PCN code 62 - parked with four wheels on pavement

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Sorry! failed to read!!!

[lamma]

Ooo, I think you've left yourself wide open with that statement Lamma!

 

It would depend on the type of sign whether it can be contavened or not. In this case, the sign merely indicates the start and end of the exemption if thats what you mean. In my opinion, just because it shows an image of a car with 2 wheels on the footpath, it dosn't necessarily mean you cannot park with all foiur wheels on the footpath (according to the booklet the OP posted). I do note that the OP hasn't said whether he was parked in or out of the exemption area indicated by the signs. Also its interesting to note that the booklet was published in 2002 so perhaps there is one more current?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Not in the slightest. A contravention if it occurs is a contravention of a lawful Traffic Order. This is an essential truth. Read a few annual reports to catch up. And the same is true for speeding. The signs only indicate, it is the Order that counts. And the booklet carries no weight whatsoever by the way.

[sailor sam]

Not in the slightest. A contravention if it occurs is a contravention of a lawful Traffic Order. This is an essential truth. Read a few annual reports to catch up. And the same is true for speeding. The signs only indicate, it is the Order that counts. And the booklet carries no weight whatsoever by the way.

 

So what about ''failure to comply with a traffic sign'' an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[B & T]

The funny thing about this post is,

it is the first ever post the O P

has made to the forum, and not offered further

info.

 

There may well be a reasonable explanation as to why the OP has not returned, but it still leaves me with a nagging feeling this may be a 'wind-up' of some sort.

[dragonkeeper]

There may well be a reasonable explanation as to why the OP has not returned, but it still leaves me with a nagging feeling this may be a 'wind-up' of some sort.

 

Hence my post!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

dk

[lamma]

So what about ''failure to comply with a traffic sign'' an offence under section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Partial quotes help no one. read the rest of S.36 especially this part "has been lawfully placed on or near a road". A contravention if it occurs is of a lawful Traffic Order. As I said with regard to parking read a few annual reports and catch up. the reports make it very clear.

[green_and_mean]

Partial quotes help no one.

 

 

Neither does partial answers!

 

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/legcom/CouncilP.nsf/f5fb086c73d64f3000256954004aed25/22af0955f4371498802576cd00548e36/$FILE/Item%2010%20Bus%20Clearways%20Annex%20A.pdf

[dragonkeeper]

Hi mean and green

 

lamma is fond of partial answers,

the post "police speeding fine" is getting similar posting's

 

 

dk

[green_and_mean]

You cannot contravene a footway parking sign since it is not a 'restriction' it is a sign indicating permitted parking. The sign with two wheels on the footway indicates footway parking is permitted with the car partially on the footway, the sign for completely on the footway is not the same it has a picture of a car unsurprisingly with 4 wheels on the footway. If you are not parked within the exempted bay then you are in contravention of the footway parking regs. It is no different on street if you are in partially in a 'free' unrestricted bay and half the car is on a DYL you are parked in a restricted street not 'out of bay' the bay indicates the extent of the permitted parking area.

[lamma]

G&M the "The Road Traffic Act 1991 (Special Parking Areas) (England) Order 2003" is an Order - the clue is in the name you know. As I said "has been lawfully placed" is what the stature says. As for the speeding thread - it has been asked and answered. the OP was given proper advice and then some less than helpful posts suggested that 1) a speeding fine 'falls' to the RK - presumably through some magic that removes the need for evidence. and 2) even worse a post suggesting that the RK gives the driver the NIP to deal with. And so landing them in unpleasant S.172 waters. As I recall these came from you dk.

[green_and_mean]

G&M the "The Road Traffic Act 1991 (Special Parking Areas) (England) Order 2003" is an Order - the clue is in the name you know. As I said "has been lawfully placed" is what the stature says. As for the speeding thread - it has been asked and answered. the OP was given proper advice and then some less than helpful posts suggested that 1) a speeding fine 'falls' to the RK - presumably through some magic that removes the need for evidence. and 2) even worse a post suggesting that the RK gives the driver the NIP to deal with. And so landing them in unpleasant S.172 waters. As I recall these came from you dk.

 

No what you said was it needed a traffic order, the above order merely decrimilises the 'offence' of failing to comply with a traffic sign. The bus stop clearway offence is created by the TSRGD 2003 no traffic order is needed. If you read the RTA 1988 properly it states...

 

A traffic sign shall not be treated for the purposes of this section as having been lawfully placed unless either—

(a) the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or

(b) it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the Traffic Acts that this section shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one;

and, where the indication mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is of the general nature only of the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates, a person shall not be convicted of failure to comply with the indication unless he has failed to comply with the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates.

 

Apart from bus clearways the following create offences under sect 36 RTA 1988 by statute no order is required.

 

TSRGD 2003 Diag.

601.1,

602,

606 when used on the central island of a roundabout or at a junction with a dual carriageway road

609 when used on the approach to a dual carriageway road

610

611.1

615

616 in certain circumstances

629.2 and 629.2A where used on a road where headroom is limited by a structure

[lamma]

"a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement," note the word statutory. Y

[green_and_mean]

"a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement," note the word statutory. Y

 

Which means that Sailor Sam was correct you can contravene some signs no traffic order is required as you claimed! Do you want a shovel?

