Parking on School Yellow Zigzag lines

[Guest louis wu]

Hi Louis Wu.

See your post yesterday 22. 12. It credits me with that posting and i didn't make it.

 

 

and your post at 13:14 yesterday shows you quoting yourself. I think it's just a glitch and I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[green_and_mean]

A local LA to where I live trialled using using CCTV to catch parents parking on the zig zags. Parents complained on the grounds of 'child protection' since children where at 'risk' of getting included in the photos, so it was scrapped. Its a crazy world where parents think the risk of their child getting run over by a Range Rover is less than a Council employee being a paedophile who gets his kicks from seeing photos of children getting into parked cars??

[IIIUMINATI]

Why do parents have to park so close to the schools

Why do parents have to drive a car to school to collect the kids in good weather.

I think that motorists who park there cars on zig zags should have the cars photographed and fines issued. Asap.

The message would soon get around and this dangerous practice would stop.

[green_and_mean]

Why do parents have to park so close to the schools

 

 

For the same reason people get in their car and drive 200m to the shop to buy a paper or pint of milk they are lazy bas***ds!!

[The Truth will Out!]

I am absolutely delighted that the poster has been issued a PCN for parking on zig-zags. Absolutely bloody delighted!!

[IIIUMINATI]

If the poster walked to school for a month the money saved could easily pay the fine. Fuel £5 a gallon

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Naslam,

 

I'm afraid your thread seems to have been hijacked by a number of people who seem to me to be somewhat sanctimonious. The fact of the matter is that the roads are one of the most, if not the most, dangerous places we expose our children to. If you commited a contravention, the law makers still consider it a less serious matter than driving at 35 mph in a 30 mph area.

 

Yes if this was a correctly installed zig-zag and if it was in its hours of operation and if it is is being enforced correctly and if the enforcement process is being followed properly you have to face the music. But we don't know this.

 

Please be assured that if you come back with the suggested details there will be some people who will be prepared to be constructive.

[Guest louis wu]

The thread has been contributed to by people concerned at the practice of parking on zigzags outside schools. If that is being sanctamonious (bearing in mind you are against this practice) then so be it. I do believe, however, that the use of the word is gratuitous rather than accurate.

 

Parking on zigzags is dangerous and irresponsible.....that fact is more important (to a lot of people) than the actual (or alleged) parking offence.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The thread has been contributed to by people concerned at the practice of parking on zigzags outside schools. If that is being sanctamonious (bearing in mind you are against this practice) then so be it. I do believe, however, that the use of the word is gratuitous rather than accurate.

 

Parking on zigzags is dangerous and irresponsible.....that fact is more important (to a lot of people) than the actual (or alleged) parking offence.

 

My use of the word was measured.

 

The same could be said of any parking contravention. In fact driving or being on the roads is dangerous.

 

"Pay up, you deserved it" is a perfectly valid view for parking contraventions but IMHO those who hold it should apply it to all.

[green_and_mean]

Yes if this was a correctly installed zig-zag and if it was in its hours of operation and if it is is being enforced correctly and if the enforcement process is being followed properly you have to face the music. But we don't know this.

 

 

So if the TRO is found to be incorrect, do you consider that the parents should ignore the signs and their intended purpose and just park where it suits them? The signs are there to protect the children nothing else, only a paranoid delusioned fool would think anything otherwise! What you are suggesting is if lets say the PCN is non compliant it gives the OP an excuse for parking there because of course they would know that before parking, wouldn't they?!

[green_and_mean]

Whilst on the subject....

 

My local Fire Station has yellow zig zags and keep clear markings with no TRO across the entrance. Maybe I should treat it as free parking and have a good laugh when they cannot get out...after all its only graffiti!?

[The Truth will Out!]

The thread has been contributed to by people concerned at the practice of parking on zigzags outside schools. If that is being sanctamonious (bearing in mind you are against this practice) then so be it. I do believe, however, that the use of the word is gratuitous rather than accurate.

 

Parking on zigzags is dangerous and irresponsible.....that fact is more important (to a lot of people) than the actual (or alleged) parking offence.

 

I second this post word for word.

[tomterm8]

Firstly, I've moved all the off topic posts (including my own) to a new thread where they will be on topic... depending on how it goes, the topic may be moved to the bear garden if appropriate.

