Informal Zebra Crossings

[Pete Owens]

I think the enforceability of these informal zebras is a bit of a red herring. ... I'd understand the purpose of these markings is to make clear where the priority lies, it doesn't create or change it.

The purpose of a trial is to establish how well they work in comparison to no markings and/or a formal side road zebra. The evidence from these trials (and others?) will be examined by DfT to inform any decisions on whether such markings should be allowed and/or enforceable.

But this trial misses the point spectacularly.

The issue is not so much the effect of stripes on the tiny number junctions where they are installed but the effect on the junctions where they are not installed. It has always been the case that drivers should stop for pedestrians crossing side streets (the recent HC just clarified this). So the markings actually make no difference at all to how road users should behave at junctions. Putting markings at some junctions just reinforces the misconception that it is up to pedestrians to wait for a gap at the 99.999999% of junctions not treated.

The other issue is if you use black and white stripes to denote informal crossings you are downgrading the meaning when the same markings are used to denote formal crossings. Now there is a role for informal crossings - not least because they can be be used far more frequently. We have shed loads of crossings with dropped kerbs, central islands, textured paving and the like - and there is a good case for prominent markings to make them more noticeable to drivers. But don't use zebra stripes.

Also, you are not going to measure anything of significance by collecting observations from just three junctions.

[Pete Owens]

https://www.westminsterlabour.org.uk/is ... stminster/

Look where the formal give way markings are painted:

[Cowsham]

https://www.westminsterlabour.org.uk/is ... stminster/

Look where the formal give way markings are painted:

That does look dangerous

[Bmblbzzz]

Does it? Why? It's merely emphasizing, as Pete says, the convention/soft rule that you should give way to people crossing the side road at the point where it meets a major road. In some countries, and even occasionally the UK, they commonly do this by using continuous footway. (And yes, I have noticed the zig-zags leading to, presumably, a formal zebra off to the right on the major road.)

What is new is the use shown in the photos from the Isle of Man by Cowsham, which were also at a T-junction but across the main road.

[Cowsham]

Does it? Why? It's merely emphasizing, as Pete says, the convention/soft rule that you should give way to people crossing the side road at the point where it meets a major road. In some countries, and even occasionally the UK, they commonly do this by using continuous footway. (And yes, I have noticed the zig-zags leading to, presumably, a formal zebra off to the right on the major road.)

What is new is the use shown in the photos from the Isle of Man by Cowsham, which were also at a T-junction but across the main road.

It looks dangerous to me -- just common sense nothing more.

[Bmblbzzz]

Does it? Why? It's merely emphasizing, as Pete says, the convention/soft rule that you should give way to people crossing the side road at the point where it meets a major road. In some countries, and even occasionally the UK, they commonly do this by using continuous footway. (And yes, I have noticed the zig-zags leading to, presumably, a formal zebra off to the right on the major road.)

What is new is the use shown in the photos from the Isle of Man by Cowsham, which were also at a T-junction but across the main road.

It looks dangerous to me -- just common sense nothing more.

But is that because it's across the end of a side road? Or because it lacks zig-zags and beacons? Or because it's close to the zig-zags of a formal zebra? Or something else? I'm trying to find what it is that triggers this sense in you.

[Bmblbzzz]

Here's a similar layout but with a formal zebra:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MonVrb6miXZFqZ6E6

[Cowsham]

Does it? Why? It's merely emphasizing, as Pete says, the convention/soft rule that you should give way to people crossing the side road at the point where it meets a major road. In some countries, and even occasionally the UK, they commonly do this by using continuous footway. (And yes, I have noticed the zig-zags leading to, presumably, a formal zebra off to the right on the major road.)

What is new is the use shown in the photos from the Isle of Man by Cowsham, which were also at a T-junction but across the main road.

It looks dangerous to me -- just common sense nothing more.

But is that because it's across the end of a side road? Or because it lacks zig-zags and beacons? Or because it's close to the zig-zags of a formal zebra? Or something else? I'm trying to find what it is that triggers this sense in you.

I never agreed with relying on the chimp in a car to stop as it turns into side street when a pedestrian decides it's time to step off the footpath. That's why it won't make sense to me -- I don't trust every car driver to know the rules especially when it's me that can end up in the hospital.

What could happen is that your risk tolerance could spike at the wrong moment like that argument about helmet wearing makes you take more risks that zebra crossing will make you think every driver no matter what age or condition will know the rules and if they break them they'll be in deep trouble --- but not as much trouble as you as you fight for each breath.

Sorry for the little rant but that's how I see it.

[Bmblbzzz]

I see it as more of an enabler. It doesn't alter the rules or responsibilities of anyone, just gives the gibbon on foot more of an equal chance with the chimp on wheels. Though there are probably better ways to do these things. I don't think it's going to make people step off the kerb without a glance, mostly because people don't do that with even a formal zebra or traffic lights. Apart from the very few who do, and they're doing it anyway! But what it might do is give you the confidence to cross when a driver will have to stop for you – which is really all an official zebra does (in practice, not in law) anyway.

