26th June 2019 at 1:43 pm #3440StuParticipant
Concerning Zebra crossings in the 1997 Regs, there were paragraphs that made it clear that if the road markings or the Belisha beacons were imperfect, disfigured or discoloured then that would not mean that the crossing ceased to be valid. Also, there was a paragraph regarding non-compliance i.e. under some circumstances, non-compliance did not mean that the crossing could not be treated as compliant.
I can’t find reference to these in the TSRGD 2016. Are they still there?26th June 2019 at 2:00 pm #4025
June 2019 edited June 2019
You’re right, Stu. The wording of Regulation 10 of the former 1997 Crossings Regs regarding “Non-compliance with requirements … [that] is not such as materially to affect the general appearance of the crossing or the controlled area” is nowhere to be found in TSRGD 2016.
Nor is there the equivalent of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 Part I of the 1997 Regs regarding the discolouration, disfigurement, imperfection or lack of illumination of zebra crossing globes or their posts, or to paragraph 12 of Part II, which says much the same for road markings at zebras.
The 1997 Regs are specifically called up for pelican crossings, so the above flexibility still applies to them, but not to other types of crossing.
During the Traffic Signs Policy Review that preceded the 2016 TSRGD various forms of wording of this nature were proposed to apply generally to all signs and markings, but these didn’t make it to the final cut.26th June 2019 at 2:01 pm #4026
Crikey! So, aside from the leniency given in Reg 6 of TSRGD concerning dimensions, if something as complex as a Zebra crossing is a tiny bit non-compliant or discoloured or imperfect etc, then it could be rendered invalid.
Do you think the omission of the wording relating to crossings was deliberate?26th June 2019 at 2:03 pm #4027
I meant Reg 7 of TSRGD.
I also can’t find reference to the variation of the length of the individual marks that make up the zig-zags lines. In the 1997 Regs, the marks could vary 1m to 2m. But now I only see 2m in the diagrams e.g. Diag 1001.4 (Sch 14, Pt 2, Item 52).
Funny thing is, in the Variants for this Item, it says :
“Each zig-zag line need not contain the same number of marks
as any other line, provided each mark is of the same length as the others”.
Why mention the length unless it can be varied?26th June 2019 at 2:06 pm #4028
June 2019 edited June 2019
I agree that there now seems to be no provision for varying the length of each mark, which is almost essential on a curved carriageway. (Although the now superseded TSM Chapter 5 of 2003 said to use shorter marks only to indicate a shorter than normal controlled area – not just for a curve.) Schedule 4 Part I paragraph 5(1)(a) of the 1997 Crossings Regs allowed each mark to be reduced to as short as 1 metre if necessary.
The general tolerance on markings allowed in Reg 7 of 2016 TSRGD only permits these marks to be between 1800 and 2400 mm long. Perhaps in future we will be increasing the lengths of marks on the outside of a bend, rather than decreasing them on the inside.
I think all the omissions discussed in this thread were totally inadvertent. That accounts for PV 3 implying that the marks might be different lengths, as you say. It might have something to do with the lawyer working on 2016 TSRGD changing part way through its development. The omissions might become apparent to DfT when they write the section on pedestrian crossing markings in the forthcoming TSM Chapter 6.26th June 2019 at 5:00 pm #4029
Thanks for your reply.
Similarly, the max distance between STOP line and studs on a Puffin crossing was 10m but hasn’t been retained in TSRGD. The DfT confirmed to me that that was indeed an error.
These omissions have now have rendered installation of these crossings practically impossible from a compliance point of view.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.