When is a zebra crossing not a zebra crossing?

[TheTecknician]

By which I mean the pedestrian crossings often found in supermarket car parks. A Sainsbury's near me has two of these with Belisha beacons and black and white stripes but without the white zig zags on the road leading up to the crossings themselves. I would argue that without the full markings, these crossings aren't legally compliant and that the Road Traffic and Road Traffic Management Acts can't be applied. However, such car parks are usually privately owned but with public vehicular access which might complicate or clarify matters! Does anyone have a more definitive idea?

To be clear myself, I always give way to pedestrians at these crossings, just as if they were on the public highway.

Road Traffic Regulation Act, not Management.

Why does it matter? You should give way at something that looks like a zebra crossing anyway if you aren’t a complete twat.

Can’t speak to the legals but if I’m driving I notice the beacons and the stripes not the zig zags. Same as a pedestrian really. Don’t think many would be sticklers saying well there’s no zig zags so it’s non compliant so I’ll ignore it.

A rather hasty response to a genuine question. It matters because it's of interest to me. That's all.

I would imagine that in a private car park, any regulations on zebra crossings don’t apply, so it doesn’t matter.
I think they obviously are crossings though - there are a couple at my local Sainsbury’s and everyone (cars and pedestrians) uses them how they would if they were on the road. Until I read your OP I hadn’t even considered that they don’t have the “correct” markings.

They do not hold the same ‘weight’ as those on public roads. They are on private land, so the rules are set by the owner, so if you should barrel through them they may not be enforced as they would have on a public roads. However, one should always drive with care, and if you hit a pedestrian, zebra style crossing or not, you are liable.
They are there to guide pedestrians in a safe way, and I could not at all comprehend a driver ignoring a person using them as intended.

I have heard of instances of people driving over zebra crossings when they were obliged to give way to pedestrians. But they got away with it because one of the BBs wasn't working, thereby rendering the crossing non-compliant. Just wondered how this situation - or the absence of zig zags - would be handled in a car park. Legal loopholes, technicalities and so on.

Nobody is policing it so there is nothing to ‘handle

If it is private land then the owner can paint whatever they want, but I assume it is less confusing for drivers and pedestrians and they are more likely to know what the intention is and to comply with them if they match the legal road markings that are found on public highways. There wouldn't be any legal loopholes or technical problems with non-compliance to consider if drivers ignored them.

Interesting question OP. There's a couple of private car parks near here connected by a road, and on that road there's a slightly raised section like an extended flattened speed bump, originally painted red but now very faded. There's a few sections like that around town as well. If I see someone crossing on them I'll stop but as I understand it there's no specific legal function behind this type of highway clutter.