Parking on School zigzag lines

[sailor sam]

What I mean is: obviously the driver concerned but that the driver who may have been parked on the zigzag would most probably be not at fault if the signage etc was not legal!

 

Actually, a better deterrent IMO is to have visible CEO's in situ as they generally do the trick.

 

100% with you on that one. And they do do that in my area sometimes. Better still, errect CCTV cameras (with signage stating that PCNs will be issued automatically to offenders) outside all schools where TMOs are in place.

[HYMN AND MI]

DfT Traffic Signs Manual Chp 3

 

9.17 Where both the KEEP CLEAR marking (1027.1) and the

mandatory sign to diagram 642.2A are used on a

road that is also subject to a prohibition of waiting,

the latter should be independently signed

, with

the yellow line to diagram 1017 or 1018.1 running

behind the KEEP CLEAR marking. As waiting restriction signs are spaced

at approximately 60 m intervals (see para 6.34),

it is possible that there might not be such a sign

alongside the KEEP CLEAR marking. However,

it

would be helpful to drivers to provide a sign

(except

where the restriction is no waiting at any time)

as a

reminder that waiting restrictions apply during times

when the prohibition of stopping does not

. The sign

could be co-located with diagram 642.2A.

This also

applies within a controlled parking zone, where

upright signs are normally dispensed with

.

 

and 12.2

 

Where there is a prohibition of

stopping on entrance markings within the zone, it

might be necessary to sign the waiting restrictions

also

[HYMN AND MI]

100% with you on that one. And they do do that in my area sometimes. Better still, errect CCTV cameras (with signage stating that PCNs will be issued automatically to offenders) outside all schools where TMOs are in place.

 

Interesting read re camera enforcement: http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=58

[JJJ1]

Hey Guys, really appreciate your advice in this matter..some of the comments are very useful.

 

Look, I agree that I have done wrong by parking on the zigzag, but it was not a deliberate attempt to harm any children, why would someone even think of it if they have children of their own.

I thought this forum was there to advice and help people if they have not knowingly made mistake. Again both times I was not aware that my car was on zigzag lines. I am leaning towards appeal on the leniency grounds.

 

I will try and attached the notice tomorrow.. it was on the Hampton Road, Twickenham, observed by CEO- CCTV19, outside the Mall school.

[HYMN AND MI]

Hello JJJ1: I will help as much as I can with the standard and usual ways of fighting parking tickets!

 

Go for it, I say. Was this a Richmond PCN as I know them rather well? Look forward to seeing it.

[sailor sam]

Hey Guys, really appreciate your advice in this matter..some of the comments are very useful.

 

Look, I agree that I have done wrong by parking on the zigzag, but it was not a deliberate attempt to harm any children, why would someone even think of it if they have children of their own.

I thought this forum was there to advice and help people if they have not knowingly made mistake. Again both times I was not aware that my car was on zigzag lines. I am leaning towards appeal on the leniency grounds.

 

I will try and attached the notice tomorrow.. it was on the Hampton Road, Twickenham, observed by CEO- CCTV19, outside the Mall school.

 

 

So you are saying that you cannot tell whether your car is on zig zags or not? Without being funny, i'm assuming you know where your wheels are in relation to the kerb when you are pulling over to stop, so how would you not know whether you were stopped on the zig zags or not? This is sincere advice JJJ1, do not use this in your defence!

 

At the end of the day you were either on the zig zags or not. If you were, appeal for leniency giving the reasons in your original post (although I doubt they will cancel both tickets if either at all). Or if you wern't on the zig zags, then appeal the tickets that the contrevention did not occur.

 

Here is the street view link; http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Hampton+Road,+Twickenham&hl=en&ll=51.437678,-0.349588&spn=0.000027,0.022638&sll=51.475312,-0.029672&sspn=0.230946,0.724411&hnear=Hampton+Rd,+Twickenham,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.437497,-0.349726&panoid=FrHo4O6VkB4OeNKPvOe4Cw&cbp=12,56.17,,0,0.26

 

The markings are fairly obvious and are supported by the correct sign which suggest that there is a TMO in force.

 

For the record, no one is suggesting that you deliberately set out to harm any children by stopping on the zig zags. I'm sure that nobody ever does. But the fact of the matter is, it dosn't mean that it doesn't present a danger to children. If it didn't, there wouldn't be need for these restrictions or enforcement.

