Invalid DYL

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

On the corner of the London borough where I live we have had DYLs for the last 7 months. There is no TRO in place and the council acknowledge this.

Contractors today extended these DYLs by about 6m. This covers the area where I habitually park.

I have spoken to the council about this extension and I spoke to the relevant highways engineer. He told me that he knows nothing about the extension but that the signs and adverts for the TRO for the lines as previously installed will be going up on Wednesday.

I suggested to him that it was possible that the lines were extended as that was the plan when it was proposed that the road in question was to be included in a new CPZ. That proposal was dropped. He thought that was possible.

My question is this: If DYLs exceed the length stipulated in the TRO does that invalidate the entire length of DYL? If so it helps me as the DYL will keep "my" parking spot clear for me (always useful in London). I would probably get a few PCNs but these would have to be cancelled on appeal.

The risks are that it may be easier for the LA to change the TRO than shorten back the lines (although if the Contractors messed-up they have to pay (I guess) and if a PC or PCSO gives a FPN it may be harder to get out of.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by Bernie_the_Bolt

My question is this: If DYLs exceed the length stipulated in the TRO does that invalidate the entire length of DYL? If so it helps me as the DYL will keep "my" parking spot clear for me (always useful in London). I would probably get a few PCNs but these would have to be cancelled on appeal.

Technically, yes - as the T-bar would not be at the 'proper' end of the restriction. However, how does the 6m compare with the overall length of the restriction. I'm thinking de minimis... here

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Originally Posted by patdavies

Technically, yes - as the T-bar would not be at the 'proper' end of the restriction. However, how does the 6m compare with the overall length of the restriction. I'm thinking de minimis... here

About 20% extra. It's just DYL on a junction.

[patdavies]

Then the 6M is not valid and can be parked on with impunity.

Except for the fact that the Police may take an interest in a car parked that close (or on) a junction.

DYL on junctions are usually applied to ensure safety and sightlines.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Please take a look at this rather feeble diagram of mine



The red blobs mark the only really discernable points (0.5 metre south of the common boundary of Nos.62 and 64 x Road) from what the notices that the LA have put up proposing a TRO amendment to give force to the following DYL.

y Road, both sides, within 19 metres of x Road; and x Road (a) the east side, from 6 metres north of y Road to 0.5 metre south of the common boundary of Nos.62 and 64 x Road; (b) the west side, from 4.5 metres north of y Road to 0.5 metre south of the common boundary of Nos.62 and 64 x Road.

The thing is the junction is unusual in that the priorities and road markings lead effectively (reading from the left of the diagram) from x Road round a 90 degree bend into y road. X Road continues from a junction off the curve. The only definitive point of where x Road ends and y road begins is where the give-way road markings on the junction meet the kerb where the North side of x Road north meets the north side of y Road (if you follow me).

What I cannot tell is how long the DYL should be from the red blobs numbered 1 and 2. The closest I have been able to figure out is to add 19 and 4.5 metres (23.5 metres) and take that from red blob 1.

Any ideas?

[patdavies]

The way that I read that is:

DYL on both sides of Y road for a distance of 19m from the junction with X road-
On the East side (a), a DYL running for 8m of X road (north) to a point 0.5m past red blob 2
On the West side (b), I am baffled. It reads as though the DYL is proposed to cross the junction from X road (north) to X road (south)

I can see what I think they are trying to do and would have written it very differently.

From a point 19m west of the junction of Y road and X road to a point 0.5m to the south of the common boundary of Nos 62 and 64 X road; from a point 19m west of the junction of Y road and X road to a point 4.5m north of the junction; from a point 6m west of the junction of X road and Y road to a point 0.5m south of the common boundary of Nos 62 and 64 X road.

Next question, Where, technically is the junction of two roads for purposes such as these? Is it the edge of private property, the edge of the pavement, the kerb or the centre of the junction?