Roading question

[Scuba_Steve]

OK so here in the pic we have what's becoming a more common appearance, a raised section across the road.
I want to know Foot path or Road i.e. who has right-of-way pedestrians or vehicles??? Lets see peoples take on this.

[MSTRS:Me]

Unless it has the 'zebra' lines, diamond on the rode prior to the crossing, and the round orange discs (or light globes)...it is NOT pedestrian crossing in the legal sense.

[pzkpfw]

They are called something like "traffic calming" islands.

Which is ironic because they make me the opposite of calm.

I believe they are legally still road (like those pedestrian crossing that are not pedestrian crossings), but if you run over someone who walks out in front of you, you are at fault. Go figure.


We have these weird things in Tawa left-over from some failed experiment. Concrete traffic islands in the middle of the road, for little reason. However, they still look like they have some official function, and I've seen cars stop "in the middle of the road" to let people walk across.

[oneofsix]

OK so here in the pic we have what's becoming a more common appearance, a raised section across the road.
I want to know Foot path or Road i.e. who has right-of-way pedestrians or vehicles??? Lets see peoples take on this.

Is it a raised section of road or a piece of the footpath that has been strengthened to allow vehicles to cross like a driveway or other vehicle entrance? If it is raised road it is road and vehicles win, if it is a vehicle entrance then pedestrian have the right of way.

[Scuba_Steve]

They are called something like "traffic calming" islands.

Which is ironic because they make me the opposite of calm.

I believe they are legally still road (like those pedestrian crossing that are not pedestrian crossings), but if you run over someone who walks out in front of you, you are at fault. Go figure.


We have these weird things in Tawa left-over from some failed experiment. Concrete traffic islands in the middle of the road, for little reason. However, they still look like they have some official function, and I've seen cars stop "in the middle of the road" to let people walk across.

Yep hit a pedestrian anywhere and it up to you to prove they were at fault.

I know the things your talking about (used to live Tawa) just another example of how those whom control the roads have no fucking idea what they are doing like these raised sections of the road.
I do understand what they thought they were doing but they just end up confusing everyone & making the roads a dangerous place for vehicles & pedestrians alike

As for "traffic calming devices" I'm with you, I think they invoke more road-rage than anything else

[Maha]

MSTRS is correct, and why the hell do you need a poll on such an obvious (almost rhetorical) question?...

[Scuba_Steve]

MSTRS is correct, and why the hell do you need a poll on such an obvious question?...

Incorrect I was asking if footpath or road, not pedestrian crossing or road. I personally know the answer, this is more pointing out the confusion they bring, by getting others ideas about what exactly it is.
Footpath? (given they're raised to same height, are same width & at the same position) or road? (like the raised sections in the middle of roads which usually come with "this is not a pedestrian crossing" signs because they too confused the general public)

[Maha]

Still a stupid poll, there is only one option needed.

[Zedder]

They are indeed traffic calming devices (One of 15 types) but are called speed platforms and are designed to reduce the speed of vehicles. Nothing to do with pedestrians.

Just another way for "the man" to subjugate the masses with constant oppression and removal of free will in order to control..... Sorry, I got a bit carried away there.

[iYRe]

what they said.. and they also seem to have the function of funnelling pedestrians - although annoying, at least we know where they are.

[MSTRS:Me]

Incorrect I was asking if footpath or road, not pedestrian crossing or road. I personally know the answer, this is more pointing out the confusion they bring, by getting others ideas about what exactly it is.
Footpath? (given they're raised to same height, are same width & at the same position) or road? (like the raised sections in the middle of roads which usually come with "this is not a pedestrian crossing" signs because they too confused the general public)

The difference is sooooo subtle as to be almost nonexistent. Cars etc don't drive on footpaths and pedestrians don't walk on roads. When a pedestrian needs to traverse a road, they either use a legal crossing where they actually have some rights, or they take their chances where-ever. This is one of the latter, where pedestrians are concerned. Regardless of what the 'crossing point' may look like (we have brick ones everywhere in Napier) it is not a footpath and it is not an official crossing.

[Bassmatt]

Depends if the are on it or waiting. As much as it would piss me off, if a ped is already crossing then I'm gonna give them the right of way.

[FJRider]

Incorrect I was asking if footpath or road, not pedestrian crossing or road. I personally know the answer, this is more pointing out the confusion they bring, by getting others ideas about what exactly it is.
Footpath? (given they're raised to same height, are same width & at the same position) or road? (like the raised sections in the middle of roads which usually come with "this is not a pedestrian crossing" signs because they too confused the general public)

Actually ... he was correct. No white lines ... then it is not a pedestrian crossing (Correct definition is "suggested crossing point") As such ... VEHICLES have right of way.

[FJRider]

I believe they are legally still road (like those pedestrian crossing that are not pedestrian crossings), but if you run over someone who walks out in front of you, you are at fault. Go figure.

It is a road, not a pedestrian crossing. Vehicles HAVE right of way. In most cases ... there are signs indicating this at either side. Just nobody reads them.

Some pedestrians are just too stupid or ignorant of this simple fact. And/or cross in the assumption you wont run them over.

[oneofsix]

Perhaps it is not clear in those photos but these things, and I know the two points photographed well, are not the raised hump in the middle of the street that pretends to be a pedestrian crossing but aren't. This is where they have extended the footpath across the road, to both drivers and pedestrians they look like the footpath, not a road crossing point.

In that second photo I would not like to be in that black car if the buses got the green at Mercer St, he would be dead meat.