[HYMN AND MI]

Attempting to be objective here, it is obviously quite possible, and reasonable, if one reverses one's car even in a parking bay NOT to know how far within or over the bay marcation line one is. Especially if one does not get out of the car. Of course, I have not seen any photo/video evidence yet.

[sailor sam]

Attempting to be objective here, it is obviously quite possible, and reasonable, if one reverses one's car even in a parking bay NOT to know how far within or over the bay marcation line one is. Especially if one does not get out of the car. Of course, I have not seen any photo/video evidence yet.

 

But we are not talking about crossing the lines of a parking bay, we are talking about knowing that one has stopped on great big yellow zig zag markings or not. The fact that one hasn't got out of one's car is irrelevant because one's son did get out of the car deeming one's car to have stopped or parked. Being an ex coach driver, I can say that even in a 40 ft long coach, you still can tell if you are on zig zags or not, you simply use your mirrors.

[HYMN AND MI]

I am not getting into this line of altercation. Any appeal on this has to be made on a technical issue and, if Richmond have not changed their reg 10 PCN's/NTO's, I highly suspect that information required by statute will not appear. So, we need to see it asap.

[dx100uk]

I thought this forum was there to advice and help people if they have not knowingly made mistake. .

 

let me clarify for want of any misunderstandings..........

 

CAG is here to help anyone wronged by the system.

be that by poor signage etc etc

 

we are not here, nor will we support, carry or condone, anyone providing or using 'loopholes'

to assist in ticket avoidance.

 

and swift action will be taken against those that partake in such matters

 

there are other websites that supply that need.

 

dx

[huggy41]

WELL SAID dx . i put more but wife made me change it.

 

you swear again and you'll join them - dx

[sailor sam]

Ray with respect, I have actually witnessed a child getting hit by a passing car because of illegally parked cars outside a school entrance. Personally because of that, I tend not to look for loop holes to exploit a possible flaw on a PCN issued to such offenders. I would rather see enforcement (which will lead to prevention) if it saves kids being run over. I see thing differently when we are tallking about the examples given Hymn And Mi.

 

[Raykay]

If there is a legal problem with the PCN, as HYMN AND MI seems to think there may be, it would be a matter of procedural impropriety on the part of the council, not a 'loophole'.

 

And as dx100uk has said, "CAG is here to help anyone wronged by the system. Be that by poor signage etc etc".

[HYMN AND MI]

If there is a legal problem with the PCN, as HYMN AND MI seems to think there may be, it would be a matter of procedural impropriety on the part of the council, not a 'loophole'.

 

And as dx100uk has said, "CAG is here to help anyone wronged by the system. Be that by poor signage etc etc".

 

Well said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15885870

Edited March 7, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[sailor sam]

I think you will find that dx means that if a person has committed the offence and the signage/markings/TRO are all in place and correct, are they really entitled to expect us to search for loop holes? As I have said on this thread many times and I stand by it... when it comes to cases whereby the offence could compromise the saftey of children, I would rather see an offender get a penalty then get let off over some minor 'procedural impropriety'. Mainly because it could serve as a deterrent to others. However, if it was merley an offence causing some inconvienience to other road users rather than a matter of saftey, then yes, i'll give it due consideration.

 

If HYMM and Mi chooses to see if there is a flaw with the PCN and wishes to assist the OP further then that is up to him IMHO. After all, she isn't sure whether she was actually on the Zig- zags or not apparently.

[HYMN AND MI]

According to my perception, I get the impression that if I help any further I am going to get banned from this site.

 

So, if the Richmond NtO states, for example, "Tick one of the following grounds", of which there are 8 statutory plus one mitigating circumstances, and one is allowed to tick as many as may apply by law, that equates to justice, does it? This is procedural impropriety by misrepresenting the law as to the rights of the accused to make a proper appeal. Is that what you support, because if it is, then there is little point in helping anyone re any alleged contravention by corollary. This is double standards par excellence.

Edited March 7, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[sailor sam]

According to my perception, I get the impression that if I help any further I am going to get banned from this site.

