A zebra crossing is a type of pedestrian crossing that allows pedestrians to cross the road safely. Unlike some other crossings they are uncontrolled by traffic lights and can be identified by white staggered lines that run across the road. Although most pedestrians and road users will be aware of this type of crossing, they may not be aware of who has the right of way.
Rule 19 of the Highway Code says:
Give traffic plenty of time to see you and to stop before you start to cross. Vehicles will need more time when the road is slippery. Wait until traffic has stopped from both directions or the road is clear before crossing. Remember that traffic does not have to stop until someone has moved onto the crossing. Keep looking both ways, and listening, in case a driver or rider has not seen you and attempts to overtake a vehicle that has stopped.
It is important that pedestrians know that although a zebra crossing is a safe way for them to cross a road, it does not give them an absolute right. As the Highway Code states, they must wait for cars coming towards the crossing to stop. If someone does become involved in an accident when using a zebra crossing the negligence can be split between both parties. This is assessed up on a number of factors:
- The speed of the driver
- Was he keeping a proper look out
- Did the pedestrian look before walking out
- Did they see the driver and step out anyway
When assessing who was to blame any eye witnesses to the accident may be asked to give evidence. Below are some examples of test cases (Ritchie, 2009) where both the driver and the pedestrian have had the negligence split between them:
| In Kozimore v Adey the pedestrian ‘ran blindly’ onto the crossing. Her fault was assessed at 75%. |
| In Lawrence v W N Palmer (Excavations) Ltd a pedestrian proceeded to cross without regard to whether there was traffic on the road and so her negligence was assessed at 33%. |
| In Williams v Needham and Maynard v Rogers the pedestrians would have been able to see the cars involved if they had looked, but stepped out without looking, contributory negligence was assessed at 66%. |
| In Clifford v Drymond the pedestrian failed to look to her right before stepping out; had she done so she would have seen a vehicle about 75ft away travelling at approximately 30mph. Negligence was apportioned at 20% against the claimant. |
In the cases above the negligence of the accident was dependant upon whom the judge found most negligent. In all cases both parties showed some negligence but one was seen to show more than the other.
If you have been involved in a road traffic accident involving a Zebra Crossing and suffered injury then you may be able to make an injury compensation claim.
For free legal advice, speak to one of our fully qualified lawyers by contacting the injury claim specialists : The Injury Lawyers.
Source: Ritchie, A., 2009. Guide to RTA Liability. Jordan Publishing Ltd.
