Parking on School zigzag lines

[Raykay]

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.

 

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.

[huggy41]

quite, the reason being what she perceives as the condition of her child's leg

 

jesus if she perceived her childs leg to be that bad that she though she could put other parents kids at risk what the hell was he doing at school

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[huggy41]

i am leaving this thread. but i will leave the OP to think about this pay the god dam fine and think yourself lucky that other parents din't deal there own justice.

[HYMN AND MI]

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?

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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

 

Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual:

 

22.24 The KEEP CLEAR marking is legally

enforceable only when used in conjunction with an

upright sign to diagram 642.2A and backed by a

traffic regulation order. However, without regular

enforcement action, the mandatory version is unlikely

to be any better respected than the advisory marking.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/02311351.gif

 

 

I would also add another issue re adequate signage re camera enforcement: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8184162.stm

Edited March 7, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[Raykay]

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.

 

No argument with enforcement, but it has got to be done legally - HYMN and MI's post 30 shows 4 examples where councils have been known to be wrong.

 

 

If there is no order, any markings are advisory only.

[HYMN AND MI]

Agreed. There has to be a Traffic Order. There are very few exceptions that do not require an order e.g. a Bus Stop.

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[huggys boss]

OK then. So that I do not waste any more of my time, please just give us a list of all contraventions with their codes in terms of which you are not prepared to help a motorist by merely taking the moral high ground stance, and I will then know that it is not worthwhile to offer any help purely based on the legalities under question.

 

Huggy is not taking the moral high ground here, he is a blue badge holder, I am his carer and nominated driver.

I was out with him one day and foolishly parked the car overhanging a bus-stop. The blue badge was displayed and we were only away from the car 3 minutes maximum, in that time I got a ticket.

Huggy's attitude was simply, I knew not to park there, blue badge or not. I chanced it therefore we had to pay the fine.

 

There are times in life when it is easier to accept you have done wrong and suffer the consequences.

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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

 

Actually, I was not criticising cyclists, rather the width of the lanes which they are expected to use as buses cannot overtake them!

[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?

[HYMN AND MI]

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

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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!

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

Ah, yes. The one with the little circular dude/cigarette lighter imprint in the left hand corner! Cheers.

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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.