Help! Clipped by car on zebra crossing in carpark

Oblivion

vikingaero wrote: »

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

.... it ended up in our Boxing Day sandwiches. Sorry.

Dave.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

vikingaero wrote: »

I think you have a problem understanding what a zebra crossing is! Yes a zebra crossing on a public highway will have all the prescribed orders and notices in place. On private land which the public have access to it is reasonable to assume that a zebra crossing with all the markings and beacons if necessary is still a zebra crossing. The main difference is that the private landowner has no need to apply for approval for a crossing. You're just taking the technical term of a legitmate zebra crossing to a ridiculous level.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

No, its entirely unreasonable to assume that such a crossing is called a Zebra crossing. For one, practically none of them have the required signage, including the zig-zag areas before and after the crossing. Secondly, it will not be illegal to overtake at such a crossing, as it is on the road.

The only place you will find a Zebra crossing, is on a public highway. A supermarket car park is not part of the public highway, and there is no legal requirement to pay any attention to them whatsoever.

Your Duck analogy is stupid.

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

No, its entirely unreasonable to assume that such a crossing is called a Zebra crossing. For one, practically none of them have the required signage, including the zig-zag areas before and after the crossing. Secondly, it will not be illegal to overtake at such a crossing, as it is on the road.

The only place you will find a Zebra crossing, is on a public highway. A supermarket car park is not part of the public highway, and there is no legal requirement to pay any attention to them whatsoever.

Your Duck analogy is stupid.

The term zebra crossing is used across the world to describe pedestrian crossings which have black and white stripes. It doesn't suddenly become something other than a zebra crossing simply because it's in a car park. It is still a zebra crossing according to the universally accepted definition. The difference between a zebra crossing in a car park and one on a public road is that by law you cannot be prosecuted for refusing to abide by them in car parks. However, I'm quite sure you can still be prosecuted for killing someone who is using one in a car park.

jdturk

duncan303 wrote: »

Does anybody have an opinion as to the position of being clipped by a car whilst using the zebra crossing as a pedestrian in a supermarket carpark.

Does the supermarket have a duty of care having provided a physical feature that imitates a zebra crossing or is it just a waste of paint? Can the supermarket be held to account in any way? Can the driver legitimately discount the feature as inadequate?

Is anybody here able to help with some considerations?

Thanks in advance.




..

I have to ask that unless you were caused some serious pain why are you bothering asking? I can't see how its the fault of the supermarket for you and the driver not be aware of each other.....

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

biscuitdunker wrote: »

The term zebra crossing is used across the world to describe pedestrian crossings which have black and white stripes. It doesn't suddenly become something other than a zebra crossing simply because it's in a car park. It is still a zebra crossing according to the universally accepted definition. The difference between a zebra crossing in a car park and one on a public road is that by law you cannot be prosecuted for refusing to abide by them in car parks. However, I'm quite sure you can still be prosecuted for killing someone who is using one in a car park.

No, you can't actually. No offence of "killing someone who was walking across the car park on a bit of tarmac with painted lines on" exists.

Steve_xx

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

No, you can't actually. No offence of "killing someone who was walking across the car park on a bit of tarmac with painted lines on" exists.

I think you will find that the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice Act 1993 will prove that you are wrong.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Really, show me in either of those Acts where that specific offence is mentioned.

Steve_xx

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Really, show me in either of those Acts where that specific offence is mentioned.

No I wont. You're clever enough to go look for the detail yourself, or maybe you're not.

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

No, you can't actually. No offence of "killing someone who was walking across the car park on a bit of tarmac with painted lines on" exists.

OK, see if you can get away with it.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Steve_xx wrote: »

No I wont. You're clever enough to go look for the detail yourself, or maybe you're not.

So in other words, you know that I'm correct, and that you're talking out of your !!!!. But you don't want to appear stupid.