Bus stop foul of zebra crossing markings

[WHBM]

This bus stop in London is immediately beyond the zebra zig-zags, in fact the kerbside marking has been foreshortened to fit the bus bay in.

https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.5160 ... 6,,0,15.72

There are multiple high frequency bus routes, and not uncommonly two buses arrive together, or the second arrives before the first leaves. This leaves the second stopped completely foul of the zig-zags, and sometimes foul of the crossing itself.

Visibility of pedestrians starting to cross by those driving in the opposite direction is thus reduced/eliminated, which is of course what the zig-zags are to prevent in the first place.

Is the bus operator breaking the law by having vehicles stop on the zig-zags ?

Is the LA at fault for arranging the street furniture in this manner ?

[Mark Hewitt]

Is the bus operator breaking the law by having vehicles stop on the zig-zags ?

Yes, but to do otherwise would require stopping before the roundabout until the bus stop was clear!

Is the LA at fault for arranging the street furniture in this manner ?

It would seem that further along the street would be a better location?

[Glen]

Is the bus operator breaking the law by having vehicles stop on the zig-zags ?

No, buses, while on a public service, can stop on the departing side of the zigzags.
Although it's hardly an ideal situation to be encouraging by the road layout though.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Is the bus operator breaking the law by having vehicles stop on the zig-zags ?

No, buses, while on a public service, can stop on the departing side of the zigzags.
Although it's hardly an ideal situation to be encouraging by the road layout though.

You sure ?

Highway Code 191 states "You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines"

If buses could park/stop on the departing side of zig-zag, it makes a bit of a mockery of using zig-zags on the departing side.

[Fahad]

The Highway Code is not legally binding but merely a summary of laws that are. In this case the relevant rule is The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997, regulation 20 of which is quoted hence:

20.—(1) For the purposes of this regulation and regulations 21 and 22 the word “vehicle” shall not include a pedal bicycle not having a sidecar attached to it, whether or not additional means of propulsion by mechanical power are attached to the bicycle.

(2) Except as provided in regulations 21 and 22 the driver of a vehicle shall not cause it or any part of it to stop in a controlled area.

Regulation 22(1)(b) makes the relevant exemption:

22.—(1) Regulation 20 does not prohibit the driver of a vehicle from stopping it in a controlled area—
(b)if the vehicle is a public service vehicle being used—
(i)in the provision of a local service; or
(ii)to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate fares,
and the vehicle, having proceeded past the crossing to which the controlled area relates, is waiting in that area in order to take up or set down passengers; or
(2) In paragraph (1) “local service” has the meaning given in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985(1) but does not include an excursion or tour as defined by section 137(1) of that Act.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Point accepted - Highway Code 191 has an omission then as it references regs 18, 20 & 24 but not 22.

[WHBM]

Thank you for the quote. I really am surprised. Anyone here with a PCV licence recall this being in the training ?

I also wonder why; the hazard of pedestrians being concealed does not go away because it's a bus.

[Ruperts Trooper]

Thank you for the quote. I really am surprised. Anyone here with a PCV licence recall this being in the training ?

I also wonder why; the hazard of pedestrians being concealed does not go away because it's a bus.

The hazard goes up - statistically half of the passengers getting off the bus will want to cross the road.

[Andy33gmail]

It does atleast mean they might do so at a crossing instead of each picking a random point to cross at. Hang on, no, they'll do that anyway

[WHBM]

I'm going to make a guess here for how this happened. Until Worboys signage, zebra crossings had a no stopping area only on the approach side, marked by metal studs across the traffic lane (The famous picture of The Beatles crossing Abbey Road shows this). When the regs were enhanced to the zig-zags on both sides, there must have been many bus stops just on the departure side of crossings. The bus industry, and I would guess principally London Transport of the time, must have persuaded the Ministry to exempt them, only, from the new requirement.

The issues caused by two buses running together are often overlooked in detailed road design. It was one of the things that did in the "Bendy Buses" in London, where various detailed adaptations were made to junction layouts on roads they served when introduced, to fit them in. However, two Bendy Buses running nose-to-tail, which they were particularly susceptible to, would overwhelm these, and caused a wide range of delay issues, in particular obstructing junctions, but also being cited in evidence about pedestrian and cycle accidents.

[ChrisH]

The length of zig zag markings is allowed to vary quite a lot. The minimum is one “zig” and one “zag”, which doesn’t take up too much room. The maximum length can be up to eight of each, if I remember correctly.

Although the number is supposed to be symmetrical on either side, there is wriggle room in the regs to shrink and vary them where a standard layout wouldn’t fit. And on a one-way street, it’s obviously not as much of an issue if there are fewer zig-zags on the exit compared to the approach.

I note that the road in question is controlled by an outer London borough which probably contributes to the more laissez-faire attitude to the road markings

[Lockwood]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85887 ... XYcbrA!2e0

[Chris Bertram]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85887 ... XYcbrA!2e0

Surely in that situation on a DC, there's no need for more than the minimum markings on the far side of the crossing?

[WHBM]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85887 ... XYcbrA!2e0

That one is not so bad, because the bus on a well-separated dual carriageway does not obstruct the view of any oncoming traffic. I also presume that two buses together are not an issue there.

They are grossly overlength zig-zags on the departure side, though.

[shampooefficient]

Thank you for the quote. I really am surprised. Anyone here with a PCV licence recall this being in the training ?

I also wonder why; the hazard of pedestrians being concealed does not go away because it's a bus.

Not mentioned in my training, but irrelevant in most service...

[AndrewGPaul]

Here's one with parking spaces alongisde the zig-zags:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.82388 ... ZWnNOA!2e0

[Andy33gmail]

Is there really any need for the zig-zags on light controlled crossings anyway? They make sense on zebra crossings because cars and pedestrians need to co-ordinate, but if you're taking the mentality of "everyone's a retard that doesn't look" anyway by fitting lights, maybe it's unneccesary to have good sightlines?

[Chris5156]

I note that the road in question is controlled by an outer London borough which probably contributes to the more laissez-faire attitude to the road markings

Inner London, surely? IME it's the inner boroughs that prefer to make up their own rules about signage and markings! (Or choose to largely do without either.)

[57Tonic]

It seems to me the bay looks long enough for two buses but with the flag and shelter in the middle that's where the first bus will stop, if the flag was moved further along there'd be room for two buses by the looks of it.

[vlad]

This crossing has a deliberately short zigzag, presumably so it's ended before the bus stop. However, if the front of the bus stops by the shelter the back will still be hanging over the crossing.