 

Secondly, disagreeing in debate is one thing, if users insult other users their posts will either be edited or unapproved. Please remember it's fine to disagree, as long as you do it in a polite way.

[ShortlyTdwarf]

Whilst I agree that parking regulations without the relevant TRO are not enforceable, I feel I have to add to this post in that parking on the zigzags outside a school is something that should not be done by either parents or anyone else.

 

Where I live a lot of the smaller village schools are on major HGV routes making it even more dangerous for the kids than in the middle of town. Notwithstanding the legal issues if there is a TRO in force, it causes considerable inconvenience for the other road users trying to get past a 50m line of parked vehicles whilst other traffic is trying to come the other way, causing tailbacks, and a lot of frustration. IMHO an accident waiting to happen.

 

I personally have 2 kids of school age and one more starting after easter, and walk(well, they walk, I wheel) the half a mile to school and back twice a day. I constantly see lots of able-bodied mothers parking their cars on the zigzags because they are too lazy to walk a few metres to the school gates.

 

If you get a ticket for parking in the zigzags, pay up and learn from the mistake by not parking there again. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking if someone knows whether you have a chance of not paying it. The arguement about the legality of a TRO may be legally right, but it's morally wrong in this case.

[BADGER 69]

Whilst I agree that parking regulations without the relevant TRO are not enforceable, I feel I have to add to this post in that parking on the zigzags outside a school is something that should not be done by either parents or anyone else.

 

Where I live a lot of the smaller village schools are on major HGV routes making it even more dangerous for the kids than in the middle of town. Notwithstanding the legal issues if there is a TRO in force, it causes considerable inconvenience for the other road users trying to get past a 50m line of parked vehicles whilst other traffic is trying to come the other way, causing tailbacks, and a lot of frustration. IMHO an accident waiting to happen.

 

I personally have 2 kids of school age and one more starting after easter, and walk(well, they walk, I wheel) the half a mile to school and back twice a day. I constantly see lots of able-bodied mothers parking their cars on the zigzags because they are too lazy to walk a few metres to the school gates.

 

If you get a ticket for parking in the zigzags, pay up and learn from the mistake by not parking there again. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking if someone knows whether you have a chance of not paying it. The arguement about the legality of a TRO may be legally right, but it's morally wrong in this case.

 

I totally agree with you

[pin1onu]

Where I live a lot of the smaller village schools are on major HGV routes making it even more dangerous for the kids than in the middle of town. Notwithstanding the legal issues if there is a TRO in force, it causes considerable inconvenience for the other road users trying to get past a 50m line of parked vehicles whilst other traffic is trying to come the other way, causing tailbacks, and a lot of frustration. IMHO an accident waiting to happen.

I agree with you on this point but want to point out that often parents have no option to park up and wait because of the (IMO ridiculous) lack of care before the start of school. When I was a kid I walked the 1/2 mile to school with my older brother and we were allowed to play in the playground with limited supervision until 8.30 in the morning when a member of staff would come out on playground duty. These days we are forced to park up and wait with our children because of polices like that of my nearest state school. The staff are not around until 08:50. Because of the laws I cannot drop the children at the gate at 08:30 and drive off because there is no-one to care for them. It's a real pain for those of us who have to be in work for 09:00.

 

I personally have 2 kids of school age and one more starting after easter, and walk(well, they walk, I wheel) the half a mile to school and back twice a day. I constantly see lots of able-bodied mothers parking their cars on the zigzags because they are too lazy to walk a few metres to the school gates.

There may be some parents in that category but spare a thought for those mothers (and fathers) who have to work. Because of the lack of public transport and for the reason I've outlined above some of us have little option but to use our cars. I am not trying to justify parking on the zigzags. There is no justification.

 

Regardless of the morals of the situation if no TRO exists then a council cannot enforce a parking contravention.

 

Surely the local councils have a moral duty to make sure that they get a TRO before they commission the lines? There is no excuse for this sort of oversight and incompetence on the part of roading departments paid for by our council tax. While we're on the subject surely there is moral obligation on the school to make sure a valid TRO exists and get one put in place if there isn't. After all they have a duty of care to make sure all their pupils can arrive safely.

