Parking on School zigzag lines

[sailor sam]

Pet hate of mine this. I used to live directly opposite a primary school and the zig-zags were totally ignored on almost every day at both the start and end of the school day and it wasn't just one or two cars either. My son attended the school and had to cross the road from our house to get to the school entrance on the opposite side where he had to negotiate his way to the pavement between the cars. Obvioulsy I had words many times with the headmaster who had in turn issued letters to parents and asked for the LA to act. Well eventually a child was hit while walking between the cars but fortunately only revcievd a broken arm. Amazingly though that after that there were regular patrols of either PSCO's or actual PC's outside the school issuing FPN's so the OP was lucky as I believe the offence carries 3 points. Its a pity though that it takes a child to get hurt for anything to be done about it.

 

Sorry OP, you are banged to rights here.

[sailor sam]

You have a slim chance they may cancel one on a discretionary/leniency basis, but I very much doubt they will cancel 2. IMHO (speaking from experience), these type offences should be robustly enforced. Its not very nice seeing a child getting knocked over.

[sailor sam]

Personally, and not wishing to disagree with sentiments expressed above, I would ask for the evidence. Please could you state where this was and which authority. Presumably this was a Regulation 10 PCN, which acts as the Notice to Owner, since some authorities do actually leave out contents which must be contained in the PCN. Better still, if we could see the PCN?

 

Why? The OP admits to parking on the zig zags. Under the circumstances, the only advice I will offer is to appeal as suggested by Jamberson where by she MAY get at least one cancelled. If she starts rocking the boat by demanding evidence, she is less likely to be shown any leniency. As I understand it, the PCN was issued by a remote camera which suggests that there is sufficient evidence to show the offence being committed.

 

As I said, imo any person who get caught stopping on zig zags is bang to rights.

[sailor sam]

The OP asks is there any way to challenge this. And states the vehicle was some part over the zigzags. I fail to understand how, by asking to view the video/receive a copy in the post, this will jeopardise her chances of winning on mitigating circumstances. In fact, it may make her decide, if the vehicle was further in contravention than she believed it was, to pay the charges.

 

yes she does which means that the offence has been committed. ANY part of the vehicle must not be on the zig zags. I accept the rest of your statement.

 

 

I thought the purpose of this forum was to help motorists get off tickets.

 

It is, those that have been wrongly or incorrectly issued. But parking where it causes a danger to children is a different ball game in my book.

 

I am not in the business of making moral judgments on people as we are all human and perhaps there was nowhere else to park at those times and she was genuinely putting the interests of her child, rightly or wrongly, before the law.

 

Perhaps you would think otherwise if you have actually witnessed a child being knocked over because of cars parkied illegally outside a school like I have. Believe me, it isn't very pleasent which is why I feel so strongly about it.

 

Am I to take it, then, that I am somewhat of an outcast merely because I wish to help? If that were the case, there would be no defence lawyers, would there? Oh well, people who drive down bus lanes, park on DYL's, park in disabled bays when they shouldn't etc etc - whom I have helped - perhaps should not have been helped?

 

I have not seen any evidence therefore I cannot possibly make a judgments re health and safety matters. And I have been a single parent having to do the school runs.

 

To be honest (and no disrespect), these are ridiculous comparissons. The examples you state are usually offences which cause traffic delays and incvonvienince to other road uses, not potential life threatening scenarios involving children comming or going to school.

[sailor sam]

Quite, the reason being what she perceives as the condition of her child's leg. My stance is as above, plus check the signage is compliant.

 

Surely then the OP could of arranged with the school to drop off the child on the school staff car park?

[sailor sam]

The comparisons are not ridiculous, whatever the contravention, for the PCN to be valid, the council paperwork must be in order.

The OP asked if there was any way to challenge the PCNs, the first thing is to check the validity of them.

 

Ray with respect, I have actually witnessed a child getting hit by a passing car because of illegally parked cars outside a school entrance. Personally because of that, I tend not to look for loop holes to exploit a possible flaw on a PCN issued to such offenders. I would rather see enforcement (which will lead to prevention) if it saves kids being run over. I see thing differently when we are tallking about the examples given Hymn And Mi.

[sailor sam]

Or even cyclists who take their lives into their own hands by going down bus lanes which are less than the minimum width! I think this is getting too emotional.

 

Agree 100%. These cyclist should be bought to book also. Did you catch my thread on this?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?337229-Cyclist-no-lights-wrong-way-down-one-ways-streets-ect

[sailor sam]

OK, let's consider this scenario then:

 

1. The Traffic Management Order is defective in some way.

 

2. The signage is non-compliant with the Order in some way or the law.

 

3. The camera used is illegal in some way.

 

4. The Regulation 10 PCN is non-compliant with the law.

 

THEN WHAT?

 

Not 100% sure that zig zag markings require an order.

[sailor sam]

Yes, I have just found this out. A sign showing the restriction bearing a 'clearway' symbol should also be present. That would give a clue in this case. If there is no sign it would suggest that there is no order. But in this case, I would imagine there is an order as they are issuing PCNs. If the OP give us the location of the school you could check.

