Snared by spy car...for letting kids cross road! Southend dad's ticket for stopping outside school for seven seconds

Snared by spy car...for letting kids cross road! Southend dad's ticket for stopping outside school for seven seconds

Snared by spy car...for letting kids cross road! Southend dad's ticket for stopping outside school for seven seconds

First published in Echo News by

A MOTORIST was given a “ludicrous” parking ticket by Southend Council’s spy car for stopping to let children cross at a zebra crossing.

Graham Wilkinson got the £35 fine after waiting briefly at the crossing in Caulfield Road, Shoebury, so children could cross into Shoebury High School.

While stopped, Mr Wilkinson’s son Joel, 12, got out of the van so he could get to school.

The spy car snapped this moment and said the vehicle was stopped for seven seconds in total – which Mr Wilkinson points out was because children were on the crossing.

Mr Wilkinson, of Jena Close, Shoebury, said: “I’ve been getting quite worked up about it.

“It’s a ludicrous decision. It’s not like I have parked up and got out. I even spoke to a police officer to see if I was breaking some road traffic law, but they said I wasn’t.

“You can clearly see the kids walking across. I couldn’t have driven on, even if I’d have wanted to, and I wasn’t holding anyone up.”

Mr Wilkinson recieved the fixed penalty notice from the council on Friday, March 7.

The notice ordered him pay £35 within the next 21 days, or face a £70 fine after this date.

The Echo reported in January how the two spy cars raked in almost half a million pounds in their first two years of operation.

However, the scheme has come under fire from numerous people caught by the cars.

Bill Cook, of Cook’s Coaches, Westcliff, says fines are making jobs at Chase High School and Lancaster School, in Prittlewell Chase, uneconomical.

Southend Standard:

Schools have resorted to paying fines on behalf of firms just to keep the coaches coming.

Mr Cook said: “I have said before there needs to be a little common sense coming into these decisions. It is as simple as that, but those in power cannot see it.

It is just a money game.”

Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with.

“We look at each case on its ownmerit, based on the evidence and representations made.”

Comments (114)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:42pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Good one, great to see the photo evidence too capturing the kids on the crossing, brilliant stuff, the drivers of the little cam cars can be real dummys at times and this is the proof, i know they capture drivers fair and square and thats good particularly round schools that have lazy parents that can't walk more than 50 yards but this is a dumb ar$e moment....classic.
Good one, great to see the photo evidence too capturing the kids on the crossing, brilliant stuff, the drivers of the little cam cars can be real dummys at times and this is the proof, i know they capture drivers fair and square and thats good particularly round schools that have lazy parents that can't walk more than 50 yards but this is a dumb ar$e moment....classic. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 68

2:52pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with.
Perhaps Southend Council should employ humans instead of robots to study the images before issuing unnecessary penalty charge notices, why should the innocent motorist have to appeal on something that is not a penalty and in doing so suffer so much stress and upset whilst Southend Council remain unaccountable! Unlikely I know, but wouldn't it be great if the innocent motorist could sue the council for harassment?
Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with. Perhaps Southend Council should employ humans instead of robots to study the images before issuing unnecessary penalty charge notices, why should the innocent motorist have to appeal on something that is not a penalty and in doing so suffer so much stress and upset whilst Southend Council remain unaccountable! Unlikely I know, but wouldn't it be great if the innocent motorist could sue the council for harassment? QuestionTime
  • Score: 47

2:59pm Wed 12 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.
I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -60

3:09pm Wed 12 Mar 14

BarryTanner says...

You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.
You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise. BarryTanner
  • Score: -44

3:11pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.
Must be my eyes, but looks to me the van is off the zig-zags, someway from the kerb and the driver has his foot on the brake (rear brake lights illuminated) which all in all suggests to me the driver is allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely and at the same time he is allowing his passenger to disembark......so what rule is the motorist breaking?
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.[/p][/quote]Must be my eyes, but looks to me the van is off the zig-zags, someway from the kerb and the driver has his foot on the brake (rear brake lights illuminated) which all in all suggests to me the driver is allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely and at the same time he is allowing his passenger to disembark......so what rule is the motorist breaking? QuestionTime
  • Score: 67

3:21pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

Why is he Echo taking this slant? "Spy car"? - there's nothing surreptitious about it, it's clearly marked. The guy broke the law and was fined. So what? He's been caught fair and square and should stop whining.

The Echo should also stop aiding and abetting him. You're bringing the local press even more into disrepute. What next? Supporting poor burglars who get nicked because of Neighbourhood Watch?
Why is he Echo taking this slant? "Spy car"? - there's nothing surreptitious about it, it's clearly marked. The guy broke the law and was fined. So what? He's been caught fair and square and should stop whining. The Echo should also stop aiding and abetting him. You're bringing the local press even more into disrepute. What next? Supporting poor burglars who get nicked because of Neighbourhood Watch? Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -55

3:25pm Wed 12 Mar 14

whateverhappened says...

don't appeal and don't pay the fine, take it all the way to court make these council idiots justify themselves.
don't appeal and don't pay the fine, take it all the way to court make these council idiots justify themselves. whateverhappened
  • Score: 34

3:26pm Wed 12 Mar 14

rayleigh123 says...

In the states the kid would have been done fo jay walking on the Zig Zags

.
.
In the states the kid would have been done fo jay walking on the Zig Zags . . rayleigh123
  • Score: 5

3:28pm Wed 12 Mar 14

whateverhappened says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
Why is he Echo taking this slant? "Spy car"? - there's nothing surreptitious about it, it's clearly marked. The guy broke the law and was fined. So what? He's been caught fair and square and should stop whining. The Echo should also stop aiding and abetting him. You're bringing the local press even more into disrepute. What next? Supporting poor burglars who get nicked because of Neighbourhood Watch?
What law? stopping at a pedestrian crossing is not against the law.
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: Why is he Echo taking this slant? "Spy car"? - there's nothing surreptitious about it, it's clearly marked. The guy broke the law and was fined. So what? He's been caught fair and square and should stop whining. The Echo should also stop aiding and abetting him. You're bringing the local press even more into disrepute. What next? Supporting poor burglars who get nicked because of Neighbourhood Watch?[/p][/quote]What law? stopping at a pedestrian crossing is not against the law. whateverhappened
  • Score: 43

3:38pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park.

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)
191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park. 5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199) 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28 Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -36

3:43pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park.

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)
191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park. 5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199) 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28[/p][/quote]How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'. QuestionTime
  • Score: 42

3:46pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Brooks Forbutox says...

http://keycases.park
ingandtrafficapp...z
-v-camden.pdf

Previous decisions by councils do not differentiate between stopping to let someone out of your car and parking.
http://keycases.park ingandtrafficapp...z -v-camden.pdf Previous decisions by councils do not differentiate between stopping to let someone out of your car and parking. Brooks Forbutox
  • Score: -22

3:48pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

Definition of 'parked' as per the Collins English Dictionary: '(automobiles) (of a vehicle) stopped and left in a place for a period of time.'
I don't think the van has been left for a period of time, the driver is still in the vehicle!
Definition of 'parked' as per the Collins English Dictionary: '(automobiles) (of a vehicle) stopped and left in a place for a period of time.' I don't think the van has been left for a period of time, the driver is still in the vehicle! QuestionTime
  • Score: 33

3:52pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Gay Ray says...

