What is a crossing?

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Just about everybody over there knows they aren't part of the UK (and they get very touchy at any suggestion that they are part of the UK) but they do tend to think of themselves as part of GB.  I think that's because of having "British" nationality and passports, and for a few sports people competing under a team GB flag.

The UK govt can sometimes make it unnecessarily confusing too.  I had some difficulty at work some years ago producing right to work documents because the then UK govt guidance was less than clear in its references to "UK passports" and "British citizen".  (i had a passport showing I was a British citizen, but my passport was not a UK passport and caused some consternation for a while).

The Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories passports always cause confusion and especially given that despite all being "British Passports" entry rules vary based on the sub text (eg Bermuda needs no visa or visa waiver for entry to the US)

Cross_Man

Thank you everyone for your comments.

A couple of comments mentioned that Highway Code and NRSWA says what markings there must be but does not say that the road surface otherwise should just be plain.  I suspect that is because the rules never envisaged that the road would be painted with some graphic art of any kind, but that the road surface would be just that - whether tarmac, concrete, cobbles or whatever.

Still, I guess the Council having money spare to spend on pretty pictures is a very first world problem.

knightstyle

How about this by a school near me, is it a crossing?

Car_54

knightstyle said:

How about this by a school near me, is it a crossing?

Have you ever read the Highway Code?

It is not a crossing that has any legal status. Peds do not have priority, and drivers are not obliged to give way (and indeed shouldn't).

Cross_Man

I missed St George's Day because of being on holiday, but once I was back I duly visited the "St George's Crossing", stood to attention, saluted and belted out a couple of renditions of the National Anthem.  I've no doubt there was quite a crowd doing the same on Saturday.

Anyway, the graphic is already looking less-fabulous after only a couple of months of being driven over:


I think I'll start a campaign for the road to be closed to traffic so that the £160k artwork can be kept fully polished and cared for as befitting such an investment.

No doubt, then, the Council would take out the crossing altogether as it serves no purpose whatsoever in a pedestrianised street.  Will they be able to lift the art work to display in a gallery or something?

Grumpy_chap

I was reminded of this thread today when the BBC carried articles reporting that some have flown Union Flags and St George's Flags from lampposts and even painted St George's Flags on street markings:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr2p9zpg7do
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx271162ee3o

I do not in any way condone any graffiti or other illegal action, but I was intrigued by the comments made with regard to the St George's Flag crossings:

"This presents a safety and insurance issue..."

"...painting pedestrian crossings could cause issues for people with visual impairments."

"...painting flags over public property is illegal and - in the case of road crossings - dangerous to pedestrians and motorists."

I am very confused as to how a simple red cross on the white background creates such flagrant safe concerns, yet the fully painted artwork as per examples linked in this thread are perfectly OK.

user1977

Grumpy_chap said:

I was reminded of this thread today when the BBC carried articles reporting that some have flown Union Flags and St George's Flags from lampposts and even painted St George's Flags on street markings:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr2p9zpg7do
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx271162ee3o

I do not in any way condone any graffiti or other illegal action, but I was intrigued by the comments made with regard to the St George's Flag crossings:

"This presents a safety and insurance issue..."

"...painting pedestrian crossings could cause issues for people with visual impairments."

"...painting flags over public property is illegal and - in the case of road crossings - dangerous to pedestrians and motorists."

I am very confused as to how a simple red cross on the white background creates such flagrant safe concerns, yet the fully painted artwork as per examples linked in this thread are perfectly OK.

I think we've already discussed that above. There's a distinction between zebra crossings (where the regulations mandate black-and-white stripes on the surface of the crossing) and signal-controlled crossings where you can do what you like with the bit the pedestrians walk on (though obviously it's a criminal offence for anybody other then the roads authority to chuck paint on it).

sheramber

Grumpy_chap said:

I was reminded of this thread today when the BBC carried articles reporting that some have flown Union Flags and St George's Flags from lampposts and even painted St George's Flags on street markings:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crr2p9zpg7do
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx271162ee3o

I do not in any way condone any graffiti or other illegal action, but I was intrigued by the comments made with regard to the St George's Flag crossings:

"This presents a safety and insurance issue..."

"...painting pedestrian crossings could cause issues for people with visual impairments."

"...painting flags over public property is illegal and - in the case of road crossings - dangerous to pedestrians and motorists."

I am very confused as to how a simple red cross on the white background creates such flagrant safe concerns, yet the fully painted artwork as per examples linked in this thread are perfectly OK.

It is not the legal signage for a pedestrian crossing so can confuse  or distract drivers meaning  potential for accidents.

pedestrians may not recognise it as a pedestrian crossing.

Grumpy_chap

sheramber said:

It is not the legal signage for a pedestrian crossing so can confuse  or distract drivers meaning  potential for accidents.

pedestrians may not recognise it as a pedestrian crossing.

But pedestrians will recognise a random graphic design as a crossing?

user1977

Grumpy_chap said:

sheramber said:

It is not the legal signage for a pedestrian crossing so can confuse  or distract drivers meaning  potential for accidents.

pedestrians may not recognise it as a pedestrian crossing.

But pedestrians will recognise a random graphic design as a crossing?

The "random graphic designs" (other than those recently created by the flagophiles) aren't on zebra crossings, so there are no particular rules about what should or shouldn't be on the road.