[sailor sam]

Could we have the source, please? The 642.2A if used with the legend 1027.1 ((KEEP CLEAR) must have an order.

 

Just viewed a thread on anoither site which was won because the Traffic Regulation order was defective.

 

Didn't you post it yourself in post #35?

[sailor sam]

But the OP states at one point that she did not know her vehicle was overhanging.

 

Help!!

I have been given 2 PCNs (2 consecutive days) for parking on the school zigzag lines.. is there any way I can challenge these? I parked my car for few minutes to pick up my son from school as he had a leg injury (hospital can verify it) and some part of my car was on the zigzag line. The parking ticket was issued by the controlled camera about 100 ytds up the road. I did not leave the vehicle unattended at any point in time and as I did not come out of the car didn’t realise that part of my car was on zigzag line. I always take extra car when I park near the school, obviously pupil safety comes first.

 

Maybe but she does confirm that it was unless I read it wrong. Also she further admits to doing it twice.

 

Anyway, i'm getting bored with this now. I think I have made my opinions and feelings perfectly clear. It is a hot potatoe for me because I have seen the results first hand of illegal parking outside a school. Let the OP appeal and see if she gets anywhere. If she comes back with more info, then maybe you can check to see if there is a TMO in place and assit her further.

[sailor sam]

Sorry, are we talking about the same signs? "Clearway" sign?

 

 

>SIGH

 

This one with the 'clearway' symbol on it (624.2a);

 

 

Obviously the times may be varied depending on the school's start and end of the day.

[sailor sam]

Just to turn this on its head.......what if this restriction turned out to be unenforceable in law and a child was not knocked down due to lack of visibility? Whose responsibility would that be in that case? I reckon the council's. So, you never know, by appealing, you might just be helping matters!

 

WHAT??? Do you mean WAS knocked down?

 

That of course would depend on the circumstances.... whether the driver was driving correctly for example. I would suggest that schools at the end of cul-de-sacs (and I know to a few in my area) where there is no through traffic perhaps would not need enforceable markings.

[sailor sam]

What I mean is: obviously the driver concerned but that the driver who may have been parked on the zigzag would most probably be not at fault if the signage etc was not legal!

 

Actually, a better deterrent IMO is to have visible CEO's in situ as they generally do the trick.

 

100% with you on that one. And they do do that in my area sometimes. Better still, errect CCTV cameras (with signage stating that PCNs will be issued automatically to offenders) outside all schools where TMOs are in place.

[sailor sam]

Hey Guys, really appreciate your advice in this matter..some of the comments are very useful.

 

Look, I agree that I have done wrong by parking on the zigzag, but it was not a deliberate attempt to harm any children, why would someone even think of it if they have children of their own.

I thought this forum was there to advice and help people if they have not knowingly made mistake. Again both times I was not aware that my car was on zigzag lines. I am leaning towards appeal on the leniency grounds.

 

I will try and attached the notice tomorrow.. it was on the Hampton Road, Twickenham, observed by CEO- CCTV19, outside the Mall school.

 

 

So you are saying that you cannot tell whether your car is on zig zags or not? Without being funny, i'm assuming you know where your wheels are in relation to the kerb when you are pulling over to stop, so how would you not know whether you were stopped on the zig zags or not? This is sincere advice JJJ1, do not use this in your defence!

 

At the end of the day you were either on the zig zags or not. If you were, appeal for leniency giving the reasons in your original post (although I doubt they will cancel both tickets if either at all). Or if you wern't on the zig zags, then appeal the tickets that the contrevention did not occur.

 

Here is the street view link; http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Hampton+Road,+Twickenham&hl=en&ll=51.437678,-0.349588&spn=0.000027,0.022638&sll=51.475312,-0.029672&sspn=0.230946,0.724411&hnear=Hampton+Rd,+Twickenham,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.437497,-0.349726&panoid=FrHo4O6VkB4OeNKPvOe4Cw&cbp=12,56.17,,0,0.26

 

The markings are fairly obvious and are supported by the correct sign which suggest that there is a TMO in force.

 

For the record, no one is suggesting that you deliberately set out to harm any children by stopping on the zig zags. I'm sure that nobody ever does. But the fact of the matter is, it dosn't mean that it doesn't present a danger to children. If it didn't, there wouldn't be need for these restrictions or enforcement.

[sailor sam]

Attempting to be objective here, it is obviously quite possible, and reasonable, if one reverses one's car even in a parking bay NOT to know how far within or over the bay marcation line one is. Especially if one does not get out of the car. Of course, I have not seen any photo/video evidence yet.

 

But we are not talking about crossing the lines of a parking bay, we are talking about knowing that one has stopped on great big yellow zig zag markings or not. The fact that one hasn't got out of one's car is irrelevant because one's son did get out of the car deeming one's car to have stopped or parked. Being an ex coach driver, I can say that even in a 40 ft long coach, you still can tell if you are on zig zags or not, you simply use your mirrors.