From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.
From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up. Gay Ray
  • Score: -21

3:52pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
http://keycases.park

ingandtrafficapp...z

-v-camden.pdf

Previous decisions by councils do not differentiate between stopping to let someone out of your car and parking.
Then the councils need taking to task and to be reminded of the meaning of parked as per the English language.
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: http://keycases.park ingandtrafficapp...z -v-camden.pdf Previous decisions by councils do not differentiate between stopping to let someone out of your car and parking.[/p][/quote]Then the councils need taking to task and to be reminded of the meaning of parked as per the English language. QuestionTime
  • Score: 10

3:54pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

Gay Ray wrote:
From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.
They are not hazard lights, they are the brake lights!
[quote][p][bold]Gay Ray[/bold] wrote: From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.[/p][/quote]They are not hazard lights, they are the brake lights! QuestionTime
  • Score: 26

3:58pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Gay Ray says...

QuestionTime wrote:
Gay Ray wrote:
From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.
They are not hazard lights, they are the brake lights!
Are you sure?
[quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gay Ray[/bold] wrote: From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.[/p][/quote]They are not hazard lights, they are the brake lights![/p][/quote]Are you sure? Gay Ray
  • Score: -16

4:00pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Gay Ray says...

@ Question Time.

Upon further scrutiny I believe you are right. Rather negates my point. Thanks for making yours.
@ Question Time. Upon further scrutiny I believe you are right. Rather negates my point. Thanks for making yours. Gay Ray
  • Score: 19

4:02pm Wed 12 Mar 14

QuestionTime says...

Gay Ray wrote:
QuestionTime wrote:
Gay Ray wrote:
From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.
They are not hazard lights, they are the brake lights!
Are you sure?
Definitely! The light in the centre at the top of the van is the giveaway sign, it's known as a third brake light?
[quote][p][bold]Gay Ray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gay Ray[/bold] wrote: From the photographic evidence it does rather look as though the vehicle is stationary (pretty understandable) and with its hazard lights flashing. The hazard lights (if indeed that is the case) is a bit of a giveaway as it would suggest that the driver of the vehicle has not simply stopped momentarily to allow pedestrians to use the crossing but has made a conscious decision to stop within the prohibited area for the purpose of allowing his passenger to alight. If the appeals panel take the same view I think he'll have to look big and cough up.[/p][/quote]They are not hazard lights, they are the brake lights![/p][/quote]Are you sure?[/p][/quote]Definitely! The light in the centre at the top of the van is the giveaway sign, it's known as a third brake light? QuestionTime
  • Score: 21

4:03pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Southend Andy says...

Still don't know why people call them 'spy' cars, they are plastered in stickers & have a massive camera on top, hardly a 'spy'. Why do these people always have to run to the echo anyway?
Still don't know why people call them 'spy' cars, they are plastered in stickers & have a massive camera on top, hardly a 'spy'. Why do these people always have to run to the echo anyway? Southend Andy
  • Score: -17

4:07pm Wed 12 Mar 14

pembury53 says...

looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........
looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims.......... pembury53
  • Score: -11

4:12pm Wed 12 Mar 14

exBillericayDicky says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
http://keycases.park ingandtrafficapp...z -v-camden.pdf Previous decisions by councils do not differentiate between stopping to let someone out of your car and parking.
decisions by councils do not write law. A courts decision can create predudicial rulings in cases, but council, no.

Man is clearly stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians cross. A definition in Law of being parked (as used within mobile device cases) is that a car is parked if in at the kerb, the handbrake is engaged, is out of gear, and no foot is on the brake pedal. Clearly the van in the photo does not fulfil that criteria.

Councils (and scamera partnerships) use the scattergun approach - send out enough "fines" and most idiots will settle up, as when you stand up and challenge them, they back down a heck of a lot
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: http://keycases.park ingandtrafficapp...z -v-camden.pdf Previous decisions by councils do not differentiate between stopping to let someone out of your car and parking.[/p][/quote]decisions by councils do not write law. A courts decision can create predudicial rulings in cases, but council, no. Man is clearly stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians cross. A definition in Law of being parked (as used within mobile device cases) is that a car is parked if in at the kerb, the handbrake is engaged, is out of gear, and no foot is on the brake pedal. Clearly the van in the photo does not fulfil that criteria. Councils (and scamera partnerships) use the scattergun approach - send out enough "fines" and most idiots will settle up, as when you stand up and challenge them, they back down a heck of a lot exBillericayDicky
  • Score: 23

4:13pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Alfiee says...

Kids are crossing so Son says Dad I will jump out here. Thanks see you later. I have often had people or Teens just jump out at the lights.
Kids are crossing so Son says Dad I will jump out here. Thanks see you later. I have often had people or Teens just jump out at the lights. Alfiee
  • Score: 36

4:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

pembury53 wrote:
looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........
I'd love a job with them, I'd spend all day notching up the fines
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........[/p][/quote]I'd love a job with them, I'd spend all day notching up the fines carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: -6

4:26pm Wed 12 Mar 14

The Stinker Returns says...

I'm surprised the poor guy wasn't accused of trying to abduct the kids in his white van. That's what happens in Witham when anyone in a van is in the same location as a child.
I'm surprised the poor guy wasn't accused of trying to abduct the kids in his white van. That's what happens in Witham when anyone in a van is in the same location as a child. The Stinker Returns
  • Score: 18

4:51pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Alekhine says...

Looks like the tinted glass on his right brake light is broken. Better get that fixed........he might get a fine.
Looks like the tinted glass on his right brake light is broken. Better get that fixed........he might get a fine. Alekhine
  • Score: 7

4:54pm Wed 12 Mar 14

scrounger‎ says...

I thought vans were insured for commercial use not personal trips.
I thought vans were insured for commercial use not personal trips. scrounger‎
  • Score: -26

4:55pm Wed 12 Mar 14

dave1812 says...

