Help! Clipped by car on zebra crossing in carpark

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

No, two people are apparently deluded enough to believe that painted tarmac off a public highway has any legal standing whatsoever, and in a futile attempt to demonstrate the veracity of their opinion, are now engaged in offering silly bets.

It's really very simple. Tell me, what legal standing does a painted pedestrian crossing point have off the public highway? And were I to take your bet, what would the police charge me with?

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

No, two people are apparently deluded enough to believe that painted tarmac off a public highway has any legal standing whatsoever, and in a futile attempt to demonstrate the veracity of their opinion, are now engaged in offering silly bets.

It's really very simple. Tell me, what legal standing does a painted pedestrian crossing point have off the public highway? And were I to take your bet, what would the police charge me with?

Erm, actually, I suggest you learn to read.

Neither person has said that car park zebra crossings have legal standing, one (me) has even stated this in a previous post.

What both posters are saying is that even though the zebra crossings may have no legal standing, you can be prosecuted for killing someone who is using one. You can be convicted of death by dangerous driving, even if you happen to be driving in a car park. Don't believe me? Give it a go. I'm sure the police will be really impressed with your "painted tarmac" argument.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

I see, now you actually appear to have researched the matter a little, you understand that no such offence exists. As with the other guy, you're not prepared to admit you were wrong. You have continually implied that a car park pedestrian crossing has some kind of legal status, when it clearly does not.

I'm loving the straw-man argument of "give it a try". Pathetic. The killing of a pedestrian in such a manner does not automatically imply dangerous driving.

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

I see, now you actually appear to have researched the matter a little, you understand that no such offence exists. As with the other guy, you're not prepared to admit you were wrong. You have continually implied that a car park pedestrian crossing has some kind of legal status, when it clearly does not.

I'm loving the straw-man argument of "give it a try". Pathetic. The killing of a pedestrian in such a manner does not automatically imply dangerous driving.

Wrong about what? I'm not sure you've shown me to be wrong about anything. I haven't once mentioned anything about there being a specific offence relating to killing people on car park zebra crossings, merely that I am sure that killing someone who is using one would be prosecutable. You tried to argue that there was no offence called "killing someone who was walking across the car park on a bit of tarmac with painted lines on", but since that wasn't my argument, why is it up to me to prove that such an offence exists?

The killing of someone who is using a zebra crossing in a car park would suggest that you are either driving to fast to stop in time, or not concentrating.

custardy

to get back on topic
the problem with many of these 'crossings' is where they are located
heres my local Asda



now look where the crossings are located
as seems the norm the car park is designed so you have to swing wide to enter/leave the side sections
the car park isnt well lit either

vikingaero

Biscuit and Steve,

It's not worth arguing with someone like PPPL. He's got it into his mind about the technicalities without realising that reasonable cause and behaviour comes into it. He argues constantly for proof, yet isn't willing to explain why he thinks he has the right to run people over on these "oh-my-gosh-they're-fake" zebra crossings. Troll.

Wig

It's ridiculous all of this. No legislation would mention a painted area on the ground in a public car park. But a driver, driving through the car park has a duty to be extra cautious when approaching the painted area -because everyone knows its intended meaning- Caution to the same degree would not be required when driving through the unpainted "roadways" in the carpark, and that's not to say that no caution is required in those other areas.

If you don't take extra caution near these painted areas and you do hit someone you will lose on your insurance and may get prosecuted aswell.


PPPL if you disagree with this, say so, otherwise stop being such a numpty.

dzug1

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.

Well it wouldn't be called that - it would be called manslaughter, possibly murder. depending on how much you ranted on about there being no law to stop you doing it and it being within your god given rights.

Steve_xx

vikingaero wrote: »

Biscuit and Steve,

It's not worth arguing with someone like PPPL. He's got it into his mind about the technicalities without realising that reasonable cause and behaviour comes into it. He argues constantly for proof, yet isn't willing to explain why he thinks he has the right to run people over on these "oh-my-gosh-they're-fake" zebra crossings. Troll.

Yes you're right of course. He's a wind-up merchant and I'm a fast learner. I'm not intent on responding further to his postings.

Hintza

Who cares the OP has bu$$ered off............