[Cugel]

I never agreed with relying on the chimp in a car to stop as it turns into side street when a pedestrian decides it's time to step off the footpath. That's why it won't make sense to me -- I don't trust every car driver to know the rules especially when it's me that can end up in the hospital.

What could happen is that your risk tolerance could spike at the wrong moment like that argument about helmet wearing makes you take more risks that zebra crossing will make you think every driver no matter what age or condition will know the rules and if they break them they'll be in deep trouble --- but not as much trouble as you as you fight for each breath.

Sorry for the little rant but that's how I see it.

Agreed - the problem is that the tradition is the motor normativity one of junctions being part of the road and drivists having utter precedence at them, despite the various rules (new and old) about giving way to peds at junctions.

A better physical change would be to make the pavement continuous across the junction, with the part crossing the road junction thus raised into a significant speed bump. Car lovers would soon recognise that thrusting speedily around the junction bend would probably knacker their suspension and perhaps loosen a filling in their toof. The pavement would say, "I am a pavement for peds, not a road for drivists - but you can cross me carefully if there's no peds".

Add an additional redesign to make junction mouths very tight and sharp, rather than those big trumpet-mouth openings inviting a speedy "coin arund the corna" on two wheels.

Slow the drivist; turn road junctions into pavements rather than tarmac throughways.

[AndyK]

Here's a similar layout but with a formal zebra:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MonVrb6miXZFqZ6E6

There's a difference, though: in your example there is enough space between the crossing and the Give Way line for a vehicle to stop at the Give Way line without obstructing the crossing, as handily demonstrated by a Transit van in this view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YkEEUt8RYG8LcHdTA

In the Westminster picture it doesn't look as if there is, so a van stopping at the Give Way line would block the crossing while it was waiting.

[AndyK]

Does it? Why? It's merely emphasizing, as Pete says, the convention/soft rule that you should give way to people crossing the side road at the point where it meets a major road. In some countries, and even occasionally the UK, they commonly do this by using continuous footway. (And yes, I have noticed the zig-zags leading to, presumably, a formal zebra off to the right on the major road.)

What is new is the use shown in the photos from the Isle of Man by Cowsham, which were also at a T-junction but across the main road.

Yes, it's just emphasising the rule that already exists. The thing is, why stop there? Why not do the same at the next junction? And the next? Until you end up like Brussels with an informal zebra crossing painted across almost every side street and filter lane. Which I'm not necessarily against, but... here, hold my beer for a minute while I go and buy shares in a paint company.

Surely the risk is that motorists eventually start to assume that pedestrians only have right of way when there's a zebra marked on the road.

Edited to replace "slip road" with "filter lane" for clarity.

[Cowsham]

Does it? Why? It's merely emphasizing, as Pete says, the convention/soft rule that you should give way to people crossing the side road at the point where it meets a major road. In some countries, and even occasionally the UK, they commonly do this by using continuous footway. (And yes, I have noticed the zig-zags leading to, presumably, a formal zebra off to the right on the major road.)

What is new is the use shown in the photos from the Isle of Man by Cowsham, which were also at a T-junction but across the main road.

Surely the risk is that motorists eventually start to assume that pedestrians only have right of way when there's a zebra marked on the road.

Good point.

[Bmblbzzz]

Here's a similar layout but with a formal zebra:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MonVrb6miXZFqZ6E6

There's a difference, though: in your example there is enough space between the crossing and the Give Way line for a vehicle to stop at the Give Way line without obstructing the crossing, as handily demonstrated by a Transit van in this view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YkEEUt8RYG8LcHdTA

In the Westminster picture it doesn't look as if there is, so a van stopping at the Give Way line would block the crossing while it was waiting.

The flip side to this is that the pedestrian always to deviate. It's only a few metres, but repeated at every side road it adds up – and it's most significant for those who most need it (those with impaired mobility, whether that be from a permanent disability or simply a heavy load). Swings and roundabouts – or zigs and zags!

[AndyK]

Here's a similar layout but with a formal zebra:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MonVrb6miXZFqZ6E6

There's a difference, though: in your example there is enough space between the crossing and the Give Way line for a vehicle to stop at the Give Way line without obstructing the crossing, as handily demonstrated by a Transit van in this view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YkEEUt8RYG8LcHdTA

In the Westminster picture it doesn't look as if there is, so a van stopping at the Give Way line would block the crossing while it was waiting.

The flip side to this is that the pedestrian always to deviate. It's only a few metres, but repeated at every side road it adds up – and it's most significant for those who most need it (those with impaired mobility, whether that be from a permanent disability or simply a heavy load). Swings and roundabouts – or zigs and zags!

Yeah, unfortunately that's been standard practice for many years. A study in Edinburgh a few years back resulted in the city council changing its guidance and directing that controlled crossings should be right up at the junction, not set back from it. The trouble with the Westminster version is that it's neither one thing nor the other: the crossing is still set back, just not so much, so you have [crossing] - [awkward space] - [give way].It just feels like an invitation for drivers to stop half on the crossing.