[sailor sam]

Ray with respect, I have actually witnessed a child getting hit by a passing car because of illegally parked cars outside a school entrance. Personally because of that, I tend not to look for loop holes to exploit a possible flaw on a PCN issued to such offenders. I would rather see enforcement (which will lead to prevention) if it saves kids being run over. I see thing differently when we are tallking about the examples given Hymn And Mi.

 

[sailor sam]

I think you will find that dx means that if a person has committed the offence and the signage/markings/TRO are all in place and correct, are they really entitled to expect us to search for loop holes? As I have said on this thread many times and I stand by it... when it comes to cases whereby the offence could compromise the saftey of children, I would rather see an offender get a penalty then get let off over some minor 'procedural impropriety'. Mainly because it could serve as a deterrent to others. However, if it was merley an offence causing some inconvienience to other road users rather than a matter of saftey, then yes, i'll give it due consideration.

 

If HYMM and Mi chooses to see if there is a flaw with the PCN and wishes to assist the OP further then that is up to him IMHO. After all, she isn't sure whether she was actually on the Zig- zags or not apparently.

[sailor sam]

According to my perception, I get the impression that if I help any further I am going to get banned from this site.

 

I think you should establish that the OP was on the zig zags or not. My guess is she was. If that is the case then the offence was commited. I think that you should merely suggest that she either pays the tickets or appeals them. If she wasn't on the zig zags (or partly on them) then she should deffo appeal. There, i've done it for you.

 

The OP will have probably got an idea from the various posts on the thread to what to do from here if she chooses to appeal.

 

For what it's worth, you are one cagger I don't want to see action taken against. You clearly seem to know what you are talking about. Its just that this type of offence is a hot potatoe with me personally so i can't agree with you totally on it.

[sailor sam]

Thanks. I just think we are all just getting a bit emotional about this i.e. posters excluding yourself and are somewhat prejudicial as a result. As a single parent and driver, I would normally be the first person to get out of my car and give someone a verbal telling off. However, nobody has seen the evidence yet.

 

If you read my post (#56) again, I think you will realise what my thoughts are on whether we need to or not.

[sailor sam]

Hymn And Mi, you are certainly looking for loop holes now dispite my previous advice.

 

At the end of the day (yet again), if the OP stopped on (or partially on) the zig zag markings outside a school, she deserves a ticket. If she didn't then she dosn't.

 

As G & M suggested, had the OPs actions resulted in a child getting knocked down, would you still be desperately looking for a loop hole to challenge the PCNs?

 

CCTV enforcement dosn't require signage although it is 'recommended' by the sectretary of state as a deterrent. I follow your point about the signs but it dosn't alter the fact that the zig zag markings and their meanings are obvious. I wouldn't need to see the sign to know that I shouldn't stop on them, TMO or no TMO.

[sailor sam]

Good morning! I am not looking for loopholes as I was just researching arguments I used 15 months ago and the guy got off. You are contradicting yourself since in a previous post* you stated she should deffo appeal if partially on.

Can you please point out where I said that?

 

 

*If she wasn't on the zig zags (or partly on them) then she should deffo appeal. There, i've done it for you. post 67

 

Again, can you point out where I said "she should deffo appeal if partially on"? I've high lighted the word you seemed to have missed out in red.

[sailor sam]

sailor sam: you have copied the post number in your last post: 67!

 

Yes I know and I asked you to show where I said that if "she was only partially on the zig zags, she should deffo appeal". Read post 80 again!

[sailor sam]

Look, did you mean what I think you meant? That is if she was partially over the zigzag, then she should appeal?

 

NO What I said was that if she WASN'T on (or partially on) the zig zags then she deffo should appeal! However, if she WAS on (or partially on) the zig zags then she should pay the penalty tickets. Clear now?

[sailor sam]

I am just amazed that, after all the harsh "advice" you have given here, you are prepared to offer much more agreeable advice on a thread to do with drink-driving.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?335207-Help-with-a-possible-drink-driving-offence

 

That case wasn't as straight forward as this one. The only real advice I offered was to seek the help of a solicitor and the other contributions were explaining how long alcohol remains in the system and how long it takes the body to 'dispose' it (something not enough people know about as opposed to Zig Zag markings outside a school). At the end of the day, I don't know whether the OPs son had committed an offence or not from the information available. I don't think anywhere in that thread I suggested I was looking for loop holes to exploit, I was just telling it how it is. Its also an offence which carries a much higher penalty AND normally ends up in court where as this dosn't. Its worth mentioning that dispite that, this thread has been made a lot longer for some reason!

 

Further more, in this case, the OP had admitted to be partially on the zig zags although not realising it. But even so, I did advise this OP to appeal IF she can show that no part of her car was in fact on the zig zags.

 

Now I used to have someone else go to extreme efforts to challenge my contributions and by doing so, was maiking threads un-necessarilly long with pointless bickering. When this happens, it serves no usefull purpose to the person seeking help thus it undermines the whole purpose of the site. The site team eventually stepped in and 'resolved' the issue after many warnings. I suggest that your post fits into that category so if I were you, I would leave it at that.