Are such crossings legal?

[STEMO]

It's a waste of money and more importantly dangerous ,crossings and other road markings should be kept standard .
some people struggle to cope with basic driving 
Today I watched a woman hit/mount the curb hard twice and hit a road sign post directly in front of her (on a path) 
keep road signs and markings simple ,because half the people on the roads are simple 

I had a quick look through the regulations regarding road markings and crossings, etc. Thought I might find something to make Opti's day, but no. There are lots of rules about road markings, signage and lighting. Even the positioning relevant to roads, schools, etc. But nothing about the colour.
I can't see it making any difference, the signs as you approach and lights on the crossing should be enough for anyone even half awake.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330214/ltn-2-95_pedestrian-crossings.pdf

[STEMO]

I've worked in Ilford, Barkingside, Plaistow, Forest Gate, Stratford, Barking......it was never like this then. Camden Lock was always 'trendy', but never seemed particularly lefty to me.
But, then again, that was a while ago.

I used to live in Forest Gate where even in the 1990's I was an effnic minority! 

Used to drink in the King Eddie on Stratford High Street. 

I think it was mid eighties I was there......I think. I liked a drink or two in those days 

[Doctor Gollum]

I've worked in Ilford, Barkingside, Plaistow, Forest Gate, Stratford, Barking......it was never like this then. Camden Lock was always 'trendy', but never seemed particularly lefty to me.
But, then again, that was a while ago.

Camden etc only seem lefty if your perspective is somewhere right of Arthur Scargill. Obviously you might have been just to his left at the time, so everything would look rosy

[STEMO]

I've worked in Ilford, Barkingside, Plaistow, Forest Gate, Stratford, Barking......it was never like this then. Camden Lock was always 'trendy', but never seemed particularly lefty to me.
But, then again, that was a while ago.

Camden etc only seem lefty if your perspective is somewhere right of Arthur Scargill. Obviously you might have been just to his left at the time, so everything would look rosy

How would you know? You'd have been about 10 when I was there 

[Doctor Gollum]

I distinctly recall it being a bit hippiefied in the early nineties. I don't expect that it has improved any, and I have yet to meet a right leaning hippie...

[YZ250]

......
are these new crossings legitimate?
...
There appears to be no mention of such folly in The Highway Code. Government road and transport documentation seem to suggest that all crossings must adhere to strict rules and regulations.......and I'm far from sure that these do.
.....

Apparrantly not, according to .gov response when somebody else questioned it.

Here you go Opti. 

All pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, and the type of pedestrian facilities at junctions referred to here.
TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on the use of road markings in Chapter 5, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance.
In the Department's view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn't come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.
The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided – there is a trend to use surfacing materials (e.g. different types of stone paviour) in patterns to mark informal crossings, including some that are striped. Our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn't exist. The artwork must not alter the appearance of the prescribed crossing signals, signs and markings in any way, as this may mean they were no longer compliant with TSRGD.

It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs but not anywhere else, as some have been removed. A few wheel spin marks on them and the painting maintenance cost will soon piss them off.

[Raeturbo]

Yes, there's the fact that some paints and more slippery than others too, I wonder have these coloured paints been checked. In my opinion a crossing should stay black and white then we all know exactly what it is, and what it stands for, and can be shown/taught/explained to children without confusion.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I've worked in Ilford, Barkingside, Plaistow, Forest Gate, Stratford, Barking......it was never like this then. Camden Lock was always 'trendy', but never seemed particularly lefty to me.
But, then again, that was a while ago.

You forgot Colchester. The Robin Hood pub shut up shop when you left town. 

[Lizzie Zoom]

......
are these new crossings legitimate?
...
There appears to be no mention of such folly in The Highway Code. Government road and transport documentation seem to suggest that all crossings must adhere to strict rules and regulations.......and I'm far from sure that these do.
.....

Apparrantly not, according to .gov response when somebody else questioned it.

Here you go Opti. 

All pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, and the type of pedestrian facilities at junctions referred to here.
TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on the use of road markings in Chapter 5, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance.
In the Department's view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn't come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.
The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided – there is a trend to use surfacing materials (e.g. different types of stone paviour) in patterns to mark informal crossings, including some that are striped. Our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn't exist. The artwork must not alter the appearance of the prescribed crossing signals, signs and markings in any way, as this may mean they were no longer compliant with TSRGD.

It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs but not anywhere else, as some have been removed. A few wheel spin marks on them and the painting maintenance cost will soon piss them off.

"It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs"  - Exactly what you have with this crossing. as I made clear in my earlier post on the legality of this crossing.!

So no argument then

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

......
are these new crossings legitimate?
...
There appears to be no mention of such folly in The Highway Code. Government road and transport documentation seem to suggest that all crossings must adhere to strict rules and regulations.......and I'm far from sure that these do.
.....

Apparrantly not, according to .gov response when somebody else questioned it.

Here you go Opti. 

All pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, and the type of pedestrian facilities at junctions referred to here.
TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on the use of road markings in Chapter 5, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance.
In the Department's view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn't come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.
The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided – there is a trend to use surfacing materials (e.g. different types of stone paviour) in patterns to mark informal crossings, including some that are striped. Our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn't exist. The artwork must not alter the appearance of the prescribed crossing signals, signs and markings in any way, as this may mean they were no longer compliant with TSRGD.

It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs but not anywhere else, as some have been removed. A few wheel spin marks on them and the painting maintenance cost will soon piss them off.

Good find. Well researched.

So it seems these indulgent follies are...