Surely this is the main reason for this so called spy car. To keep over officious, over paid prats like Zulfiqar Ali in a job.
Surely this is the main reason for this so called spy car. To keep over officious, over paid prats like Zulfiqar Ali in a job. dave1812
  • Score: 21

5:05pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

what about the car in the bottom corner...that has to be parked as its to one side(kerb), surely there must be yellows directly after the zig zags, that looks a hazard for the crossing and i am pretty sure its facing the on coming traffic.!! (see a sunroof outline to the front of the roof)...probably got a dizzy badge though.
what about the car in the bottom corner...that has to be parked as its to one side(kerb), surely there must be yellows directly after the zig zags, that looks a hazard for the crossing and i am pretty sure its facing the on coming traffic.!! (see a sunroof outline to the front of the roof)...probably got a dizzy badge though. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: -3

5:09pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

scrounger‎ wrote:
I thought vans were insured for commercial use not personal trips.
Ever heard of 'for any social or domestic pleasure purposes'.on policys...ohh maybe not.
[quote][p][bold]scrounger‎[/bold] wrote: I thought vans were insured for commercial use not personal trips.[/p][/quote]Ever heard of 'for any social or domestic pleasure purposes'.on policys...ohh maybe not. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 16

5:09pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

scrounger‎ wrote:
I thought vans were insured for commercial use not personal trips.
Ever heard of 'for any social or domestic pleasure purposes'.on policys...ohh maybe not.
[quote][p][bold]scrounger‎[/bold] wrote: I thought vans were insured for commercial use not personal trips.[/p][/quote]Ever heard of 'for any social or domestic pleasure purposes'.on policys...ohh maybe not. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Keptquiettillnow says...

White van man.
White van man. Keptquiettillnow
  • Score: 1

5:24pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

look at it another way....if as the parking people say he was parked on zig zags thats an offence and they should pass it onto the police as a traffic offence, 3 points on your license, if the police disagree that he is NOT parked on Zig zags then he is NOT parked on Zig Zags..no penalty points NO fine...so no parking fine to be paid.
Case closed....you are free to go.
look at it another way....if as the parking people say he was parked on zig zags thats an offence and they should pass it onto the police as a traffic offence, 3 points on your license, if the police disagree that he is NOT parked on Zig zags then he is NOT parked on Zig Zags..no penalty points NO fine...so no parking fine to be paid. Case closed....you are free to go. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 22

5:46pm Wed 12 Mar 14

wendylp says...

What a poser I think he was looking for the nearest hairdressers to rede his hair
BobP
Nice try graham
What a poser I think he was looking for the nearest hairdressers to rede his hair BobP Nice try graham wendylp
  • Score: -9

6:19pm Wed 12 Mar 14

Nebs says...

It would be very interesting to find out the final outcome of this case but, knowing the Echo, we will be left in suspense.
It would be very interesting to find out the final outcome of this case but, knowing the Echo, we will be left in suspense. Nebs
  • Score: 9

6:39pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Brooks Forbutox wrote:
Why is he Echo taking this slant? "Spy car"? - there's nothing surreptitious about it, it's clearly marked. The guy broke the law and was fined. So what? He's been caught fair and square and should stop whining.

The Echo should also stop aiding and abetting him. You're bringing the local press even more into disrepute. What next? Supporting poor burglars who get nicked because of Neighbourhood Watch?
**The guy broke the law**

Can you define what a "law" is?
[quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: Why is he Echo taking this slant? "Spy car"? - there's nothing surreptitious about it, it's clearly marked. The guy broke the law and was fined. So what? He's been caught fair and square and should stop whining. The Echo should also stop aiding and abetting him. You're bringing the local press even more into disrepute. What next? Supporting poor burglars who get nicked because of Neighbourhood Watch?[/p][/quote]**The guy broke the law** Can you define what a "law" is? ThisYear
  • Score: -10

7:04pm Wed 12 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

It would be interesting to know exactly what the ticket was for.
The offences relating to stopping on the zig zags are a police matter and would incur penalty points on your licence.
If issued/offered, you don't have to accept the penalty notice and can elect to have the matter dealt with at a Magistrates court.
Therefore, the council/parking company have no jurisdiction in this matter.
So, what has the council ticket been issued for? Anybody at the Echo or the driver himself willing to say.
It would be interesting to know exactly what the ticket was for. The offences relating to stopping on the zig zags are a police matter and would incur penalty points on your licence. If issued/offered, you don't have to accept the penalty notice and can elect to have the matter dealt with at a Magistrates court. Therefore, the council/parking company have no jurisdiction in this matter. So, what has the council ticket been issued for? Anybody at the Echo or the driver himself willing to say. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 16

7:28pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

QuestionTime wrote:
Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with.
Perhaps Southend Council should employ humans instead of robots to study the images before issuing unnecessary penalty charge notices, why should the innocent motorist have to appeal on something that is not a penalty and in doing so suffer so much stress and upset whilst Southend Council remain unaccountable! Unlikely I know, but wouldn't it be great if the innocent motorist could sue the council for harassment?
The council wouldn't allow this to go to court...a letter to the council explaining the situation and a mention that any more letters demanding payment will be considered harassment would suffice for the council to drop the matter.
[quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with. Perhaps Southend Council should employ humans instead of robots to study the images before issuing unnecessary penalty charge notices, why should the innocent motorist have to appeal on something that is not a penalty and in doing so suffer so much stress and upset whilst Southend Council remain unaccountable! Unlikely I know, but wouldn't it be great if the innocent motorist could sue the council for harassment?[/p][/quote]The council wouldn't allow this to go to court...a letter to the council explaining the situation and a mention that any more letters demanding payment will be considered harassment would suffice for the council to drop the matter. ThisYear
  • Score: -1

7:33pm Wed 12 Mar 14

John Bull 40 says...

Did he stop before those people were on the crossing? I wonder how many
negative votes this post will get.
Did he stop before those people were on the crossing? I wonder how many negative votes this post will get. John Bull 40
  • Score: 2

8:29pm Wed 12 Mar 14

cliff61 says...

Common sense is sadly becoming a thing of the past in this country. I say well done Graham for sticking up for yourself, to many people take this sort of nonsense lying down and pay just for a quiet life, but that's what the council rely on. The police have told him he wasn't breaking any laws, so I say fight it all the way!
Common sense is sadly becoming a thing of the past in this country. I say well done Graham for sticking up for yourself, to many people take this sort of nonsense lying down and pay just for a quiet life, but that's what the council rely on. The police have told him he wasn't breaking any laws, so I say fight it all the way! cliff61
  • Score: 18

8:51pm Wed 12 Mar 14

mr_happy says...

"Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with".

“We look at each case on its ownmerit, based on the evidence and representations made.”

This idiot says this every time. Southend, like any other council are so deperate to get cash, that they will use any method to get it.

It is a way of replacing the cash that they waste on stupid schemes and ideas that fail.
"Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with". “We look at each case on its ownmerit, based on the evidence and representations made.” This idiot says this every time. Southend, like any other council are so deperate to get cash, that they will use any method to get it. It is a way of replacing the cash that they waste on stupid schemes and ideas that fail. mr_happy
  • Score: 16

9:03pm Wed 12 Mar 14

mag1968 says...

Bloody school run,nick him !!
Bloody school run,nick him !! mag1968
  • Score: -2

9:05pm Wed 12 Mar 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

John Bull 40 wrote:
Did he stop before those people were on the crossing? I wonder how many
negative votes this post will get.
of course you have to stop before people are on the crossing, thats the general idea.
[quote][p][bold]John Bull 40[/bold] wrote: Did he stop before those people were on the crossing? I wonder how many negative votes this post will get.[/p][/quote]of course you have to stop before people are on the crossing, thats the general idea. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 11

9:46pm Wed 12 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

it's less than a third of a mile door to door. man up, pay the fine and walk in future
it's less than a third of a mile door to door. man up, pay the fine and walk in future profondo asbo
  • Score: -3

10:11pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

profondo asbo wrote:
it's less than a third of a mile door to door. man up, pay the fine and walk in future
Zebra crossing Versus Zig-Zags...which supersedes which?

