Fined for being *adjacent* a zigzag. Is this legal?

[notonthezigzag]

We were recently fined for parking *next to* zig zags (not on, as we know that is illegal!).

 

It was a commercial vehicle, unloading heavy equipment, and was parked safely on the verge/footpath directly outside our destination (with emergency lights flashing), not on the zig zag, but beside it (as the loading zone was full and it was the only option that would not obstruct vehicles or pedestrians). But according to the Brighton and Hove Council "zig zag restrictions apply to the road, verge and pavement ie from the middle of the road until the building line/private property". There is no reference to where this defintion comes from. From my research Reg 27(1) of the TSRGD 2002 says zigzags only apply to the "controlled area" ie “the carriageway” or the area of the road intended for use by vehicular traffic, which I was not on.

 

Here are all the details:

 

I want to appeal, or at least warn other drivers of the risk. According to their broad definition a lot of other vehicles (bicycles etc) could be liable to fines....

 

Any thoughts or advice much appreciated!

[Mossycat]

I always thought that zig zag lines applied right across the road and extended to the verges as well, at least I'm sure they did when I sat my driving test

 

Mossy

[notonthezigzag]

Of course on the road...but all the way across the footpath and up to the building?

 

Isn't the purpose to stop any obstruction etc to the pedestrian crossing (which in this case I was certainly not obstructing)....?

 

Any actual references etc much appreciated. If I am in the wrong I will pay the fine but presently no one has actually shown me where safely parking *near* zigzags is illegal. and worthy of a fine...

 

I always thought that zig zag lines applied right across the road and extended to the verges as well, at least I'm sure they did when I sat my driving test

 

Mossy

[Jamberson]

I found this quite interesting (sad, I know) so I checked the Highway Code. Rule 191 seems to be the relevant part. However no statement clarified the situation, so I checked the referenced laws, so far as what I could find online.

 

The only thing I found was the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, part 27, which says:

 

 

 

27. - (1) In this regulation and regulation 28 -

 

• "controlled area" means a length of carriageway -
  

 

• (a) which is adjacent to a signal-controlled crossing facility and has a zig-zag line marked along each of its edges (with or without zig-zag lines also marked down its centre); and
   
  (b) in or near which no other signs or markings have been placed except ones comprised in the combination of signs and markings indicating the presence of the facility or shown in diagram 610, 611, 612, 613, 616, 810, 1029 or 1062;
  

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and without prejudice to regulation 28, a zig-zag line shall convey the

requirement that the driver of a vehicle shall not cause any part of it to stop in the controlled area in which it is marked.

 

 

 

- so it says in a nutshell, zig zags mean do not stop in the controlled area - and it defines controlled area as the carriageway.

 

You were not on the carriageway, so you haven't contravened this rule in my view.

[TheBogsDollocks]

A zig zag is marked to diagram 1001.3

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113an.gif

 

In your case it is regulation 27 of the TSRGD 2002 that applies and 27(2) advises what the restriction is

 

27(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and without prejudice to regulation 28, a zig-zag line shall convey the requirement that the driver of a vehicle shall not cause any part of it to stop in the controlled area in which it is marked.

 

27(1) defines controlled area

 

27. - (1) In this regulation and regulation 28 -

 

 

• "controlled area" means a length of carriageway -
  

• (a) which is adjacent to a signal-controlled crossing facility and has a zig-zag line marked along each of its edges (with or without zig-zag lines also marked down its centre); and
   
  (b) in or near which no other signs or markings have been placed except ones comprised in the combination of signs and markings indicating the presence of the facility or shown in diagram 610, 611, 612, 613, 616, 810, 1029 or 1062;
  

the definition of "carriageway" can be found under reg 3(1)(a)

 

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (No. 2400) - Statute Law Database

 

You were not parked on part of a road that is a right of way for the public for the passage of vehicles. You were parked on a footway or verge and as vehicles have no right of way you cannot be considered as being parked/stopped on a length of carriageway. The zig zag controlled area only applies to a length of carriagway. B&H are wrong, the contravention did not occur.

 

Ah....Jamberson, like minds.

Edited February 20, 2010 by TheBogsDollocks

[Jamberson]

I got lucky! Glad you agree

[notonthezigzag]

Thanks guys, really appreciate your research! It seems to be in line with what I have found.

 

But can a council redefine such a definition locally, and then base a contravention on it?

 

If B&H are wrong, what steps should I take?

 

Once again, many thanks for your help!

