Zebra crossing and sneaky CEO

Aretnap

Trebor16 wrote: »

I was originally referring to the offence of failing to accord precedence, but you widened it to include the issue of stopping on the zig zags. But of course when a CEO issues a PCN for this contravention (note the distinction between contravention and offence) they are not issuing a PCN for an endorseable offence but for a decriminalised parking contravention.

You seem to have difficulty in grasping the notion that a PCN relates to decriminalised parking and not offences.

I see your point now, but that's not what you said in your original post. Parking on a zig zag is both an endorsable offence and a decriminalised parking contravention. So the fact that it's an endorsable offence doesn't mean that a CEO can't issue a PCN for it.

So as far as failure to accord precedence goes, what prevents a CEO from dealing with it himself is not the fact that it's an endorsable offence but the fact that it's not a decriminalised parking contravention. If you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have said anything.

Trebor16

mikey72 wrote: »

Don't quote me. I didn't show your post was totally incorrect. The rest of us apear to have understood Aretnap's post perfectly, and the principle behind it. Make your peace with the ones you were arguing with.

Thanks for confirming that you were just being contrary (as usual) and not offering any value to the issue.

Trebor16

Aretnap wrote: »

I see your point now, but that's not what you said in your original post. Parking on a zig zag is both an endorsable offence and a decriminalised parking contravention. So the fact that it's an endorsable offence doesn't mean that a CEO can't issue a PCN for it.

My original post was solely in relation to the specific offence of failing to accord precedence, as you can see below.

"I understand the offence of failing to accord precedence at a pedestrian crossing is an endorseable offence so therefore outside of the realms of local authority CEO's to issue PCN's."

aretnap wrote:

So as far as failure to accord precedence goes, what prevents a CEO from dealing with it himself is not the fact that it's an endorsable offence but the fact that it's not a decriminalised parking contravention. If you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have said anything.

As the OP's post related to the offence of failing to accord precedence there was no need to widen the issue.

If you had read my original post correctly you would have realised it related to the specific offence the OP was concerned about.