-
No. But it was more a question about whether there was a generally accepted definition of pedestrian crossing that might apply. It seems an interesting choice of specific words by the judge if there is not.
Aroogah-
I might be wrong, but thought the significance of that case is that pushing =/= riding.
The pedestrian crossing was where the incident took place, i.e. pedestrian pushing bike (so not a rider) had presedence over the vehicle (which struck her). Sounds like the defence argued the bike meant she wasnt a pedestrian thus the car had presedence. Had she been riding or scooting across, or not been using a marked crossing the outcome of the case may have differed, or rather the original case not decided on this point triggering the appeal.
Had this not been at a crossing there'd have still been a duty of care on the driver (and case to answer possibly), however the presence of the crossing made the driver automatically in the wrong for the collision with the pedestrian - which is why they argued it was a rider not ped, and why the judge used those specific words.
The pushing =/= riding case hasn't been tested away from a crossing afaik, would need a collision & subsequent prosecution in that circumstance to take place, not ideal really.
All that said, it doesn't actually help answer the original question I guess.
rhb
Are pedestrians (without bikes) prohibited from crossing junctions (or otherwise) on foot?
IMO unless & until we have jaywalking regulations it is irrelevant.