Driving car from driveway into zebra crossing legal?

Herzlos

If you've got enough room to turn the car round in the garden, can't you just pave it and do a 3-point turn when you're off the road? Then you can enter/exit in both directions, and you don't need to remove the fence or drive on a pedestrian crossing?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Mojisola wrote: »

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

It doesn't mean that council employees necessarily act according to their obligations, but if they do stupid stuff you do have redress even if they are not acting unlawfully - unlike a private individual who is only under an obligation to act lawfully. One of the most powerful lines you can put in a complaint to the council is that they have acted unreasonably - it is a legal obligation on them to act reasonably. It's a double edged sword because if you try and get a council to take enforcement action, it is usually glacial because they have to show they are acting reasonably to the party they are enforcing against even where the other party is known to be acting unlawfully.

However, the other side to this is that the council have two roles, as highways and as planning. While you can get deemed consent for the use of property, as highways I am not sure aside from it would depend again on it being unreasonable for them to enforce if something had been done for some time without enforcement. The whole 4 year thing comes down from the need for the council to act reasonably and if they are bothered enough about a problem they should have enforced it within a reasonable time.

When it comes down to it, the council would not be acting unreasonably to refuse to grant permission for a further access, I think we can all see that it would be bizarre to suggest that accessing a property from a zebra crossing would be safe (and imagine the floodgates of precedence it would subject the council to).

I doubt that the council could remove access to the property if its been around for 4 years or more, but I would certainly establish how long the driveway had been in existence. That fresh tarmac on the driveway looks recent and not laid particularly well which makes me suspicious of its history.

A can of worms.

paddycharlie

Having worked for the highways section in a council as an engineer previously there is a very high probability that they will block your access over the pedestrian crossing. If I had been made aware of someone doing what you would like to do I would block access to the house via the crossing ASAP

unholyangel

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

So you're saying there isn't a beacon or it doesn't meet the requirements?

I'm saying I'm doubtful thats a beacon at all, but if it is....it doesn't meet the legal requirements.

Just as the stripes don't seem to be the minimum width. If a zebra crossing doesn't meet the legal requirements then strictly speaking, its not a zebra crossing.

Shimrod wrote: »

Or it could just be the photo is not very well exposed - it all looks a bit washed out.

Could possibly be but theres a noticeable difference between the colour of the lamp post and the post on the right. Imo that lamp post is grey rather than a washed out black.

Warwick_Hunt

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm saying I'm doubtful thats a beacon at all, but if it is....it doesn't meet the legal requirements.

Just as the stripes don't seem to be the minimum width. If a zebra crossing doesn't meet the legal requirements then strictly speaking, its not a zebra crossing.

Well it clearly doesn't meet the regs without a beacon.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm saying I'm doubtful thats a beacon at all, but if it is....it doesn't meet the legal requirements.

Just as the stripes don't seem to be the minimum width. If a zebra crossing doesn't meet the legal requirements then strictly speaking, its not a zebra crossing

But it does meet the regulations!

Section 10(1) allows for discrepancies which do not "materially affect the general appearance" of the crossing.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

But it does meet the regulations!

Section 10(1) allows for discrepancies which do not "materially affect the general appearance" of the crossing.

You're forgetting this part:

10.—(1) Where, as respects a crossing or controlled area, the requirements of this Section of these Regulations as to the placing of traffic signs and road markings to indicate the crossing or controlled area have not been complied with in every respect, the crossing or, as the case may be, the controlled area shall nevertheless be treated as complying with these Regulations if the non-compliance—

(a)is not such as materially to affect the general appearance of the crossing or the controlled area;
(b)does not, in the case of a Pelican or Puffin crossing, affect the proper operation of the vehicular and pedestrian signals at the crossing; and
(c)does not relate to the size of the controlled area.

Which is why I raised the point earlier that its not wide enough. But none the less, no beacons or beacons that are not black & white banded do materially affect the general appearance.

That section is designed to ensure that a mere technical failure to comply in a trivial way (ie a stud perhaps slightly out of line compared to the rest) does not invalidate the crossing. In other words, the type of failures that you'd need to get a measuring tape out for to be sure it was wrong rather than those that are obvious (especially from a distance).

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

paddycharlie wrote: »

Having worked for the highways section in a council as an engineer previously there is a very high probability that they will block your access over the pedestrian crossing. If I had been made aware of someone doing what you would like to do I would block access to the house via the crossing ASAP

Across the crossing itself for a new entrance, yes, but if they were to block across the zig-zag, they'd have to block all the other drives that entered over zig-zags otherwise they would be be being unreasonable.

unforeseen

Would it not be reasonable for a council, once a safety risk to pedestrians has been identified to mitigate that risk by excluding the cause of the risk?

This could also extend to ensuring that pedestrians had a clear sight line along the road for at least the area of the zig zags and not have that view blocked by a vehicle stopped on the footpath waiting to exit a drive.

paddycharlie

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Across the crossing itself for a new entrance, yes, but if they were to block across the zig-zag, they'd have to block all the other drives that entered over zig-zags otherwise they would be be being unreasonable.

Yes I would have it blocked across the back of the tactile pavement so only the existing access could be used. Although I may be inclined to look to see if permission has ever been granted for the access as it is now. It doesn't look very wide and is not in an ideal location for pedestrian safety.


If I was the OP I would not wish to draw the matter to the council's attention if you don't know for certain the full details of the permissions having been granted previously.