-
shall accord such precedence to any such pedestrian
Which pretty much backs up what stevo_com wrote.
Whenever a pedestrian is on the crossing*, they have priority.
Not the right to sole occupation.
There's nothing about finishing crossing, nor stopping even.
I love a pedantic quibble, me.
* providing no part of a vehicle was already on the crossing.
NotThamesWater-
Not the right to sole occupation.
It depends what "Accord precedence" means in laymans terms, and I prefer the idea that peds have sole occupation rather than having to rely on dangerous/careless driving laws!
I love a pedantic quibble, me.
Quite, makes the forum world go round!
-
Not the right to sole occupation.
Unless they're in a wheelchair or other kind of assistive device, they need to occupy their soles, though, and their soles need to occupy space, so they need the right for both.
Backstop
Oliver Schick
I'm going by the legislation which states you have to wait for the peds to finish crossing.
Though it's fucking ages since I bothered looking it up.
Here we are:
"25.—(1) 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."