[tomterm8]

To comment on some posts earlier on the thread, once the council finds out that a particular restriction does not have a valid TRO, they could very quickly put up an experimental order to fill the gap, while waiting for a full TRO to be issued.

 

So, the fact a particular parking restriction isn't valid can be quickly rectified. And it would be foolish to keep parking there, because if the council knows its business the problem would be rectified, and you would soon enough get a PCN.

 

If the council failed to rectify the problem quickly, there is a well known strategy to change defective leadership.

 

In terms of TROs, the reason they are so important is that they are the one point in the entire process where the people who live in the area get a say over what restrictions exist. To get a permanent TRO, a consultation process has to be followed, which is both rigorous and strict. The democratic representatives of the residents then approve the TRO. If you remove the necessity for a TRO you remove any control normal citizens have in the process. councils are given their powers only under the condition they abide by this process.

 

Further, the idea that local people should be able to go out into the street and paint lines as they like is a recipy for absolute chaos. For example, in my street it would be very convenient to me if it was entirely residential parking. If it was legally OK for me to paint the street myself, without democratic supervision, then i very well may do so. So might anyone else. It would just be a pity for non-residents because (in our crowded village) they would have nowhere to park.

 

Further, IMHO, the road markings we are talking about are not safety markings. They are intended to keep the entrance and exist to the school clear. There are safety implications in terms of fire engines etc being able to get into the school, but the primary reason for them is traffic management. They are not the right place to cross. Frankly, if you attempted to cross at this point you would probably be in danger. the proper place to cross is at a formal crossing, parking on which is a different contravention/offence (depending).

[Guest louis wu]

Further, IMHO, the road markings we are talking about are not safety markings. They are intended to keep the entrance and exist to the school clear. There are safety implications in terms of fire engines etc being able to get into the school, but the primary reason for them is traffic management. They are not the right place to cross. Frankly, if you attempted to cross at this point you would probably be in danger. the proper place to cross is at a formal crossing, parking on which is a different contravention/offence (depending).

 

I am sorry to say I disagree. If children knew everything then there would be no need for schools. If they had road sense there would be no need for lollipop men and women. If the zigzags were designed puerly for emergency vehicles to enter the property, then the zigzag would only be as long as the opening. The minimum length of a zigzag is 25.56m increasing in 6m lengths up to 43.56m.

 

These zigzags are in principle the same as those used at zebra crossings. These are used for safety reasons to give drivers an clear view of the road and pavement whilst in the area of the hazard.

 

It is a fact that children have less road sense than most adults, hence the extra precautions around schools, especially primary schools. The safety measures around schools, lollipop men/women, speed humps, reduced speed limits, road safety signage etc, are confirmation of this.

 

 

The rest of your post contains a message I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

louis

[Guest louis wu]

Originally Posted by louis wu

If that is being sanctamonious (bearing in mind you are against this practice) then so be it. I do believe, however, that the use of the word is gratuitous rather than accurate.

 

My use of the word was measured.

 

 

The definition of sanctimonious from various online dictionaries

 

adjective derogatory making a show of being morally superior

 

Feigning piety or righteousness

 

holier-than-thou: excessively or hypocritically pious

 

adjective FORMAL DISAPPROVING acting as if morally better than others

 

 

and your use of the word was measured:rolleyes:. To say this of people concerned about the safety of children is, IMHO, nothing short of rude and insulting, especially coming from a (alleged) school governer. I wonder, perhaps, if this was your intention, if so it was very bad taste.

 

It does, however, show a lack of understanding of the genuine worries people have on this subject, which I actually find quite sad.

 

 

Secondly, disagreeing in debate is one thing, if users insult other users their posts will either be edited or unapproved. Please remember it's fine to disagree, as long as you do it in a polite way.

 

This was taken from Tomterms post. I hope any further contributions will be measured enough to comply with this.

[ShortlyTdwarf]

Pin1onu, I fully understand the need for some people to drop their kids off at school on their own way to work. I have done this myself, wasn't always in the wheelchair. But is there realy any excuse for someone to park right in front of the svhool where there is a clearly visible restriction on parking? No. It is just plain ignorance and laziness that they can't be arsed to park outside the restriction and walk their kids 30 feet to the gate.

