefore, the precedence aspect has been adhered to and the vehicle can continue to go.
There is no requirement to give precedence once the need for precedence has ceased. The need arises from the car yielding to the pedestrian before carrying on. I can't see how it could be argued that the pedestrian is "using" the space they have just left.
Given all the tables, diagrams, definitions and legislation, there is enough doubt there to screw up a prosecution relating to letting the pedestrian reach the other side fully.
Drivers are required to make maximum safe progress, avoid undue hesitancy, and promote good use of road space. All nice having a fancy complicated law about one thing when adhering to it results in non compliance elsewhere!!! 🙄
In Thailand you should never use a zebra cossing as they make it easier for the drivers to spot you and hit you.
How does "within limits of a zebra crossing" turn precedence from meaning "the pedestrian gets to go first" into "the pedestrian is the only one who gets to be within the limits of the zebla crossing"? I think you and Ashley both got this wrong. You started with the conclusion and read more into the law than is actually there. But it seems to be a common enough misconception, including among the police, that one is probably better off following the law as imagined.
And driving examiners, apparently.
@@mandowarrior123 Some of them need to go back to cardington for retraining
Agreed , yet this is not rocket science . perhaps Werner Von Braun would have made a good lawyer , or driving instructor .
I can understand novice drivers being taught to err on the side of safety , but rivers are meant to evolve and improve as they gain experience , yet many seem to still drive as though they were learners .
No it says in your theory that you have to wait for them to clear the zebra crossing
it's nonsense though. Lets use a common sense approach of proceedingh when its safe
@@annother3350Asking a lot of UK drivers to apply common sense is asking a lot of them
@@Kerrlynscott Not many zebras on the streets these days
@@ResevoirGod you sound like a cyclist
@@annother3350 You sound like a retard
The question is about the area of the crossing which is kerb to kerb or kerb to central reservation if there is one and not just the lane in front of you. You have said this but adding a simplified version or image would help.
In Australia, you have to wait until the pedestrian is off the pedestrian crossing before you can enter.
The driving test has become more strict over the years but the new drivers have become impatient and worse drivers.
They seem to look for loop holes or exceptions to the rules.
maybe the drivers became more impatient, because the pedestrians take the absolute piss. Crossing as and when the want, on crossings or not, on red lights, etc, not paying any attention whatsoever to what's happening on the road, because they think - rightly or wrongly - that they always have the right of way, as if this would save their lives when hit by two tonnes of steel. One time this guy just casually walks out in front of my car on a red light, not an emergency stop, but I had to brake quite firmly. He walks across giving me this look, like trying to pick a fight. "What ya gonna do bruv, innit".
@@prusak26 let's get the violins out weep for you .
@@wrightwoodwork I'm not looking for pitty, but you know that, don't you. I'm giving just one example of pedestrians behaving like pricks. Common courtesy should work both ways.
@@prusak26 Drivers manage in other countries under the same rules. Waiting a few seconds saves a lot of time in filling paperwork when you hit a pedestrian.
You forgot to mention that the pedestrian does not have right of way until they step onto the crossing. Just waiting at the crossing does not give you right to cross. Just as a cyclist is not a pedestrian when they are mounted on their cycle, unless they are constructed in the manner shown in this video with a definite bicycle painted on the road. They theoretically should dismount and cross as a pedestrian to afford them right of way. But how many do?
Remember that a zebra crossing that is split with a traffic island has to be considered as two separate crossings. You don't have to wait until they have crossed on to your side of carriageway. Frustrating for the pedestrian, but it is what the Highway code indicates.
It is only through culture that we have accepted that a waiting pedestrian will not step on to the crossing until a car is slowing or stopped and given way.
Highway Code Rule 19
Zebra crossings. Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing . Drivers and riders should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross and MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing (see Rule H2). Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.
Highway Code Rule 20
Where there is an island in the middle of a zebra crossing, wait on the island and follow Rule 19 before you cross the second half of the road - it is a separate crossing.
One should stop if there are people waiting to cross at a zebra crossing. You are lucky they do not cross in front of you like a car at a junction with right of way, the only reason they are not stepping out is because drivers haven’t stopped, they are not going to throw themselves in front of cars like lemmings.
