wellington_street wrote:il padrone wrote:wellington_street wrote:It's a legal grey area (see some previous posts from citywomble in particular) as even though the driveway appears to lead to a car park, it is constructed as a road crossing not a driveway crossing. Certainly it is a grey enough area for drive behaviour and that's more important than what is technically correct under the road rules.
Rule 74 says nothing at all about driveways. It is simply road-related areas that are identified. These include a variety of areas, but most notably:(d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking motor vehicles;
So I don't see it as any sort of legal grey area, just a grey area in the coddled brains of many motorists.
I used the term driveway as a synonym of "road related area" - swap the words around and same deal.
The actual crossing point is constructed as a road crossing, not as a "road related area" crossing. I don't think it is unreasonable for motorists to be confused over who has priority at the crossing because the roads authority has constructed it to make it appear to be a road crossing.
If the path pavement was continuous across the crossing, or the crossing was raised at path level, it would be a different story as it would be pretty clear that the path has priority* at this crossing.
The legal grey area comes from whether a reasonable person would be expected to understand that what is designed, constructed and appears as a road crossing is actually a driveway.
* Not always the case though as some retarded Local Governments (e.g. Subiaco) love to put in raised crossings that aren't actually zebra crossings and confused the hell out of everyone
The pavement for the cyclepath is clear across the driveway.