 

I think you should establish that the OP was on the zig zags or not. My guess is she was. If that is the case then the offence was commited. I think that you should merely suggest that she either pays the tickets or appeals them. If she wasn't on the zig zags (or partly on them) then she should deffo appeal. There, i've done it for you.

 

The OP will have probably got an idea from the various posts on the thread to what to do from here if she chooses to appeal.

 

For what it's worth, you are one cagger I don't want to see action taken against. You clearly seem to know what you are talking about. Its just that this type of offence is a hot potatoe with me personally so i can't agree with you totally on it.

[Raykay]

I think you will find that dx means that if a person has committed the offence and the signage/markings/TRO are all in place and correct, are they really entitled to expect us to search for loop holes? /QUOTE]

 

If the signage/markings/TRO/PCN etc. are all in place and legal, then the penalty stands - all the OP can then realistically do is appeal for leniency, or pay. If they are not all in place, there is no liability to pay

[HYMN AND MI]

I hear what you say, but, I think you are changing the goal posts because of your experience. I am pretty sure that if you received a NIP in the post after the 14 day rule/period, you would appeal even if you knew you were speeding! And you would win!

[HYMN AND MI]

I think you will find that dx means that if a person has committed the offence and the signage/markings/TRO are all in place and correct, are they really entitled to expect us to search for loop holes? /QUOTE]

 

If the signage/markings/TRO/PCN etc. are all in place and legal, then the penalty stands - all the OP can then realistically do is appeal for leniency, or pay. If they are not all in place, there is no liability to pay

 

My impression so far is that the OP was over the zigzag to a small degree; but, of course, I cannot say without viewing the evidence.

[green_and_mean]

The way I look at it people are free to help who they like if they can morally justify it to themselves.

 

However before preaching about 'justice' and 'fairness' I suggest you consider would you be happy if a drunk driver got off

because the breath test was flawed and the next week ran over your child whilst drunk,

or if a rapist got off because the DNA evidence wasn't collected properly and was then free to rape again?

 

If someone parked on a DYL and blocked your car in your drive for the day so you were unable to get to work,

when they eventually turn up would you kindly point out the PCN they had received was flawed and advise them to appeal?

 

How about someone that gets a PCN for using a stolen blue badge do we have some sympathy for the disabled person that woke to find the car window smashed

and has to go without a badge for days or do we advise the thief using the stolen bb to check the NTO wording?

[HYMN AND MI]

The comparisons made do not concern decriminalised infringements, g and m, with respect. In any case, you know that the council would have powers to tow away a car blocking your driveway i.e. if a dropped kerb.

[dx100uk]

According to my perception, I get the impression that if I help any further I am going to get banned from this site.

 

So, if the Richmond NtO states, for example, "Tick one of the following grounds", of which there are 8 statutory plus one mitigating circumstances, and one is allowed to tick as many as may apply by law, that equates to justice, does it? This is procedural impropriety by misrepresenting the law as to the rights of the accused to make a proper appeal. Is that what you support, because if it is, then there is little point in helping anyone re any alleged contravention by corollary. This is double standards par excellence.

 

i will not insult you by assuming you do not know what i elluded to.

 

and no you would not be banned unless you were really really silly!

 

dx

[HYMN AND MI]

I think you should establish that the OP was on the zig zags or not. My guess is she was. If that is the case then the offence was commited. I think that you should merely suggest that she either pays the tickets or appeals them. If she wasn't on the zig zags (or partly on them) then she should deffo appeal. There, i've done it for you.

 

The OP will have probably got an idea from the various posts on the thread to what to do from here if she chooses to appeal.

 

For what it's worth, you are one cagger I don't want to see action taken against. You clearly seem to know what you are talking about. Its just that this type of offence is a hot potatoe with me personally so i can't agree with you totally on it.

 

Thanks for the compliment. I know how you feel. Last year I helped a disabled driver get off a PCN for parking in a loading bay. BB Booklet, according to DfT, states they are not allowed. Believe it or not, they are! According to the law. What annoyed me about it was he went into a chemist for 10 minutes for some urgent medication whilst another disabled driver - same council - went for a cuppa in another loading bay in another town for an hour and got off!

Edited March 8, 2012 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

i will not insult you by assuming you do not know what i elluded to.

 

and no you would not be banned unless you were really really silly!

 

dx

 

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.