Illegal.
Unnecessary, as trans people are allowed and welcome to use the same crossings as us plebs.
Probably unsafe, as motorists should not be expected to keep up with every new woke fad of pavement paint.
Exclusive rather than inclusive.....as it is described as a 'trans crossing'
Expensive waste of  taxpayer money.
Unwanted. I doubt the good people of Camden wanted this 'iconic new landmark' in significant numbers.
It is the work of a tiny minority of council 'box tickers'

[STEMO]

I've worked in Ilford, Barkingside, Plaistow, Forest Gate, Stratford, Barking......it was never like this then. Camden Lock was always 'trendy', but never seemed particularly lefty to me.
But, then again, that was a while ago.

You forgot Colchester. The Robin Hood pub shut up shop when you left town. 

You're going way back now, Albs, I spent my 21st birthday in jail in Colchester 

[STEMO]

......
are these new crossings legitimate?
...
There appears to be no mention of such folly in The Highway Code. Government road and transport documentation seem to suggest that all crossings must adhere to strict rules and regulations.......and I'm far from sure that these do.
.....

Apparrantly not, according to .gov response when somebody else questioned it.

Here you go Opti. 

All pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, and the type of pedestrian facilities at junctions referred to here.
TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on the use of road markings in Chapter 5, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance.
In the Department's view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn't come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.
The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided – there is a trend to use surfacing materials (e.g. different types of stone paviour) in patterns to mark informal crossings, including some that are striped. Our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn't exist. The artwork must not alter the appearance of the prescribed crossing signals, signs and markings in any way, as this may mean they were no longer compliant with TSRGD.

It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs but not anywhere else, as some have been removed. A few wheel spin marks on them and the painting maintenance cost will soon piss them off.

Good find. Well researched.

So it seems these indulgent follies are...

Illegal.
Unnecessary, as trans people are allowed and welcome to use the same crossings as us plebs.
Probably unsafe, as motorists should not be expected to keep up with every new woke fad of pavement paint.
Exclusive rather than inclusive.....as it is described as a 'trans crossing'
Expensive waste of  taxpayer money.
Unwanted. I doubt the good people of Camden wanted this 'iconic new landmark' in significant numbers.
It is the work of a tiny minority of council 'box tickers'

Yes.....but apart from that? 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

It's a waste of money and more importantly dangerous ,crossings and other road markings should be kept standard .
some people struggle to cope with basic driving 
Today I watched a woman hit/mount the curb hard twice and hit a road sign post directly in front of her (on a path) 
keep road signs and markings simple ,because half the people on the roads are simple 

I agree.



I hear Camden council have plans to reinvent the wheel next.

Much like traditional crossings the wheel now needs to be updated  and redesigned for the twenty first century. Perhaps a different shape would help.

Or......we could leave both well alone.

[YZ250]

......
are these new crossings legitimate?
...
There appears to be no mention of such folly in The Highway Code. Government road and transport documentation seem to suggest that all crossings must adhere to strict rules and regulations.......and I'm far from sure that these do.
.....

Apparrantly not, according to .gov response when somebody else questioned it.

Here you go Opti. 

All pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, and the type of pedestrian facilities at junctions referred to here.
TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on the use of road markings in Chapter 5, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance.
In the Department's view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn't come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.
The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided – there is a trend to use surfacing materials (e.g. different types of stone paviour) in patterns to mark informal crossings, including some that are striped. Our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn't exist. The artwork must not alter the appearance of the prescribed crossing signals, signs and markings in any way, as this may mean they were no longer compliant with TSRGD.

It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs but not anywhere else, as some have been removed. A few wheel spin marks on them and the painting maintenance cost will soon piss them off.

"It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs"  - Exactly what you have with this crossing. as I made clear in my earlier post on the legality of this crossing.!

So no argument then

You read the bits that suit you. The actual Department of Transport response says 'That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing', hence why I highlighted it. It's saying that a controlled crossing should not look like a zebra crossing, hence it's not legal. 
People on the Spectrum have raised issues with it being confusing but hey, they don't count as there is no mileage in them.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

......
are these new crossings legitimate?
...
There appears to be no mention of such folly in The Highway Code. Government road and transport documentation seem to suggest that all crossings must adhere to strict rules and regulations.......and I'm far from sure that these do.
.....

Apparrantly not, according to .gov response when somebody else questioned it.

Here you go Opti. 

All pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, and the type of pedestrian facilities at junctions referred to here.
TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. The Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on the use of road markings in Chapter 5, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance.
In the Department's view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn't come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.
The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided – there is a trend to use surfacing materials (e.g. different types of stone paviour) in patterns to mark informal crossings, including some that are striped. Our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn't exist. The artwork must not alter the appearance of the prescribed crossing signals, signs and markings in any way, as this may mean they were no longer compliant with TSRGD.

It would appear that they may get away with it on traffic light controlled crossings with studs but not anywhere else, as some have been removed. A few wheel spin marks on them and the painting maintenance cost will soon piss them off.

Good find. Well researched.

So it seems these indulgent follies are...

Illegal.
Unnecessary, as trans people are allowed and welcome to use the same crossings as us plebs.
Probably unsafe, as motorists should not be expected to keep up with every new woke fad of pavement paint.
Exclusive rather than inclusive.....as it is described as a 'trans crossing'
Expensive waste of  taxpayer money.
Unwanted. I doubt the good people of Camden wanted this 'iconic new landmark' in significant numbers.
It is the work of a tiny minority of council 'box tickers'

Yes.....but apart from that? 

That short statement has a 'what did the Romans ever do for us ' feel about it.