@@QueenBabylonnia you stop because they WILL cross. its called hazard perception, thats why the highway code tells you to slow/stop when approaching a zebra crossing, when someone is waiting to cross because once they step ON TO that crossing, THEY then have priority over you, which means you could be forced to make a sudden stop when instead you could have followed the normal procedure of slowing to a stop
That is a moot point, if they step one foot on while you did not plan to stop that puts you in trouble.
@@mandowarrior123 puts the ped in trouble "Highway Code Rule 18
At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should
always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing
always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.
You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing."
I think it was the very first thing he mentioned :/
States in the highway code
"You must give way to pedestrians ON the crossing"
So by that I would say you have to wait for pedestrians to clear the crossing before moving which is what I was told by my driving instructor 50 years ago.
Give way does not mean you have to wait until they have cleared the crossing but that you must allow them to proceed first.
Give way lines at junctions do not mean you have to wait until the car has disappeared. Give way means what it says, they go first.
@@Must_not_say_that
But if the pedestrian decides to turn round halfway across and you've started to drive off and hit them then you're at fault because they were still on the crossing.
The wording is "give way to the pedestrian ON the crossing" not "give way to the pedestrian on your half of the road"
@@bobp6742 Yes, absolutely in your example. Then you would not have given them precedence.
But if they were the other side of the crossing and you can drive on easily without any liklihood of that, then fine.
That is what precedence means.
The give way bit means essentially the same thing.
@@Must_not_say_that that isnt what precedence means at all, precedence is by definition "priority" so when it clearly states "has precedence within those limits over that vehicle" its literally the pedestrian has priority over that vehicle.
You might want to brush up on your English because the wording is plain and simple. pedestrian has priority and any vehicles within those limits DO NOT as made clear by the wording and where such limits exist when at a crossing.
pedestrian even if they are on the other half of the crossing STILL have priority over any vehicle, I mean lets say the individual falls and stumbles backwards in a car that partly crossed? it can happen and as such you would be at fault because YOU ARE NOT meant to be on the crossing when a pedestrian is.
Your example is irrelevant because the pedestrian still has priority regardless of where they are on the crossing in relation to the vehicle attempting to cross.
@@Must_not_say_that
If they are on the crossing and you proceed to drive then you are not giving way while they are on a zebra crossing.
It shows how far society has fallen when courtesy has to be legislated.
It will never be enforced unless the local council can put a camera up and charge fines for it
Passed my first test when I was 18, i'm now 71. I took I have taken 6 tests on various vehicles up to class 1 HGV. I can remember many instructors telling me that I could pass to the rear of pedestrians on a zebra crossing.
Yes, they are correct to the word of the law. But if you injure anyone you have no defence on a crossing.
Good , you at least ha competent inductors , as have I , a mere youngster of 66
@@mandowarrior123 This just told the opposite
You are lucky if they stop in Spain.
Better than they were x
Yes you must wait
Unless there's an island in the middle of the crossing.
@@duckman5642 I don’t think that matters especially with kids about,they could drop a ball 🥎 or toy
A crossing with an island refuge in the middle is actually classed as 2 separate and distinct crossings.
I googled it later on, and highway code states a staggered crossing is 2 crossings.but I'll stay with my system and consider a centrally island separated crossing as 2 separate crossings . (16.54
29/10/24. )
If it said must then that would be fine...but it doesn't. Only that they have priority.
As a bog standard retired Police Officer, we were taught this at Hendon training school, before being let loose on the streets. Great video, which confirms my suspicions that legislation hasn't changed, and painting crossings in LGBT colours effectively makes the crossing illegal. An issue that to my knowledge has never been challenged!
When I started PCV instructing in the mid 1980s, it was considered that once the pedestrian was clear, the vehicle could proceed, precedence having been given. However, at some stage the examiners started marking this down as a minor and eventually a serious.
They were correct before, but that is interesting.
I was trained to drive in 1965, and it was the case then, (and when I passed my M/C test in '64), as far as I recall, that you had to wait until they had left the crossing, so the question need not even be considered!
Those who 'veer off' the crossing when nearing the end, need to be careful, because they are NO LONGER ON THE CROSSING!
