Parking on School zigzag lines

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

Having looked at the road on Google which, of course, may not be up to date, I note there are no warning signs re camera enforcement and one sign running parallel with the 1027.1 legend on the road. This is from Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3:

 

9.16 The sign to diagram 642.2A is prescribed in

only one size. As drivers should not stop on a KEEP

CLEAR marking unless they already know they are

outside its operational hours, it is not essential for

it to face oncoming traffic, although this will make

it more conspicuous and leave no doubt about when

it applies. Where the road is two way, at least two

signs will be required if they are to face oncoming

traffic, one facing in each direction. In many

situations the two signs can be mounted back to

back near the centre of the road marking. Where this

is not practicable (e.g. outside a fire station) the two

signs should be erected separately near each end of

the marking. Where more than one marking is used,

in accordance with Chapter 5, para 22.21, a sign to

diagram 642.2A will be required for each marking.

 

This is an example of a more appropriate positioning:

 

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sour...=12,216.01,,0,5

 

**********************************************

 

Re: camera enforcement from Operational Guidance pp55ff:

 

Enforcement by approved devices

 

8.78 TMA regulations (64) give the power to authorities throughout England to issue PCNs for contraventions detected with a camera and associated recording equipment (approved device). The Secretary of State must (65) certify any type of device used solely to detect contraventions (i.e. with no supporting CEO evidence) as described in Chapter 7. Once certified they may be called an ‘approved device’. Motorists may regard enforcement by cameras as over-zealous and authorities should use them sparingly. The Secretary of State recommends that authorities put up signs to tell drivers that they are using cameras to detect contraventions. Signs must comply with TSRGD (66) or have special authorisation from DfT. The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical. Approved devices should not be used where permits or exemptions (such as resident permits or Blue Badges) not visible to the equipment may apply.

 

8.79 The primary objective of any camera enforcement system is to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the road network by deterring motorists from breaking road traffic restrictions and detecting those that do. To do this, the system needs to be well publicised and indicated with lawful traffic signs.

 

*************************************************

 

According to Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act, authorities must have regard to the information contained in that Guidance.

Edited March 8, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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. Further, I cannot possibly comment on hypothetical suggestions and their possible outcomes. As regards the Operational Guidance, authorities must have regard. Similarly, the Traffic Signs Manuals are only guidance, but many an adjudicator will quote them in their decisions. Actually, that is a crass generalisation since various contents are prefaced with "should" or "must" or "recommended". However, if you look at introduction of TSM 3 and 5, it is clearly stated that an authority should have a pretty good reason if they have not followewd the guidance therein. indeed, from the correspondence I have seen to date, authorities do seriously consult the TSM's before making their traffic orders in any case, including which signs are to be used.

 

*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

 

From TPT report previously mentioned: http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=58

 

Page 13

 

• Film footage needs to be clear enough and of sufficient duration to prove the alleged

contravention.

• There should be a statement from the named civil enforcement officer or super visor

who reviewed the film and decided to issue a PCN.

• There should be evidence (if necessary in addition to the film footage) that the

carriageway markings and roadside signs are present and in order.

• Where the camera or vehicle is in question, the council should be in a position to prove

that the camera is an approved device (although this is not necessary if type approval

is not in dispute)

• There should be evidence of signs warning the public that camera enforcement is taking

place.

• The council should have and publish on their website a code of practice for camera

enforcement.

• The council should be able to explain why it was appropriate to enforce by camera

rather than by civil enforcement officer.

• The PCN and subsequent documents in the enforcement process must be accurate and

in accordance with the Regulations.

Edited March 8, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[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.

[HYMN AND MI]

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

[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!

[HYMN AND MI]

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

[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?

[HYMN AND MI]

As crystal, sir!

[HYMN AND MI]

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.

 

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

[dx100uk]

enough!

 

dx

[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.

[green_and_mean]

At the end of the day if the OP gets off the PCN or not they will still have the stress and inconvenience of challenging the PCN and will pay for the pleasure through the Council tax so hopefully will learn a lesson. The Concept that you somehow 'win' against the Council is somewhat deluded as you actually never 'win' anything, you just minimise your loses. The only people that actually win are those that are employed to handle the PCN challenges, if you didn't bother they would be out of a job.

[HYMN AND MI]

It is a statistical fact, I believe, that only 1% challenge, of whom 65% win. Of all the people I have helped, ironically, they have commented upon the absolute wastage of time and money due to administrative incompetence of the people dealing with the challenges who should know the law better. Surely it causes them time and effort, too.

[green_and_mean]

It is a statistical fact, I believe, that only 1% challenge, of whom 65% win. Of all the people I have helped, ironically, they have commented upon the absolute wastage of time and money due to administrative incompetence of the people dealing with the challenges who should know the law better. Surely it causes them time and effort, too.

 

The difference is they 'the Council staff' get paid for it, you do not and from experience I know most of those on the 'shop floor' don't really care if you pay or not to them its just another job that pays the bills.

[HYMN AND MI]

The issue is: people I have helped i.e. rate-payers would rather the council parking departments get it right from the outset, issue properly-worded tickets etc. However, no matter how long it takes, it is very satisfying to know that they will have to work for their pound of flesh i.e. even when they win.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

Actually - it is the motorist who loses, even when they "win". The council that keeps issuing me with unlawful PCNs costs me a small fortune fighting every time - I have to pay for signed for postal delivery, at least twice, I have to expend fuel going to the location to get photos for evidence, I have to print the photos, I have to spend hours of my time, hours when I could be earning - I can honestly say it would make more economic sense for me to pay up.

 

The council? The appeals staff are there to handle appeals, it is just a job, it does not bother them whether I appeal. They don't much care whether I win or lose either, they get paid either way. The private parking warden who issued the ticket still gets to use it towards his total of 400 issued for promotion. There may be someone, somewhere, within the council who worries about the number of appeals they "lose" - but I don't think so, why would they?

[Jamberson]

no matter how long it takes, it is very satisfying to know that they will have to work for their pound of flesh i.e. even when they win.

 

Sure they do. The people doing the work are doing 9-5 in a warm office, probably with the radio on - and you're paying for it all. I don't see what's satisfying about that.

[green_and_mean]

Sure they do. The people doing the work are doing 9-5 in a warm office, probably with the radio on - and you're paying for it all. I don't see what's satisfying about that.

 

Thats only when not on their 39 days annual holidays of course!

[ronnie6]

some part of my car was on the zigzag line

Don't want to go anywhere near the moral issues here but isn't it the rule that your vehicles tyres have to be touching the restricted area? so the "overhang" doesn't count?

[green_and_mean]

Don't want to go anywhere near the moral issues here but isn't it the rule that your vehicles tyres have to be touching the restricted area? so the "overhang" doesn't count?

 

No

[markwilla]

The mindless activity of parking on "SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR" zig-zag lines is rife outside the pre-school my daughter attends. After failing to convince a number of offenders not to park there I decided to setup a Facebook page today (22/02/2013) to shame them. There are no photos as of today but I'll be outside the school during the school run on Monday to snap away at the offenders.

 

Here is the page...

 

facebook dot com/ZigZagWallOfShame

 

Sorry it is not a proper link but I'm new here!

[crem]

https://www.facebook.com/ZigZagWallOfShame

[caretaker1]

i work in a school and to day i was out side and told a dad he is not aloud to stop or park on the zig zags and when he drove of and drove back he tol me to f**king do somw work and stop f**king :mad2: standing there and there was mums taking there kids in i was doing my job gave do we need that from dad and mums i say if you park or stop pay the school 70 pounds