I scoff at "it seems like it counts anyway". If laws are this expressively precise (I wish), then we don't even need the Judicial Review. e.g. I hear there is a JR case unrelated to pedestrian crossing arguing that it's unclear/ambiguous which "right hand side" the law is talking about. Hardcore theoretical physics in the legal system, yay.

A reasonable interpretation would be "you can't cross the road like this if there's dedicated facility within range along the same direction". In this case, we don't (it's out of range), but there's no marking, and there's likely guardrails, so indeed we can make it be "was"/"not".