If they are on the road, they still have right of way as if they had crossed on any other part of the road although you don't necessarily have to observe the Do not proceed until.... It doesn't mean you can simply drive over them for stepping off the crossing boundary.
Interesting, I understand that precedence simply means that the pedestrian has the right to go first, not that the driver may not pass a safe and non-frightening distance behind them, whilst they are still crossing the far side of the road.
A fortune, paid by the taxpayer to confuse common sense.
You would think if they meant the driver must wait for the pedestrian to completely clear the crossing, they would say so. It’s not a hard concept to describe in simple language.
Those steel studs they put at crossings a menace to motorbikers, one took me off my bike on wet road.
As long as their foot is on the crossing you should stop until they've cleared the crossing.
Road Traffic Act 2022 - pedestrians have new priority when crossing road junctions, while cyclists have priority when passing a turning car, under a new hierarchy of road users. Few road users seem to be aware of these changes.
Rubbish awareness campaign by the government, as you’d expect.
Yes, this seems to be a far more important subject to discuss.
Cat. Pigeons. I was taught that the requirement was to accord precedence to the pedestrian. To give them priority. For them to walk in front of your vehicle. Once the pedestrian has passed you have accorded precedence and complied with the law and are free to proceed. Comments about children, collapses ,changes of direction are all red herrings since they could occur at any time during, before or after the pedestrian transit. The offence used to be "Failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing." It could only be committed by driving across the crossing in front of that persons direction of travel. Not behind them because, by then , one had complied with the law. Also, that this referred only to pedestrians and not cyclists riding across the crossing from kerb to kerb.
Since another post has been pinned I should state that I was taught this at the Hampshire Constabulary Driving School, Hulse Rd Southampton in 1975. I will always remember what the instructor said "The pedestrian has passed safely in front of you, you don't have to wait until he's walked home and had a cup of tea before proceeding. "
It could have been so simple: don't move until a pedestrian has left the crossing! 😊
In fact, precedence also means to treat someone/something as more important - which is its use in the law here. 'Allow to go first' is what most people think.
Except on a Puffin crossing with a lane for cyclists to ride across , it is an offence for cyclists to ride across : they MUST dismount and wheel their cycles across ; other crossings are for PEDESTRIANS ONLY to cross the road ; cyclists are not pedestrians unless they dismount .
I was taught that a crossing can be the whole width of the road or part thereof but is delimited by the beacons. If a pedestrian is on any part of the crossing you must wait until they have completely cleared the crossing before proceeding. It seems straight forward to me.
As a driver, I was taught to wait until the pedestrian had cleared the crossing completely. As a pedestrian on a crossing, I get pissed off if a car enters the crossing behind me. It’s something else you have to be aware of that’s going on behind your back and I don’t have a rear view mirror. But, if allowed to drive over before a pedestrian has fully crossed, what is the cutoff line? Is it when the pedestrian is 1 foot passed your car? Maybe 2 feet, or 3 feet. I’ve been in Europe and they drive behind you when you have cleared their car by inches! 😮 Just wait, you will be delayed by another 10 seconds.
I’m old enough to remember being taught to allow people to fully cross before proceeding. HOWEVER… I’m a bit confused by the logic of your argument here. You start by talking about the ordinary English meaning of the word precedence, suggesting it means to allow the pedestrian to go first. You further suggest this means it would be fine to go once they’re no longer in front of your vehicle, as long as you’d allowed them to cross first. But you then suggest this is no longer the case based upon an argument which merely clarifies the limits of the crossing zone. I don’t understand how this affects your earlier argument?
Personally, I’ll still allow people to fully cross, but I’m left confused as to how arguing about the size of the crossing zone, somehow changes the definition of precedence. Clarification gratefully received.
Agreed. There seems to be something missing (or lost in translation?) here.
Equally confused about this.
Another in agreement here. It seems to me the law permits a driver to proceed once priority has been granted, even if the pedestrian is still within the controlled area. It may not be sensible to drive whilst the ped is still crossing, but don't see a legal barrier to prevent driving once precedent has been granted
I would have thought it could be much more clearly expressed if the law required the vehicle not to proceed at all when someone was within the bounds of the controlled area.