[TheBogsDollocks]

No they can't redefine. All you need to do is keep appealing on the points explained above. It is they that have failed to understand the law, not you that is in breach of it.

[JimmySpangle]

By parking where you did you have restricted the view of the crossing for both drivers to see waiting pedestrians and for pedestrians to see traffic.

 

I do sympathise with you plight for loading/unloading. However, your Renault Megane is NOT a commercial vehicle. You may well be using it for commercial purposes, but that does not make it a commercial vehicle by definition.

 

As far as I can see, the fine is absolutely correct. The zig zag area is exactly the same a yellow line areas and applies to the length of the road marked and from the crown to the edge of the carriageway including verges and public pavements.

[crem]

By parking where you did you have restricted the view of the crossing for both drivers to see waiting pedestrians and for pedestrians to see traffic.

I would agree with your comment, but that does not in itself make it a contravention.

 

I do sympathise with you plight for loading/unloading. However, your Renault Megane is NOT a commercial vehicle. You may well be using it for commercial purposes, but that does not make it a commercial vehicle by definition.

What does the class of vehicle have to do with the contravention? You may load/unload goods from whatever type of vehicle you have and the right to do so without it being a "loading" contravention has been discussed on here (and won) many times). However, the PCN was not issued for a loading offence in the first place so has no relevance.

 

As far as I can see, the fine is absolutely correct.

Why?

 

The zig zag area is exactly the same a yellow line areas and applies to the length of the road marked and from the crown to the edge of the carriageway including verges and public pavements.

Does it? That is what is being discussed here, and at the moment all the evidence found so far indicates that a white zig-zag only applies to the carrigeway and not to footpaths or verges. Have you found something to the contrary that we can all see?

 

..

[greendollar]

Common sense seems to have gone out of the window here ...... of course you can't park there , only an idiot would think you can .

[crem]

Common sense seems to have gone out of the window here ...... of course you can't park there , only an idiot would think you can .

 

Being stupid is not illegal.

 

The offence either occurred in law, or it didn't.

 

When the wheather is bad with snow/rain, driving at 50mph on a 60mph would be considered by most people to be stupid, but is not in itself illegal and you therefore cannot be procecuted for speeding.

[andydd]

Common sense seems to have gone out of the window here ...... of course you can't park there , only an idiot would think you can .

 

Thats not the point, fines or tickets have to be given out in strict accordance with the law, I agree that the parking may be rather inconsiderate and maybe an offence, but the ticket does appear to have been issued wrongly (from what I've read above) and i have a feeling if contested the OP may well win.

 

I'm sure there is another offence of parking on the pavement or verge but that is not what the ticket says, the explanation from B & H would also appear to be incorrect, its not upto them to interpret 'carrageway' as they see fit.

 

Andy

[JimmySpangle]

.What does the class of vehicle have to do with the contravention?.

Oh I agree that the class of vehicle has no bearing the alleged offence. I am just point that out as the OP mentioned it was a comercial vehicle in his post and it clearly isn't.

 

I may well be wrong and don't mind if I am, but my understanding of kerb markings like yellow lines AND zig zags is that they apply to the road AND the verge AND the footpath.

 

If that isn't the case then as stupid as another member points out it is (or not), the alleged offence did not occur. A different offence of obstruction or parking on a footpath did, but that is not what the alleged offence is.

 

It does very much swing on whether the zig zag restrictions do or can be applied to the footpath. my understanding is they do.

[notonthezigzag]

Thank you everyone for the discussion and replies -although some seem intent on labelling me an 'idiot' etc no one has as of yet shown me in the law where a zigzag actually applies from the "middle of the road until the building line/private property" ie across the footpath etc where I was unloading. Please show me and I will immediately accept I am in the wrong -I am not trying to get out of this, only understand it (notice my post title is in the form of a question?).

 

Some things to clear up:

1. The vehicle was and is used for commercial purposes. But I accept this has no bearing on the matter being discussed and I should have written this clearer in my OP (by the way it is a Renault Megane Scenic, not an eSpace). But it was a business loading/unloading to a business in a commercial district.

2. By parking there it was not obscuring anyone's view of any traffic or pedestrians and I made sure of this (and have photographic evidence if you want me to supply it). Even so, I was parked on the other side of the road so the only vehicles that would have a blocked view of waiting pedestrians would be those travelling on the wrong side of the road...!