Brother can you spare an expert..

*The sound of rustling in the undergrowth as Kim Gandy approaches is audible*
[quote][p][bold]profondo asbo[/bold] wrote: it's less than a third of a mile door to door. man up, pay the fine and walk in future[/p][/quote]Zebra crossing Versus Zig-Zags...which supersedes which? Brother can you spare an expert.. *The sound of rustling in the undergrowth as Kim Gandy approaches is audible* ThisYear
  • Score: -5

10:14pm Wed 12 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

BarryTanner wrote:
You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.
Crass comment about a child!
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.[/p][/quote]Crass comment about a child! ThisYear
  • Score: -2

10:20pm Wed 12 Mar 14

profondo asbo says...

a complete waste of newspaper space. why do they print this whining drivel?
a complete waste of newspaper space. why do they print this whining drivel? profondo asbo
  • Score: -2

11:04pm Wed 12 Mar 14

woolstone says...

I little commonsense here please. He stopped to let people cross on the crossing and his son took this opportunity to get out and walk the rest of the way to school. Does that also mean that if you stop at traffic lights where there is also double yellow lines and your passenger gets out you will also could be accused of illegal parking. By the way the Daily Mail has also printed this story.
I little commonsense here please. He stopped to let people cross on the crossing and his son took this opportunity to get out and walk the rest of the way to school. Does that also mean that if you stop at traffic lights where there is also double yellow lines and your passenger gets out you will also could be accused of illegal parking. By the way the Daily Mail has also printed this story. woolstone
  • Score: 17

12:11am Thu 13 Mar 14

Devils Advocate says...

woolstone wrote:
I little commonsense here please. He stopped to let people cross on the crossing and his son took this opportunity to get out and walk the rest of the way to school. Does that also mean that if you stop at traffic lights where there is also double yellow lines and your passenger gets out you will also could be accused of illegal parking. By the way the Daily Mail has also printed this story.
With regard to double yellow lines. Normally you can stop and unload passengers but, if there are kerb markings (either one, two or three stripes on the kerb) then extra restrictions apply.
Also of interest as it seems very few people know this, is that, when you are approaching a crossing, the first car at the crossing (if it is at least two lanes in each direction) is considered the priority car and no other car should overtake that car at or on the crossing. So, next time you arrive, let the car already there go first!
Also, the wide stripe in a bus lay by. Stop on that and you have committed an offence. Let out a passenger and you will be taken away and shot! You have been warned!
[quote][p][bold]woolstone[/bold] wrote: I little commonsense here please. He stopped to let people cross on the crossing and his son took this opportunity to get out and walk the rest of the way to school. Does that also mean that if you stop at traffic lights where there is also double yellow lines and your passenger gets out you will also could be accused of illegal parking. By the way the Daily Mail has also printed this story.[/p][/quote]With regard to double yellow lines. Normally you can stop and unload passengers but, if there are kerb markings (either one, two or three stripes on the kerb) then extra restrictions apply. Also of interest as it seems very few people know this, is that, when you are approaching a crossing, the first car at the crossing (if it is at least two lanes in each direction) is considered the priority car and no other car should overtake that car at or on the crossing. So, next time you arrive, let the car already there go first! Also, the wide stripe in a bus lay by. Stop on that and you have committed an offence. Let out a passenger and you will be taken away and shot! You have been warned! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 5

7:10am Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all.

Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance.

We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side?

As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.
You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all. Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance. We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side? As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute. Papermonkey
  • Score: -2

8:58am Thu 13 Mar 14

barrylabs says...

"Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door"

He probably didn't, but why should he expect a cyclist to be there? If a cyclist did get hit by the flailing door they would only have themselves to blame. As a road user they know that they shouldn't undertake, and if they do, it's at their own risk. I'm an experienced cyclist....I undertake, but I have no right to complain if I come unstuck.
"Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door" He probably didn't, but why should he expect a cyclist to be there? If a cyclist did get hit by the flailing door they would only have themselves to blame. As a road user they know that they shouldn't undertake, and if they do, it's at their own risk. I'm an experienced cyclist....I undertake, but I have no right to complain if I come unstuck. barrylabs
  • Score: 15

9:00am Thu 13 Mar 14

CouldntThinkOfOne says...

I got a penalty the other day for the exact same reason only mine was 12 seconds. I've paid my fine as i googled it and found apparently that "stopping at a pedestrian crossing and opening a door is classed as parked" so i fessed up and paid. Although, if Mr Wilkinson does manage to get his parking fine revoked i'm getting my money back.
The police did say its not illegal and i didn't really understand the harm if you can't go anywhere anyway, what harm are you doing letting a passenger out?
They must of got hundreds of people over the days they have been sitting there.
I got a penalty the other day for the exact same reason only mine was 12 seconds. I've paid my fine as i googled it and found apparently that "stopping at a pedestrian crossing and opening a door is classed as parked" so i fessed up and paid. Although, if Mr Wilkinson does manage to get his parking fine revoked i'm getting my money back. The police did say its not illegal and i didn't really understand the harm if you can't go anywhere anyway, what harm are you doing letting a passenger out? They must of got hundreds of people over the days they have been sitting there. CouldntThinkOfOne
  • Score: 6

9:39am Thu 13 Mar 14

John T Pharro says...

Papermonkey wrote:
You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all.

Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance.

We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side?

As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.
You are absolutely right and it is downright dangerous what he did. It never ceases to amaze me how many drivers think it is "all right" because it is only for a short time. Double yellow lines, zig zags at crossings are there for a reason SAFETY and to allow the free flow of traffic. Bet most of the posters with sympathy for the driver have cursed when they have to wait because a car is parked on a double yellow.
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all. Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance. We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side? As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely right and it is downright dangerous what he did. It never ceases to amaze me how many drivers think it is "all right" because it is only for a short time. Double yellow lines, zig zags at crossings are there for a reason SAFETY and to allow the free flow of traffic. Bet most of the posters with sympathy for the driver have cursed when they have to wait because a car is parked on a double yellow. John T Pharro
  • Score: -7

11:11am Thu 13 Mar 14

_Lotus_ says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.
So enlighten us all, what should he have done, proceeded and knocked them all down?
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.[/p][/quote]So enlighten us all, what should he have done, proceeded and knocked them all down? _Lotus_
  • Score: 2

12:01pm Thu 13 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

Has it been clearly stated why he was fined?

