robmawer

I'm stumped by this one...

You're driving along a road in a town (30mph limit, for arguments sake), it's two lanes in each direction.

You're in the left hand lane of one carriageway, and about "x" yards in the distance is a traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossing with zig-zag markings (but lights are green and no pedestrians around).
About "2x" further up the road, you observe a bus stopped indicating left at a stop which is not recessed from the road.

Thus you move into the right hand lane of the carriageway in anticipation of moving around the bus, and this lane change occurs while between the zigzags.

Is this illegal? The Highway Code states that no parking or overtaking should occur between the zigzags, but this isn't either? Or would it be classed as overtaking, even though the vehicle you're moving around isn't between the zigzags, and you aren't moving into the opposite carriageway?


Rob.

__________________

Babs

would be "avoiding a road-side obstacle" surely?

__________________

daiking

bugger me that's spooky! I had the same thought going round a bus today, except I was just outside the zigzag and it was only a single lane carriageway. Would like to know the answer but I've a feeling you were ok on the two lanes but I would have been wrong if I'd done it on the single lane

__________________
The power of punctuation

yashicamat

I don't think moving past a stationary vehicle is classed as overtaking.

__________________
Rob

Nissan Primera GT in Silver
'56 Octy 2 2.0TDi Elegance . . . also gone but not forgotten
2002 Fabia 1.9TDi . . . . gone but not forgotten

http://uk.youtube.com/yashicamatonline

daiking

Crossing the zig zag whilst going round a parked vehicle?

__________________
The power of punctuation

smstext

3 points for parking on the zig zags.

__________________

Oxon Meet Feeler 2009 please add your input, click here

ScoobyChris

According to the Highway Code it would appear to be illegal as you are crossing the zig zags but not overtaking a badly parked/queueing traffic. However, I'd agree with your decision and argue that in that situation it's better because a) there are no pedestrians or traffic in the immediacy to come into conflict with, b) to be out and see/be seen early by oncoming traffic increases your safety margins, and c) it's only paint after all!

Chris

__________________
Holding up the traffic in a little Italian..........

robmawer

To be clear...no vehicles parked on the zig-zags, the bus is stopped further up the road from the zig-zags, and the move into the right-hand lane is just in anticipation of passing the bus. No other vehicles between the zig-zags...


Is it actually the crossing of the zig-zag which is illegal? I noticed over the weekend that some two-lane crossings have zig-zags at either side of the two lanes in the carriageway (ie. 3 zig-zags for two lanes of the carriageway), whereas others only have a zig-zag on each side of the carriageway and a broken line as the centre-line...so I wonder if this makes a difference.

And while I could argue I'd made the right decision it's an argument I'd rather not be having with an officer in the first place...


Rob.

__________________

ScoobyChris

As I read it, it is crossing the zig zags that is illegal so in the case where the carriageway is bounded by zig zags you're fine to switch lanes within these. Where each lane is bounded by zig zags, the easy answer (because you're forward planning) is that you could do the lane switch before you reach the zig zags and then not worry about it....

Well just make sure that you are at or below 30mph and you'll be fine

Chris

__________________
Holding up the traffic in a little Italian..........

robmawer

Indeed, my two main problems in this case though are that 1) if there's no-one near the crossing the lights are unlikely to change, it slips right down my "priority list" to the extent that I don't really notice it, and 2) there's that many of the things round Manchester that chances are if you changed lanes in anticipation of a crossing you'd probably be on another crossing anyway...


Rob.

__________________

ScoobyChris

Asked a police chappie about this and his response was:

Chris

__________________
Holding up the traffic in a little Italian..........

ap0gee

Uh, what does 'accord precedence' mean? Is it that a pedestrian's crossing?

__________________

ScoobyChris

As I understand, it means whoever gets there first has precedence. So, for example, on a zebra crossing if a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing before you reach it, then they have precedence, yet if you are on the crossing when they set foot on it, you have precedence.

Chris

__________________
Holding up the traffic in a little Italian..........

ap0gee

Ah-ha!

I remember once being pulled over whilst riding my mountain bike after overtaking a couple of motorcycle cops on the approach to a zebra crossing. They were only doing about 0.0000005mph as I started the manoeuvre, and I think they sped up initially to save their blushes.

The conversation went along the lines of:

"You do know it's against the Highway Code to overtake on the approach to a zebra crossing, sir?"

"Hang on, the only reason I wan't past you in plenty of time was because you sped up while I was overtaking you - surely that's not allowed either?"

"Erm... Get lost, sir, before we do you for waiting police time."

"???"



Maybe I should have said something about steam giving way to sail, just to add to the confusion!

__________________

robmawer

Ah...so if the road is totally empty of traffic, moving between the lanes/carriageways wouldn't be an issue (even if it was a single lane in each direction???) - it's just if you're actually overtaking a vehicle on a crossing that you're breaking the law.

Have I got that right?


Rob.

__________________

ap0gee

It would seem in the spirit of what the rule's for in my wholly-inexpert opinion - namely to avoid pedestrians being hit on crossings by unsighted drivers (i.e. even if you were on the 'wrong' side of the road, if you weren't overtaking anything you'd be able to see the whole of the crossing and therefore any pedestrians...)

__________________

ScoobyChris

From what's been said, my understanding is that the only time when you're not allowed to overtake is when the car/bus/etc you're overtaking is stopping/stopped to allow pedestrians across the crossing. And even then, so long as you don't pass the front of that vehicle you can still remain in an overtaking position!

I'm not sure on the legalities of "offsiding" on an empty pedestrian crossing though, but from what he said it doesn't seem to be a problem

Chris

__________________
Holding up the traffic in a little Italian..........

ap0gee

Not quite what I meant - I think you'd have to have a pretty good reason for NOT being on the correct side of the road!

But if my old driving instructor is to be believed, there's no law against it!

(The guy did claim to be the former lead guitarist of Marmalade, so possibly not - although he did seem to hate Rolf Harris with a passion for preventing them having the first no.1 of the 70s! )

Having said this, I gather IAM do not condone crossing lane markings for any reason other than overtaking...

__________________

ScoobyChris

Sorry - my offsiding comment was directed at Rob's post

Advanced driving organisations used to encourage "offsiding" to expand on an existing view, to increase safety margins if there were driveways/entrances only on your side of the road, or maybe to straightline a series of open curves. Sadly, a lot of IAM associates tried this and ended up having accidents so the IAM decided that rather than teaching them to do it safely and properly, it would be dropped from the course. Other organisations still do teach this and because IAM exams are assessed by police class 1's they don't have a problem with you doing it, so long as the paint doesn't prohibit it.

I agree with you though - if there's nothing to be gained from doing it, then why do it!

Chris

__________________
Holding up the traffic in a little Italian..........