Driving car from driveway into zebra crossing legal?

unforeseen

As a matter of interest was an application made for the construction of drive?

A dropped kerb application isn't just about dropping the kerb but also triggers a survey of the positioning on the road and whether strengthening of the footpath is required.

Looking at the photo and the narrowness of the drive opening makes me think that there was originally a footpath gate and the rest of the panel has been removed to widen it. Whether that was the OP or the previous owner is anybody's guess.

However if there is no application on file for the address then the only outcome when contacting the council or it being brought to the attention of a highways officer will be the loss of the drive.

See
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/183148/Council-built-road-crossing-at-the-end-of-couple-s-driveway the 2 can not co-exist

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

This gets far more complicated. If it's been there 4 years or more it gets deemed consent, so the council cannot stop its use. Also, the Council are under a legal obligation to act reasonably - so for example, arbitrarily blocking a property with bollards without going through a proper process with the owners would not be acceptable behaviour - they can't sneak along when the owners are not looking and block it off.

If there are genuine legal issues with the access, then the owner ought to be having words with their purchasing solicitor or selling estate agent depending on description, though there are probably many let outs, like the crossing was not brought to the attention of the solicitor, not marked on plans etc, so they may well not be negligent. However, if the solicitors were aware of the crossing and that it might be an unlawful vehicular access then it raises the joyous possibility of a complaint.

PS If the OP has a problem, clearly several other properties have a problem, there are going to be a number of accesses across the zig zag. This is actually a good thing as it shows that the council would be acting unreasonably if they resisted an improved and safer access at the crossing as they clearly have built the crossing across existing driveways.

Warwick_Hunt

IanMSpencer wrote: »

This gets far more complicated. If it's been there 4 years or more it gets deemed consent, so the council cannot stop its use. Also, the Council are under a legal obligation to act reasonably - so for example, arbitrarily blocking a property with bollards without going through a proper process with the owners would not be acceptable behaviour - they can't sneak along when the owners are not looking and block it off.

If there are genuine legal issues with the access, then the owner ought to be having words with their purchasing solicitor or selling estate agent depending on description, though there are probably many let outs, like the crossing was not brought to the attention of the solicitor, not marked on plans etc, so they may well not be negligent. However, if the solicitors were aware of the crossing and that it might be an unlawful vehicular access then it raises the joyous possibility of a complaint.

PS If the OP has a problem, clearly several other properties have a problem, there are going to be a number of accesses across the zig zag. This is actually a good thing as it shows that the council would be acting unreasonably if they resisted an improved and safer access at the crossing as they clearly have built the crossing across existing driveways.

Even if the use and access across the footpath was never lawful?


The best he's ever going to get is an extension of the current opening up to the beacon post. He will not be allowed access across the textured slabs.

unholyangel

noah1234 wrote: »

Thank you all for your answers.

I just would like know from traffic law point of view. Assuming there is no fence at all.

The situation is shown below in the photo.

Is that even a zebra crossing? Wheres the beacons? Plus aren't the studs supposed to be a minimum of 2.4m apart?

Tbh I'd consider just removing the part behind the post to widen the entrance. With that extra room and a bigger area paved, you should find it a lot easier. Who does the boundary wall belong to? You or your neighbour?

unholyangel

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Given it's a zebra crossing my guess is it's the beacon and not a lamp post.

Its not the beacon.

Beacons need to have the black & white banding on them to meet the legal requirements (and the banding needs to be at least 275mm wide but no wider than 335mm - the bottom band must also be black).

Doesn't seem like this is a zebra crossing after all.

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

Its not the beacon.

Beacons need to have the black & white banding on them to meet the legal requirements (and the banding needs to be at least 275mm wide but no wider than 335mm - the bottom band must also be black).

Doesn't seem like this is a zebra crossing after all.

Have you seen more than that photo?

The black banding may well start above the base given it's cropped you the top of the photo.

Mojisola

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Also, the Council are under a legal obligation to act reasonably - so for example, arbitrarily blocking a property with bollards without going through a proper process with the owners would not be acceptable behaviour - they can't sneak along when the owners are not looking and block it off.

Sure about that?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/its-bloody-ridiculous-couple-blasts-6817524

Andy_L

Shimrod wrote: »

I've taken my information from a secondary source ( http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/02/pedestrian-crossings-what-are-the-rules/ ) and maybe I have misinterpreted it. I think regardless of legality, stopping near or on the pedestrian crossing would cause confusion for other road users and would be a safety issue.

unforeseen wrote: »

Stopping is an offence. S25 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

An explanation can be found at http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2016/02/pedestrian-crossings-what-are-the-rules/

Interesting, the highway code section on crossings just says must not park & must not overtake & doesn't mention stopping. Its hidden away in the bit on parking which says must not stop or park on a crossing but then cross-references back to the crossings section which just says must not park park.
Not the first & not the last time that the law is confusingly written

Warwick_Hunt

Andy_L wrote: »

Interesting, the highway code section on crossings just says must not park & must not overtake & doesn't mention stopping. Its hidden away in the bit on parking which says must not stop or park on a crossing but then cross-references back to the crossings section which just says must not park park.
Not the first & not the last time that the law is confusingly written

What do you find confusing?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/regulation/18/made

unforeseen

IanMSpencer wrote: »

This gets far more complicated. If it's been there 4 years or more it gets deemed consent, so the council cannot stop its use. Also, the Council are under a legal obligation to act reasonably - so for example, arbitrarily blocking a property with bollards without going through a proper process with the owners would not be acceptable behaviour - they can't sneak along when the owners are not looking and block it off.

If there are genuine legal issues with the access, then the owner ought to be having words with their purchasing solicitor or selling estate agent depending on description, though there are probably many let outs, like the crossing was not brought to the attention of the solicitor, not marked on plans etc, so they may well not be negligent. However, if the solicitors were aware of the crossing and that it might be an unlawful vehicular access then it raises the joyous possibility of a complaint.

PS If the OP has a problem, clearly several other properties have a problem, there are going to be a number of accesses across the zig zag. This is actually a good thing as it shows that the council would be acting unreasonably if they resisted an improved and safer access at the crossing as they clearly have built the crossing across existing driveways.

The council can stop it if it is deemed a road safety hazard