Only if all are aware of that can any real relevant comments be given..
Has it been clearly stated why he was fined? Only if all are aware of that can any real relevant comments be given.. ThisYear
  • Score: -2

12:55pm Thu 13 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

ThisYear wrote:
QuestionTime wrote: Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with. Perhaps Southend Council should employ humans instead of robots to study the images before issuing unnecessary penalty charge notices, why should the innocent motorist have to appeal on something that is not a penalty and in doing so suffer so much stress and upset whilst Southend Council remain unaccountable! Unlikely I know, but wouldn't it be great if the innocent motorist could sue the council for harassment?
The council wouldn't allow this to go to court...a letter to the council explaining the situation and a mention that any more letters demanding payment will be considered harassment would suffice for the council to drop the matter.
A very good suggestion, particularly the bit about any more letters being considered harassment. Reminds me of when a freeholder suddenly started demanding payment from residents who had Sky dishes up. As an earlier poster mentioned, they use scattergun tactics and hope the majority are either too scared or too busy to dispute the fine.
However.......there is the slight possibility this guy stopped to let his kid out, then convenienlty those other children arrived at the crossing a couple of seconds later!
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: Zulfiqar Ali, Southend Council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: “There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with. Perhaps Southend Council should employ humans instead of robots to study the images before issuing unnecessary penalty charge notices, why should the innocent motorist have to appeal on something that is not a penalty and in doing so suffer so much stress and upset whilst Southend Council remain unaccountable! Unlikely I know, but wouldn't it be great if the innocent motorist could sue the council for harassment?[/p][/quote]The council wouldn't allow this to go to court...a letter to the council explaining the situation and a mention that any more letters demanding payment will be considered harassment would suffice for the council to drop the matter.[/p][/quote]A very good suggestion, particularly the bit about any more letters being considered harassment. Reminds me of when a freeholder suddenly started demanding payment from residents who had Sky dishes up. As an earlier poster mentioned, they use scattergun tactics and hope the majority are either too scared or too busy to dispute the fine. However.......there is the slight possibility this guy stopped to let his kid out, then convenienlty those other children arrived at the crossing a couple of seconds later! cg1blue
  • Score: 1

3:54pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Bookemdanno says...

I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier.

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing.
Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.
I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier. You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing. Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money. Bookemdanno
  • Score: -12

4:24pm Thu 13 Mar 14

pembury53 says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
pembury53 wrote: looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........
I'd love a job with them, I'd spend all day notching up the fines
likewise...... there's no denying what a laugh it would be dishing them out, the more ridiculous the better..... i challenge anyone to honestly claim otherwise ?
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........[/p][/quote]I'd love a job with them, I'd spend all day notching up the fines[/p][/quote]likewise...... there's no denying what a laugh it would be dishing them out, the more ridiculous the better..... i challenge anyone to honestly claim otherwise ? pembury53
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Thu 13 Mar 14

BarryTanner says...

ThisYear wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.
Crass comment about a child!
Do accept my apologies, your Lordship.
[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.[/p][/quote]Crass comment about a child![/p][/quote]Do accept my apologies, your Lordship. BarryTanner
  • Score: 4

4:27pm Thu 13 Mar 14

BarryTanner says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
It would be interesting to know exactly what the ticket was for.
The offences relating to stopping on the zig zags are a police matter and would incur penalty points on your licence.
If issued/offered, you don't have to accept the penalty notice and can elect to have the matter dealt with at a Magistrates court.
Therefore, the council/parking company have no jurisdiction in this matter.
So, what has the council ticket been issued for? Anybody at the Echo or the driver himself willing to say.
Yes, but if you knew what would you do with the information?
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know exactly what the ticket was for. The offences relating to stopping on the zig zags are a police matter and would incur penalty points on your licence. If issued/offered, you don't have to accept the penalty notice and can elect to have the matter dealt with at a Magistrates court. Therefore, the council/parking company have no jurisdiction in this matter. So, what has the council ticket been issued for? Anybody at the Echo or the driver himself willing to say.[/p][/quote]Yes, but if you knew what would you do with the information? BarryTanner
  • Score: -1

4:29pm Thu 13 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Bookemdanno wrote:
I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier.

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing.
Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.
Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions.
You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.
[quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier. You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing. Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.[/p][/quote]Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions. You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 7

4:43pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Bookemdanno says...

Barry Tanner has made a good comment about Highways being a Police matter. There must be enforcement officers for the local council otherwise tickets would be illegal. I'm sure the council are not that unprofessional.
Barry Tanner has made a good comment about Highways being a Police matter. There must be enforcement officers for the local council otherwise tickets would be illegal. I'm sure the council are not that unprofessional. Bookemdanno
  • Score: -4

5:03pm Thu 13 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

BarryTanner wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
It would be interesting to know exactly what the ticket was for.
The offences relating to stopping on the zig zags are a police matter and would incur penalty points on your licence.
If issued/offered, you don't have to accept the penalty notice and can elect to have the matter dealt with at a Magistrates court.
Therefore, the council/parking company have no jurisdiction in this matter.
So, what has the council ticket been issued for? Anybody at the Echo or the driver himself willing to say.
Yes, but if you knew what would you do with the information?
Comment more accurately on this story.
At the moment, the story suggests the ticket was issued for parking on the white zig zags which is a police/magistrates court matter and not that of the councils civil enforcement company.
I am only asking in order to have a balanced discussion, yet those who defend the 'spy car' just rant, or like Bookemdanno, say they have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and send links to PDF's that are for yellow line restrictions without explaining why they believe the 'spy car' is right.
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know exactly what the ticket was for. The offences relating to stopping on the zig zags are a police matter and would incur penalty points on your licence. If issued/offered, you don't have to accept the penalty notice and can elect to have the matter dealt with at a Magistrates court. Therefore, the council/parking company have no jurisdiction in this matter. So, what has the council ticket been issued for? Anybody at the Echo or the driver himself willing to say.[/p][/quote]Yes, but if you knew what would you do with the information?[/p][/quote]Comment more accurately on this story. At the moment, the story suggests the ticket was issued for parking on the white zig zags which is a police/magistrates court matter and not that of the councils civil enforcement company. I am only asking in order to have a balanced discussion, yet those who defend the 'spy car' just rant, or like Bookemdanno, say they have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and send links to PDF's that are for yellow line restrictions without explaining why they believe the 'spy car' is right. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 9

5:07pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Bookemdanno says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Bookemdanno wrote:
I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier.

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing.
Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.
Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions.
You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.
Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence.
As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction'
ticket if Police issued it.
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier. You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing. Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.[/p][/quote]Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions. You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.[/p][/quote]Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28 RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence. As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction' ticket if Police issued it. Bookemdanno
  • Score: -3

5:56pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Nebs says...

