Surely this needs zig-zags?

[Skipsy]

This pedestrian crossing on Kingston Road, Merton lacks any zig-zags, and I only recently thought about this peculiarity.
Is there supposed to be zig-zags?

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4105032 ... 92!5m1!1e1

[trickstat]

Does it not need them because there are double yellow lines? Although I think there are examples where the double yellows end and zig-zags start.

[DB617]

Does it not need them because there are double yellow lines? Although I think there are examples where the double yellows end and zig-zags start.

Don't zig zags also prohibit overtaking?

[trickstat]

Does it not need them because there are double yellow lines? Although I think there are examples where the double yellows end and zig-zags start.

Don't zig zags also prohibit overtaking?

I think they do, not that anyone should even be contemplating such a manoeuvre that close to a crossing.

[doebag]

Does it not need them because there are double yellow lines? Although I think there are examples where the double yellows end and zig-zags start.

Don't zig zags also prohibit overtaking?

The vehicle nearest to the crossing not all those in the zigzag area.
But yes I would have thought there should be some.

[fras]

Having looked at the GSV view, there are double-yellow lines and also double kerb blips, so this almost matches the zig-zag restriction, except that the board/alight passengers exemption still applies, but waiting and loading is barred. To be honest, I would think what is there is enough to keep the view of the crossing clear.

[Bryn666]

It isn't a Section 25 Crossing as per RTRA 1984 and TSRGD as it lacks the mandatory controlled area.

Zig-zags at signal controlled pedestrian crossings have been a requirement since at the very latest 1997.

This is functionally a signal controlled junction with no side roads, there's nothing to prevent stopping, overtaking, or any of the provisions of Section 25 as a result.

My money is the crossing is ancient, and has been upgraded like for like. The ASLs are now permitted in TSRGD so it's not even like they can use that as an excuse any more.

[Gareth]

I preferred zigzags only on pelicans and zebras. Part of their initial function was to highlight the situation of pedestrian precidence whilst motorists could also proceed if clear.

Hong Kong doesn't have pelican crossings, just normal lights or zebras. Zigzags only appear on zebras and it really helps them stand out, as the zigzags are consequently not as common as here.

I also know of at least a couple of locations locally where zigzags have been put in on a signalised offset crossing on the leaving arm of a junction.

[jervi]

I also know of at least a couple of locations locally where zigzags have been put in on a signalised offset crossing on the leaving arm of a junction.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.23027 ... 312!8i6656
Should there, or should there not be zig zags at an offset crossing?

[traffic-light-man]

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.23027 ... 312!8i6656
Should there, or should there not be zig zags at an offset crossing?

From a look around on GSV, I think that's operating as a displaced crossing, therefore I don't believe they need zig-zigs as they're still under the control of the main junction.

[WhiteBlueRed]

Slightly off-topic, but I've always wondered what is the point of the zig-zags after pedestrian crossings on one-way roads and roads with central reservations. Parking on these zig-zags will not block the visibility of pedestrians.

[Bryn666]

Slightly off-topic, but I've always wondered what is the point of the zig-zags after pedestrian crossings on one-way roads and roads with central reservations. Parking on these zig-zags will not block the visibility of pedestrians.

I tend to use the minimum length leaving a crossing in such situations, the only reason you'd use the longer lengths is to prohibit overtaking and stopping on the leaving side for traffic flow purposes (e.g. to stop blocking back over the crossing).

[traffic-light-man]

I tend to use the minimum length leaving a crossing in such situations, the only reason you'd use the longer lengths is to prohibit overtaking and stopping on the leaving side for traffic flow purposes (e.g. to stop blocking back over the crossing).

This one always strikes me as a bit backwards, with minimum on the approach (and only two on the opposite one) and a full set on the exit.

[Chris Bertram]

I tend to use the minimum length leaving a crossing in such situations, the only reason you'd use the longer lengths is to prohibit overtaking and stopping on the leaving side for traffic flow purposes (e.g. to stop blocking back over the crossing).

This one always strikes me as a bit backwards, with minimum on the approach (and only two on the opposite one) and a full set on the exit.

It look like like you can't combine zig-zags with a yellow box marking.

[tom66]

I tend to use the minimum length leaving a crossing in such situations, the only reason you'd use the longer lengths is to prohibit overtaking and stopping on the leaving side for traffic flow purposes (e.g. to stop blocking back over the crossing).

This one always strikes me as a bit backwards, with minimum on the approach (and only two on the opposite one) and a full set on the exit.

Since stopping, and therefore parking, in a yellow box is illegal does it not have at least as much effect as having zig-zags? That said, it doesn't prohibit overtaking, though the zig-zag line down the centre seems like it would have sufficient legal effect.

[traffic-light-man]

It look like like you can't combine zig-zags with a yellow box marking.

Correct, there's a restriction on signage allowed within the controlled zone.

The opposite approach is short as well owing to the bus stop (not an ideal place for either, really).

Up by UCLan in Preston, there are a bunch of crossings all of which use the minimum, which was an aesthetic thing as far as I know, being in the shared-space-vibe-but-not-quite area.

[MotorwayGuy]

This crossing never had zig-zags until recently. Strangely they appeared shortly after I posted about it on here!