Help! Clipped by car on zebra crossing in carpark

Rotor

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

Bad news Pew !
There was an article in the Telegraph a few years ago by the QC Fenton Bresslaw on this issue.
A pedestrian has an absolute right to cross at a zebra crossing and the motorist should give way. The example he used was even if a child ran across in front of a car the driver would still be liable because he should expect and predict that the crossing could be used and have slowed to a safe speed beforehand.
Sorry OP : I've no idea how this relates to crossings on private land

derrick

Rotor wrote: »

Bad news Pew !
There was an article in the Telegraph a few years ago by the QC Fenton Bresslaw on this issue.
A pedestrian has an absolute right to cross at a zebra crossing and the motorist should give way. The example he used was even if a child ran across in front of a car the driver would still be liable because he should expect and predict that the crossing could be used and have slowed to a safe speed beforehand.
Sorry OP : I've no idea how this relates to crossings on private land

From the highway code, (and yes, I know it is not a "legal document" but should be adhered to).

Crossings

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)]


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. 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.

And don't forget;-
"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."



As said before, the black and white paint on a supermarket car park carries no legal standing!

biscuitdunker

I find it a bit sad that virtually everyone responding to the OP seems to have jumped to the conclusion that the OP is trying it on. I'd be surprised if the OP returns to tell us any more info considering the extremely condescending responses his post has attracted.

"Be more careful next time"?? He was on a zebra crossing, it's the driver who should be more careful next time! Would the poster be saying this if it was her child or elderly relative who was hit by a driver on a zebra crossing? Whether or not the lines mean the same thing by law on private land really doesn't stop them from meaning something in principle - they are the places where pedestrians will be crossing and we have a duty to be aware of pedestrians crossing, even on private land.

Steve_xx

Regardless of whether these black and white lines are on a public highway or in a supermarket car park does not detract from there being a 'duty of care' owed.

Hintza

biscuitdunker wrote: »

- they are the places where pedestrians will be crossing and we have a duty to be aware of pedestrians crossing, even on private land.

But in the same breath you must argue that it is the responsibilty of pedestrians to be aware of what is going on around them too.

Unfortunately the OP was shy with all the information, we don't know whether the OP just stepped out or not.

The OP and driver will be the only ones that will really know who is at fault here the rest of us are just speculating. I suspect OP might just have treated is a normal zebra crossing and if some of the posts are correct that is perhaps not the case.

OP could pursue this via a solicitor instead of us barrack room lawyers....:D

biscuitdunker

Hintza wrote: »

But in the same breath you must argue that it is the responsibilty of pedestrians to be aware of what is going on around them too.

That can be said when anyone is hit by a car. However, usually when a person is hit by a car in a place such as a zebra crossing, the blame can be almost always be leveled at the driver for failing to pay attention and slow down when a pedestrian was nearing the crossing.

Unfortunately the OP was shy with all the information, we don't know whether the OP just stepped out or not.

Doesn't matter, the driver should not have been driving at a speed where it was impossible to stop in time for a pedestrian, especially at a crossing.

derrick

biscuitdunker wrote: »

However, usually when a person is hit by a car in a place such as a zebra crossing, the blame can be almost always be leveled at the driver for failing to pay attention and slow down when a pedestrian was nearing the crossing.

But in this case it is not a "zebra crossing", just paint on the "road", there are no belisha beacons, no studs, no zig zag markings.

gilbert_and_sullivan

Whether the painted crossing has any legal standing or not probably is an academic question.

If it came to somone getting injured whilst reasonably crossing in such a place, an insurance company would not risk fighting such a claim IMO.
A reasonable pedestrian would expect to cross safely and a reasonable driver would expect to give way to said pedestrian at the point.

As to the question posed here in the OP, short of having someone posted 24/7 on the crossing to control traffic i fail to see how the supermarket can be held to be responsible.

derrick

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Whether the painted crossing has any legal standing or not probably is an academic question.

If it came to somone getting injured whilst reasonably crossing in such a place, an insurance company would not risk fighting such a claim IMO.
A reasonable pedestrian would expect to cross safely and a reasonable driver would expect to give way to said pedestrian at the point.

As would crossing at ANY place!

computershack

Rotor wrote: »

Bad news Pew !

Good luck in finding anything Pew Pew Has No Clue posts that's remotely correct.