_Lotus_ wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.
So enlighten us all, what should he have done, proceeded and knocked them all down?
How about stopped, let them cross, proceed when safe, find somewhere safe and legal to park, then let his child get out of the van.
[quote][p][bold]_Lotus_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.[/p][/quote]So enlighten us all, what should he have done, proceeded and knocked them all down?[/p][/quote]How about stopped, let them cross, proceed when safe, find somewhere safe and legal to park, then let his child get out of the van. Nebs
  • Score: 4

6:05pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

barrylabs wrote:
"Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door"

He probably didn't, but why should he expect a cyclist to be there? If a cyclist did get hit by the flailing door they would only have themselves to blame. As a road user they know that they shouldn't undertake, and if they do, it's at their own risk. I'm an experienced cyclist....I undertake, but I have no right to complain if I come unstuck.
Why should a cyclist undertaking expect a car door to open? You maybe an experienced cyclist but I believe this was around a school where I'm sure many inexperienced teenage cyclists cycle to school in the morning.
[quote][p][bold]barrylabs[/bold] wrote: "Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door" He probably didn't, but why should he expect a cyclist to be there? If a cyclist did get hit by the flailing door they would only have themselves to blame. As a road user they know that they shouldn't undertake, and if they do, it's at their own risk. I'm an experienced cyclist....I undertake, but I have no right to complain if I come unstuck.[/p][/quote]Why should a cyclist undertaking expect a car door to open? You maybe an experienced cyclist but I believe this was around a school where I'm sure many inexperienced teenage cyclists cycle to school in the morning. Papermonkey
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

And I don't want to get into a conversation about cyclist undertaking being illegal...if we are talking legalities then the guys door in the picture should be shut. I can't see any space anywhere on the road that isn't covered by a zig zag line. That's it really....and I hope he challenges it and it goes to court because he'll lose on that fact alone.
And I don't want to get into a conversation about cyclist undertaking being illegal...if we are talking legalities then the guys door in the picture should be shut. I can't see any space anywhere on the road that isn't covered by a zig zag line. That's it really....and I hope he challenges it and it goes to court because he'll lose on that fact alone. Papermonkey
  • Score: 4

6:19pm Thu 13 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

Papermonkey wrote:
And I don't want to get into a conversation about cyclist undertaking being illegal...if we are talking legalities then the guys door in the picture should be shut. I can't see any space anywhere on the road that isn't covered by a zig zag line. That's it really....and I hope he challenges it and it goes to court because he'll lose on that fact alone.
Oh yes, he will lose, big time, he will be getting points on his licence, he will be fined, and ordered to pay the courts costs = hundreds
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: And I don't want to get into a conversation about cyclist undertaking being illegal...if we are talking legalities then the guys door in the picture should be shut. I can't see any space anywhere on the road that isn't covered by a zig zag line. That's it really....and I hope he challenges it and it goes to court because he'll lose on that fact alone.[/p][/quote]Oh yes, he will lose, big time, he will be getting points on his licence, he will be fined, and ordered to pay the courts costs = hundreds carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 2

6:22pm Thu 13 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

pembury53 wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
pembury53 wrote: looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........
I'd love a job with them, I'd spend all day notching up the fines
likewise...... there's no denying what a laugh it would be dishing them out, the more ridiculous the better..... i challenge anyone to honestly claim otherwise ?
I'd wear a Fez, to make the event, of giving a ticket, a comical event, for me anyway...
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: looks like they've 'got him' on a technicallity....... 'technically' he was parked, so the ticket will probably stand.......... the operators of these spy cars must love it..... I'll wager they have a right chortle, over a beer, with mates, as to what level of entrapment they employ each day, to the infuriation of their hapless victims..........[/p][/quote]I'd love a job with them, I'd spend all day notching up the fines[/p][/quote]likewise...... there's no denying what a laugh it would be dishing them out, the more ridiculous the better..... i challenge anyone to honestly claim otherwise ?[/p][/quote]I'd wear a Fez, to make the event, of giving a ticket, a comical event, for me anyway... carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Thu 13 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Bookemdanno wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Bookemdanno wrote:
I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier.

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing.
Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.
Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions.
You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.
Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence.
As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction'
ticket if Police issued it.
And that's the difference and my point!
The white zig zag restrictions are 'offences' that are dealt with by police/magistrates courts and not the council which is why I was asking exactly what the ticket was issued for as it's obviously not that. The man has said that even the police told him he was not committing an 'offence' and if the police did issue the ticket, it would be for the specific offence of parking within the zebra controlled area and not unnecessary obstruction. (I work in motor insurance and know the relevant codes for points/offences on licences)
My own view on this from the seeing the photo is that the driver has stopped as required at the crossing to let pedestrians cross. While he is stopped, the passenger takes the opportunity to leave the vehicle. This does not automatically make the van 'parked' and I would argue any clients case if an accident were to somehow happen in these circumstances.(Altho
ugh I can's see how a vehicle stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians to cross is 'an accident waiting to happen')
When you say "I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions" I assume not as a police officer then.
[quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier. You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing. Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.[/p][/quote]Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions. You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.[/p][/quote]Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28 RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence. As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction' ticket if Police issued it.[/p][/quote]And that's the difference and my point! The white zig zag restrictions are 'offences' that are dealt with by police/magistrates courts and not the council which is why I was asking exactly what the ticket was issued for as it's obviously not that. The man has said that even the police told him he was not committing an 'offence' and if the police did issue the ticket, it would be for the specific offence of parking within the zebra controlled area and not unnecessary obstruction. (I work in motor insurance and know the relevant codes for points/offences on licences) My own view on this from the seeing the photo is that the driver has stopped as required at the crossing to let pedestrians cross. While he is stopped, the passenger takes the opportunity to leave the vehicle. This does not automatically make the van 'parked' and I would argue any clients case if an accident were to somehow happen in these circumstances.(Altho ugh I can's see how a vehicle stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians to cross is 'an accident waiting to happen') When you say "I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions" I assume not as a police officer then. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 10

6:25pm Thu 13 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Please excuse the above 'typo's' I've got my clumsy fingers on this evening.
Please excuse the above 'typo's' I've got my clumsy fingers on this evening. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 1

7:18pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

stopmoaning1 wrote:
Bookemdanno wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Bookemdanno wrote:
I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier.

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing.
Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.
Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions.
You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.
Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence.
As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction'
ticket if Police issued it.
And that's the difference and my point!
The white zig zag restrictions are 'offences' that are dealt with by police/magistrates courts and not the council which is why I was asking exactly what the ticket was issued for as it's obviously not that. The man has said that even the police told him he was not committing an 'offence' and if the police did issue the ticket, it would be for the specific offence of parking within the zebra controlled area and not unnecessary obstruction. (I work in motor insurance and know the relevant codes for points/offences on licences)
My own view on this from the seeing the photo is that the driver has stopped as required at the crossing to let pedestrians cross. While he is stopped, the passenger takes the opportunity to leave the vehicle. This does not automatically make the van 'parked' and I would argue any clients case if an accident were to somehow happen in these circumstances.(Altho

ugh I can's see how a vehicle stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians to cross is 'an accident waiting to happen')
When you say "I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions" I assume not as a police officer then.
Presumably then you would also advocate the use of a mobile phone during this time, or perhaps a quick beer?

