fine for parking adjacent to centre double white line?

facade

Aretnap wrote: »

An urban myth. Whether or not you have your engine running has nothing to do with whether you're complying with the restriction, which in any case prohibits "stopping", not "parking".


Paragraphs 2-4 then detail some exceptions which do allow you to stop, none of which hinge on whether you have your engine running (or indeed whether you have your hazard lights on, another common myth). There is an exception which allows you to stop to pick up/set down passengers though. (Link - section 9 of part 7)

Urban myth or not, as in the OPs post, they never get ticketed, and you'd think that it would be like shooting fish in a barrel as they are there every school day at the same time

Mercdriver

Solution is for the OP to make a nuisance of himself reporting each and every car, as a safety interest, and then reporting it to the traffic commissioner if they fail to take action.

Silver-Surfer_2

Mercdriver wrote: »

Solution is for the OP to make a nuisance of himself reporting each and every car, as a safety interest, and then reporting it to the traffic commissioner if they fail to take action.

I don't think there are any issues here with commercial vehicles. Private vehicles and school run mums if I've read it right.

Mercdriver

Sorry, I meant the police commissioners. They have votes to earn nowadays.

z1a

A few weeks ago our local parking enforcement van (Blackburn) was parked on zebra crossing zig-zags whilst driver was in adjacent post office, but I forgot to copy from dash cam until too late, overwritten by the time I'd remembered.

sheramber

The road outside one of our local schools was always lined with cars waiting for kids coming out, despite double yellow lines and a hatched area. It got so bad they were parking in the school bus parking bay and refused to move to let hm park.

The police ( we rarely see a policeman having so few to cover a large , rural area) issued a warning that they would be issuing tickets to offenders.

Either they took notice or tickets were issued because they no longer park there but......... they park on the pavement on the opposite side of the road.

bod1467

sheramber wrote: »

but......... they park on the pavement on the opposite side of the road.

Which is probably not illegal unless there are other signs or road markings.

derrick

bod1467 wrote: »

Which is probably not illegal unless there are other signs or road markings.

Except it is, (and could/would cause obstruction to pedestrians):-

Rule 145

You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.

Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34



And lets face it, (despite myths), you would need to drive on or over the pavement to park.

From the Introduction to the Highway Code:-
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.

.

Silver-Surfer_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Exactly, I didn't see the guy, but I'm told it was regular with a probationer so the big I am reared it's head.

This is why I found out the local traffic Sgts details and have an appointment with him tomorrow, I want to see consistency.

How did it go?

GabbaGabbaHey

Mercdriver wrote: »

Sorry, I meant the police commissioners. They have votes to earn nowadays.

Yes, but they are sadly not going to risk losing the votes of a dozen or so school moms to keep the vote of one householder.