[lamma]

we are still talking about parking are we ? perhaps you should send your shovel to the adjudication services who are very clear that a parking contravention of it occurs is a contravention of a lawful traffic order. The TMA backs them up but that just means you will have send a shovel to Parliament as well. How many quotes from them would you like G&M ? mind you you have read their output anyway haven't you. Strange you havenlt addressed this. Big memory lapse G&M. Its also true for speeding as I mentioned. The signs only indicate, its the Order that counts. No need for a shovel thanks, I can deal with what you are dropping without one. I see the referenced 'speeding thread' has gone quite since rebuttal. amazing.

[sailor sam]

Which means that Sailor Sam was correct you can contravene some signs no traffic order is required as you claimed! Do you want a shovel?

 

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[green_and_mean]

we are still talking about parking are we ? perhaps you should send your shovel to the adjudication services who are very clear that a parking contravention of it occurs is a contravention of a lawful traffic order. The TMA backs them up but that just means you will have send a shovel to Parliament as well. How many quotes from them would you like G&M ? mind you you have read their output anyway haven't you. Strange you havenlt addressed this. Big memory lapse G&M. Its also true for speeding as I mentioned. The signs only indicate, its the Order that counts. No need for a shovel thanks, I can deal with what you are dropping without one. I see the referenced 'speeding thread' has gone quite since rebuttal. amazing.

 

You claimed ALL signs needed a Traffic order, they do not the TSRGD 2003 and the RTA 1988 creates the offence of failing to comply with certain signs without a traffic order. Neither myself or Sailor Sam mentioned parkng he even stated the correct legislation. You can try and pretend you only meant parking (even though thats not correct either due to bus clearways) but you didn't. Stop digging and appologise to Sam.

[sailor sam]

You claimed ALL signs needed a Traffic order, they do not the TSRGD 2003 and the RTA 1988 creates the offence of failing to comply with certain signs without a traffic order. Neither myself or Sailor Sam mentioned parkng he even stated the correct legislation. You can try and pretend you only meant parking (even though thats not correct either due to bus clearways) but you didn't. Stop digging and appologise to Sam.

 

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

[dragonkeeper]

This thread has always been about parking.

The reference to an other thread (speeding) was only about partial answers.

 

I still find it quite odd that the O P has made 1 post to Cag not carried on with thread. No answers to questions raised no other details.

 

 

dk

 

ps: are you sure it's gone quiet

Edited August 4, 2010 by dragonkeeper
adding ps

[lamma]

"Parking enforcement under the TMA will be based on the same principle that a Penalty Charge Notice can only be issued where there has been a breach of a lawful TRO" Read the NPAS/TPT reports. They are an education. About the Traffic Penalty Tribunal downloads - Traffic Penalty Tribunal many references to this, very many.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

"Parking enforcement under the TMA will be based on the same principle that a Penalty Charge Notice can only be issued where there has been a breach of a lawful TRO" Read the NPAS/TPT reports. They are an education. About the Traffic Penalty Tribunal downloads - Traffic Penalty Tribunal many references to this, very many.

 

The problem is Lamma that you said:

 

you cannot contravene a sign. Signs merely indicate.

 

Without qualification that you were referring to parking only.

 

The problem is that those who wish to ignore the fact that this thread is about parking are free to ignore that lack of precision and argue the toss about what you have suggested as a fact.

[lamma]

Amazing how people can miss the thread title isn't it ? "Re: PCN code 62 - parked with four wheels on pavement". I bet they get surprised all the time when reading books !

Edited August 4, 2010 by lamma

[sailor sam]

Can I make a suggestion here? As DK points out, the OP hasn't made any further contribution to his thread since post #1 and all we seem to have acheived since is a pointless, waste of time, argument. My suggestion is therefore we stop wasting any more time bickering amongst ourselves here as clearly the OP is no longer interested in his 'problem'. I myself will not be wasting anymore time here and I suggest you other guys do the same.

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[green_and_mean]

Amazing how people can miss the thread title isn't it ? "Re: PCN code 62 - parked with four wheels on pavement". I bet they get surprised all the time when reading books !

 

Amazing how people try to cover up a mistake!

[lamma]

read the annual reports, they are educational. perhaps thats why you have not responded to them ? ?

[Guest fuzzy6988]

Thanks to all for your responses.

 

There was no marked "parking bay" on the road.

 

It's a small, narrow residential road with no yellow lines. It isn't even in a controlled parking zone (CPZ).

The strange thing is that the other residents on that road also park using four wheels.

 

By the way, I have just discovered I've been issued with multiple PCN's - one for each day my car has been left there. Got the notice through the post. But there was only one ticket on the windscreen - for the most recent PCN issued.

 

Whatever is happening, I'm definitely not going to pay all 5 x £100 tickets.

Edited August 6, 2010 by fuzzy6988