3. I actually parked there as a courtesy to other vehicles and pedestrians...I could have parked in the mouth of the congested loading zone but this would have blocked vehicular access and also caused danger to pedestrians... so I chose an option that would cause the least disruption, rather than be an 'idiot'. However it seems henceforth when unloading there I will have to cause a large obstruction to vehicles and pedestrians and direct any abuse to the council and people like 'greendollar' who seem to think it is ok.

4. I am looking forward to JimmySpangle and greendollar finding and posting the law that proves the zig zag also applies to property adjacent to a zigzag and finally clear the matter up if that is their understanding.

[lamma]

Post number 5 is all you need.

[Jamberson]

It doesn't matter whether you were parked inconsiderately, or whether you were in contravention (you were!). What matters is whether the PCN is valid. All evidence suggests it is not because it states the wrong contravention code. You should win on appeal.

 

If nothing else, your case will flag up to Brighton & Hove what the correct contravention should be for future use.

[kwaks]

Agree with Jamberson, whilst the parking is particularly bad IMO the warden has done you a favour by issuing the wrong contavention code.

[notonthezigzag]

Thanks Jamberson. But just so I am sure on this, in contravention of what precisely?

 

From the posters above they have so confirmed the zigzag law does not apply in this case, as no one can find it in writing. Thus the car falls under commercial 'loading' which is apparantly allowed on a pavement if absolutely necessary, is of short duration and the vehicle is not left completely unattended (all 3 are fine in this case).

 

It doesn't matter whether you were parked inconsiderately, or whether you were in contravention (you were!). What matters is whether the PCN is valid. All evidence suggests it is not because it states the wrong contravention code. You should win on appeal.

 

If nothing else, your case will flag up to Brighton & Hove what the correct contravention should be for future use.

[notonthezigzag]

How was this bad? It was not 'parked'... it was being loaded/unloaded, which is permissable as far as I can see as it fits the criteria for allowance.

 

Agree with Jamberson, whilst the parking is particularly bad IMO the warden has done you a favour by issuing the wrong contavention code.

[Michael Browne]

Agree with Jamberson, whilst the parking is particularly bad IMO the warden has done you a favour by issuing the wrong contavention code.

If the CEO had issued a 62 - Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) instead of a 99, it would have been a slam dunk, loading/unloading or not

[notonthezigzag]

I was under the impression that exemptions exist ie:

 

(d) for the purpose of loading or unloading goods, and—

(i) the loading or unloading of the vehicle could not have been satisfactorily performed if it had not been so parked; and

(ii) the vehicle was not left unattended at any time while it was so parked

 

All of the above are applicable in this case. It occured at commercial premises, in the business district, for commercial reasons. Not to mention that we are looking at a maximum of 3 minutes (although it was in reality less) which is verifiable from the manager of the premises.

[notonthezigzag]

To clarify allegations by Michael Browne, kwaks and others that even if the zigzag law is inapplicable in this case (as it seems presently) that I was in contravention of "62 - Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking) instead of a 99, it would have been a slam dunk, loading/unloading or not".

 

I am happy to inform all, especially other business owners that this incorrect, as we were subject to very clear exemptions for commercial operators by B & H council:

 

http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/downloads/bhcc/parking/Exceptions_DP_DC.doc

 

Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.

This is subject to the following exceptions.

5) The fourth exception is where—

(a) the vehicle is being used for the purposes of delivering goods to, or collecting goods from, any premises, or is being loaded from or unloaded to any premises,

(b) the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1), and

© the vehicle is so parked for no longer than is necessary and for no more than 20 minutes.

 

If what Michael Browne, kwaks and others alleged was true this would have massive implications for business owners who need to load/unload.

 

I am starting to wonder if some of the posters on here are actually CEOs or council workers in disguise... certainly not helping in any fights for justice that is for sure!

[Michael Browne]

All of the above are applicable in this case.

 

But equally they are irrelevant, since the contravention is: Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags and it seems your only hope is that this only applies to the carriageway. I don't believe the council will ever accept that and you will be forced to go to adjudication and hope the adjudicator agrees with you.

[notonthezigzag]

Michael, your above post stated that if the CEO had issued a 62 it would have been a "slam dunk, loading/unloading or not".

 

So you are now saying it would not be a "slam dunk"??

 

As far as I can see no one has proved any contravention of any law as yet, hence my original post!

 

But equally they are irrelevant, since the contravention is: Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags and it seems your only hope is that this only applies to the carriageway. I don't believe the council will ever accept that and you will be forced to go to adjudication and hope the adjudicator agrees with you.