 

As for the fact that a TRO may not be in place for a restriction outside a school, I find it hard to believe that any LA would paint the lines before even an experimental order was issued. And since most schools have been around a long time, as have the zigzags, it is unlikely that a TRO wouldn't be in force.

 

As for this debate, I wouldn't give the time of day for attempting to get out of the PCN by asking that way [edit]

[DeafSteve]

I thought the yellow zigzags meant 4x4's only?

[ShortlyTdwarf]

I have written to my Local Council about the parking ticket issued outside the school parked on Yellow Zigzag lines towards the end where I am not blocking any thing or putting children at risk. However I would be grateful if some body can advice me, DO I have chance of not paying this ticket or I have to pay. My personal circumstances are I am unemployed at the moment and no saving. Looking for Job but in the mean time can't pay the ticket. So I will be grateful if some body can guide me. Thanks

 

My advice would be to pay up and don't park illegally next time. If you take the risk of parking in contravention of the law then you must be prepared to face the consequences when you get caught.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The definition of sanctimonious from various online dictionaries

 

adjective derogatory making a show of being morally superior

 

Feigning piety or righteousness

 

holier-than-thou: excessively or hypocritically pious

 

adjective FORMAL DISAPPROVING acting as if morally better than others

 

 

and your use of the word was measured:rolleyes:. To say this of people concerned about the safety of children is, IMHO, nothing short of rude and insulting, especially coming from a (alleged) school governer. I wonder, perhaps, if this was your intention, if so it was very bad taste.

 

 

I am quite happy that at least part of the following quotes fill one or other of the definitions above.

Remember also that I used the terms "seem to me" and "somewhat" in conjunction. That is what makes the use measured.

 

I do understand the concerns that people have about the safety of children. In fact I apply that concern to all road users.

 

What I do not do is see that there is any reason to tell someone that they should pay a penalty to the LA without first investigating that it is lawfully due.

 

I further suggest that if the law makers felt that parking on yellow zig-zags is more dangerous than (say) double yellows it would not have been de-criminalised (personally I don't think it should - I would have it as a three point offence but that's a different story).

 

What you may (or may not be pleased to hear) is that I'm not proposing to continue with this debate. If the OP comes back with details requested I shall help if possible as I would and have done for anyone else.

 

For the same reason people get in their car and drive 200m to the shop to buy a paper or pint of milk they are lazy bas***ds!!

 

I am absolutely delighted that the poster has been issued a PCN for parking on zig-zags. Absolutely bloody delighted!!

 

If the poster walked to school for a month the money saved could easily pay the fine. Fuel £5 a gallon

 

ShortlyTdwarf has posted today a comment part of which utterly defies belief.

 

And also posted today on the original thread.

 

My advice would be to pay up and don't park illegally next time. If you take the risk of parking in contravention of the law then you must be prepared to face the consequences when you get caught.

[pin1onu]

But is there realy any excuse for someone to park right in front of the svhool where there is a clearly visible restriction on parking? No. It is just plain ignorance and laziness that they can't be arsed to park outside the restriction and walk their kids 30 feet to the gate.

I beleive thats what I said. I was commenting on your points made about having to park up around the schools in the first place "....it causes considerable inconvenience for the other road users trying to get past a 50m line of parked vehicles"

As for the fact that a TRO may not be in place for a restriction outside a school, I find it hard to believe that any LA would paint the lines before even an experimental order was issued. And since most schools have been around a long time, as have the zigzags, it is unlikely that a TRO wouldn't be in force.

There are loads of traffic markingsthat are not enforcable either because the markings are wrong or no TRO exists. It does pay to check.

 

[edited].

Let me just point out regardless of morality that if the lines are non-compliant or no valid TRO exists then no contravention exists. Therefore no circumvention occurs.

 

It is just as immoral, if not more so, to seek enforcement of a non-existent contravention as it is to park as the OP did. Malfeasance by public officials in positions of trust has always been stamped on by the judicary.

 

[edited]

 

If you don't want to participate in helping this sort of poster fair enough but please refrain from attacks on those of us who wish to help all who have had enough of the profiteering by local councils and PPCs who, in a lot of case, rely on peoples ignorance.

[jonni2bad]

Please note

 

 

Debate = good

 

Personal insults = bad

 

 

Stick to the first and the thread continues.

 

Stick to the second and accounts become moderated.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.