Why on earth do some of you feel that the normal rules of the road are suspended because he's at a pedestrian crossing? There is a reason that zig zag lines are around these types of crossings, it's because due to the age and number of pedestrians knocking about at. School opening and closing time it's inherently dangerous. Laws of the road should be more observed at these places not ignored
[quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier. You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing. Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.[/p][/quote]Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions. You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.[/p][/quote]Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28 RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence. As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction' ticket if Police issued it.[/p][/quote]And that's the difference and my point! The white zig zag restrictions are 'offences' that are dealt with by police/magistrates courts and not the council which is why I was asking exactly what the ticket was issued for as it's obviously not that. The man has said that even the police told him he was not committing an 'offence' and if the police did issue the ticket, it would be for the specific offence of parking within the zebra controlled area and not unnecessary obstruction. (I work in motor insurance and know the relevant codes for points/offences on licences) My own view on this from the seeing the photo is that the driver has stopped as required at the crossing to let pedestrians cross. While he is stopped, the passenger takes the opportunity to leave the vehicle. This does not automatically make the van 'parked' and I would argue any clients case if an accident were to somehow happen in these circumstances.(Altho ugh I can's see how a vehicle stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians to cross is 'an accident waiting to happen') When you say "I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions" I assume not as a police officer then.[/p][/quote]Presumably then you would also advocate the use of a mobile phone during this time, or perhaps a quick beer? Why on earth do some of you feel that the normal rules of the road are suspended because he's at a pedestrian crossing? There is a reason that zig zag lines are around these types of crossings, it's because due to the age and number of pedestrians knocking about at. School opening and closing time it's inherently dangerous. Laws of the road should be more observed at these places not ignored Papermonkey
  • Score: -10

7:23pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

Answer me this, if you did this on your driving test would you pass?

That pretty much ends the discussion I think.
Answer me this, if you did this on your driving test would you pass? That pretty much ends the discussion I think. Papermonkey
  • Score: -7

8:17pm Thu 13 Mar 14

cliff61 says...

Papermonkey wrote:
You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all.

Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance.

We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side?

As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.
you can't use common sense by the sounds of it!
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all. Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance. We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side? As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.[/p][/quote]you can't use common sense by the sounds of it! cliff61
  • Score: 3

8:21pm Thu 13 Mar 14

cliff61 says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Papermonkey wrote:
You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all.

Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance.

We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side?

As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.
You are absolutely right and it is downright dangerous what he did. It never ceases to amaze me how many drivers think it is "all right" because it is only for a short time. Double yellow lines, zig zags at crossings are there for a reason SAFETY and to allow the free flow of traffic. Bet most of the posters with sympathy for the driver have cursed when they have to wait because a car is parked on a double yellow.
Its not dangerous if you use common sense and check your mirrors first. I'd bet Mr Wilkinson is a responsible parent and did exactly that.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all. Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance. We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side? As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely right and it is downright dangerous what he did. It never ceases to amaze me how many drivers think it is "all right" because it is only for a short time. Double yellow lines, zig zags at crossings are there for a reason SAFETY and to allow the free flow of traffic. Bet most of the posters with sympathy for the driver have cursed when they have to wait because a car is parked on a double yellow.[/p][/quote]Its not dangerous if you use common sense and check your mirrors first. I'd bet Mr Wilkinson is a responsible parent and did exactly that. cliff61
  • Score: 1

8:31pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

cliff61 wrote:
Papermonkey wrote:
You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all.

Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance.

We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side?

As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.
you can't use common sense by the sounds of it!
No, you can't use common sense. This is the law of the road. Common sense doesn't come into it. It doesn't matter if you "feel" it's safe or if it "looks" ok or if "in your experience" it'll be ok. You are NOT ALLOWED to do it.

Stupid man....
[quote][p][bold]cliff61[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all. Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance. We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side? As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.[/p][/quote]you can't use common sense by the sounds of it![/p][/quote]No, you can't use common sense. This is the law of the road. Common sense doesn't come into it. It doesn't matter if you "feel" it's safe or if it "looks" ok or if "in your experience" it'll be ok. You are NOT ALLOWED to do it. Stupid man.... Papermonkey
  • Score: -1

8:35pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

I see you mentioned common sense in the next post as well. So if it were up to you we'd have no laws and we'd all drive by common sense would we?

The laws are there precisely because most people don't use common sense....and even those that do have varying ideas of how to apply it. That's why there are fixed laws, that's why this guy shouldn't be dropping off his child in the middle of the road.....but surely not dropping off your child in the middle of the road is common sense?
I see you mentioned common sense in the next post as well. So if it were up to you we'd have no laws and we'd all drive by common sense would we? The laws are there precisely because most people don't use common sense....and even those that do have varying ideas of how to apply it. That's why there are fixed laws, that's why this guy shouldn't be dropping off his child in the middle of the road.....but surely not dropping off your child in the middle of the road is common sense? Papermonkey
  • Score: -2

8:39pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

It is astounding that you are trying to make a "common sense" argument whilst arguing for breaking the road laws and dropping kids in the middle of the road. Sounds like you're the kinda guy the laws were made for...people who can't do it right without being told.
It is astounding that you are trying to make a "common sense" argument whilst arguing for breaking the road laws and dropping kids in the middle of the road. Sounds like you're the kinda guy the laws were made for...people who can't do it right without being told. Papermonkey
  • Score: -2

8:44pm Thu 13 Mar 14

exBillericayDicky says...

John T Pharro wrote:
Papermonkey wrote:
You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all.

Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance.

We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side?

As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.You are absolutely right and it is downright dangerous what he did. It never ceases to amaze me how many drivers think it is "all rightActually the zig zags are there for mutual visibility, not for the free flow of traffic


Also, those wondering about how a council can fine for traffic violations, its because liebour deregulated the enforcement powers to allow civilian authorities some powers. It is still a "criminal offence"ultimately punishable in the law courts, but if you cough up without a fuss, it alls goes away. Always challenge, and never take the first automatic rejection.
[quote][p][bold]John T Pharro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: You can't dropped people off on zig zags and you can't drop people off in the middle of the road. So it doesn't really matter about the people on the crossing at all. Anyone saying that this is fine should consider whether they think his 12 year old son checked for cyclists before opening that door. The car is not in a safe place to be exited, and it is not apparent to other road users that it will be exited. People are asking what laws are being broken, well I would imagine dangerous driving where the law allows discretion by circumstance. We all know that zig zags are there to stop exactly this, so how does stopping in the middle of the road exempt you from the zig zags at the side? As others have said, I would refer this to the police. Driver should shut up and think himself lucky he's not getting a notice for intention to prosecute.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely right and it is downright dangerous what he did. It never ceases to amaze me how many drivers think it is "all rightActually the zig zags are there for mutual visibility, not for the free flow of traffic Also, those wondering about how a council can fine for traffic violations, its because liebour deregulated the enforcement powers to allow civilian authorities some powers. It is still a "criminal offence"ultimately punishable in the law courts, but if you cough up without a fuss, it alls goes away. Always challenge, and never take the first automatic rejection. exBillericayDicky
  • Score: 1

8:48pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

The other reason you can't use common sense on the road is because no one else knows what you are doing. We all abide by the same laws and therefore if you arrive on a scene like this you should know exactly what's going to happen next because the guy in front is following the same rules you are.

