OT: Idiot using mobile 'phone

[dennis]

It has never been the case! You need to take some driving lessons.

[dennis]

I would suggest you are wrong.

[Richard]

Well, he's being stupid.

[Harry Bloomfield]

dennis@home presented the following explanation :

So you would be inclined to come to a stop for anyone hovering near a crossing - those chatting to friends and maybe including those yapping on the phone?

[Harry Bloomfield]

Richard used his keyboard to write :

Or perhaps realistic.

[dennis]

Your suggestion that they aren't on the crossing until they have a foot in the road is wrong.

[Andy Burns]

From

Every pedestrian, if he is on the carriageway within the limits of a Zebra crossing, which is not for the time being controlled by a constable in uniform or traffic warden, before any part of a vehicle has entered those limits, shall have precedence within those limits over that vehicle and the driver of the vehicle shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian

It seems clear to me that if a vehicle may enter "the limits", then they should not include e.g. a knobbly section of path at the side of the black/white stripes.

[dennis]

If you want to try that argument then remember the zigzags that define the limits of the crossing for the road vehicle.

[Andy Burns]

The zigzags are not within "the limits", they are within the "zebra controlled area".

within the limits of a Zebra crossing the carriageway shall be marked with a series of alternate black and white stripes

The SI is pretty clear about the limits

[tabbypurr]

I thought most crossings were not Zebra these days, but some derivate thereof.

NT

[Davey]

Maybe, but that still leaves many Zebra Crossings that are real Zebra Crossings. The one in the OP is one of those, and it's only about a year old.

A 'Derivative of a Zebra' sounds like a Zebra foal.