It's not up to you to determine when you can skirt the rules. And even if you could, it would not apply on this case because this isn't someone interpreting the road laws for the greater good...this is some bloke trying to speed up his drop off...that's not a common sense decision, that's a selfish decision.
The other reason you can't use common sense on the road is because no one else knows what you are doing. We all abide by the same laws and therefore if you arrive on a scene like this you should know exactly what's going to happen next because the guy in front is following the same rules you are. It's not up to you to determine when you can skirt the rules. And even if you could, it would not apply on this case because this isn't someone interpreting the road laws for the greater good...this is some bloke trying to speed up his drop off...that's not a common sense decision, that's a selfish decision. Papermonkey
  • Score: -2

8:48pm Thu 13 Mar 14

exBillericayDicky says...

@ bookemdanno, I too would like to know the capacity you have been attending rtc's I doubt as police as you would know about deregulation of powers
@ bookemdanno, I too would like to know the capacity you have been attending rtc's I doubt as police as you would know about deregulation of powers exBillericayDicky
  • Score: 2

8:50pm Thu 13 Mar 14

ORACUS says...

The driver of a vehicle has no responsibility for when a passenger exits a vehicle unless its a bus or train and that’s only because passengers cannot open the door themselves.
The driver of a vehicle has no responsibility for when a passenger exits a vehicle unless its a bus or train and that’s only because passengers cannot open the door themselves. ORACUS
  • Score: 4

9:02pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.
As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway. Papermonkey
  • Score: -2

9:06pm Thu 13 Mar 14

ORACUS says...

Papermonkey wrote:
As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.
Your his 12 yr old son?
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.[/p][/quote]Your his 12 yr old son? ORACUS
  • Score: 1

9:23pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Papermonkey says...

If you're gonna draw on grammatical mistakes don't make one yourself with the first word of the reply......
If you're gonna draw on grammatical mistakes don't make one yourself with the first word of the reply...... Papermonkey
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Thu 13 Mar 14

HK9597 says...

ORACUS wrote:
Papermonkey wrote:
As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.
Your his 12 yr old son?
Trying to be clever?

Did you mean to say 'you're?'

Epic fail.
[quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.[/p][/quote]Your his 12 yr old son?[/p][/quote]Trying to be clever? Did you mean to say 'you're?' Epic fail. HK9597
  • Score: -2

10:34pm Thu 13 Mar 14

ORACUS says...

HK9597 wrote:
ORACUS wrote:
Papermonkey wrote:
As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.
Your his 12 yr old son?
Trying to be clever?

Did you mean to say 'you're?'

Epic fail.
Use of a quotation mark after the question mark super epic fail.
[quote][p][bold]HK9597[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.[/p][/quote]Your his 12 yr old son?[/p][/quote]Trying to be clever? Did you mean to say 'you're?' Epic fail.[/p][/quote]Use of a quotation mark after the question mark super epic fail. ORACUS
  • Score: 2

12:01am Fri 14 Mar 14

cliff61 says...

Papermonkey wrote:
It is astounding that you are trying to make a "common sense" argument whilst arguing for breaking the road laws and dropping kids in the middle of the road. Sounds like you're the kinda guy the laws were made for...people who can't do it right without being told.
Sounds like you're the kinda guy who has no initiative and always does as he's told even when it dosen't make sense, good luck with that. He wasn't dropped in the middle of the road, why would he drop his Son in the middle of the road?. Maybe his Son said, "you might as well just drop me here Dad" and Dad looked in his wing mirror, saw it was safe and said "okay, see you later". Just simple common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: It is astounding that you are trying to make a "common sense" argument whilst arguing for breaking the road laws and dropping kids in the middle of the road. Sounds like you're the kinda guy the laws were made for...people who can't do it right without being told.[/p][/quote]Sounds like you're the kinda guy who has no initiative and always does as he's told even when it dosen't make sense, good luck with that. He wasn't dropped in the middle of the road, why would he drop his Son in the middle of the road?. Maybe his Son said, "you might as well just drop me here Dad" and Dad looked in his wing mirror, saw it was safe and said "okay, see you later". Just simple common sense. cliff61
  • Score: 5

12:04am Fri 14 Mar 14

cliff61 says...

Papermonkey wrote:
The other reason you can't use common sense on the road is because no one else knows what you are doing. We all abide by the same laws and therefore if you arrive on a scene like this you should know exactly what's going to happen next because the guy in front is following the same rules you are.

It's not up to you to determine when you can skirt the rules. And even if you could, it would not apply on this case because this isn't someone interpreting the road laws for the greater good...this is some bloke trying to speed up his drop off...that's not a common sense decision, that's a selfish decision.
Nonsense, people need to use common sense on the road all the time. A good example would be letting people out of side roads, that's not a law or a rule, its an educated decision you need to make, its common sense.
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: The other reason you can't use common sense on the road is because no one else knows what you are doing. We all abide by the same laws and therefore if you arrive on a scene like this you should know exactly what's going to happen next because the guy in front is following the same rules you are. It's not up to you to determine when you can skirt the rules. And even if you could, it would not apply on this case because this isn't someone interpreting the road laws for the greater good...this is some bloke trying to speed up his drop off...that's not a common sense decision, that's a selfish decision.[/p][/quote]Nonsense, people need to use common sense on the road all the time. A good example would be letting people out of side roads, that's not a law or a rule, its an educated decision you need to make, its common sense. cliff61
  • Score: 4

2:06am Fri 14 Mar 14

ORACUS says...

http://www.legislati
on.gov.uk/uksi/2002/
3113/regulation/27/m
ade
No offence committed its the law
http://www.legislati on.gov.uk/uksi/2002/ 3113/regulation/27/m ade No offence committed its the law ORACUS
  • Score: 3

6:22am Fri 14 Mar 14

HK9597 says...

ORACUS wrote:
HK9597 wrote:
ORACUS wrote:
Papermonkey wrote:
As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.
Your his 12 yr old son?
Trying to be clever?

Did you mean to say 'you're?'

Epic fail.
Use of a quotation mark after the question mark super epic fail.
Not if you were educated in the US.

Super duper US epic fail!
[quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HK9597[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: As his 12 year old son I would say the driver has full responsibility. I also think you've just made that up anyway.[/p][/quote]Your his 12 yr old son?[/p][/quote]Trying to be clever? Did you mean to say 'you're?' Epic fail.[/p][/quote]Use of a quotation mark after the question mark super epic fail.[/p][/quote]Not if you were educated in the US. Super duper US epic fail! HK9597
  • Score: -6

9:24am Fri 14 Mar 14

KnowYourRights says...

Do some research, know the law of the land and know your rights. The driver has broken no law and the council have absolutely no authority to issue these fines. Road Traffic Acts are nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, designed to squeeze more money from people who don't know their own rights.
Do some research, know the law of the land and know your rights. The driver has broken no law and the council have absolutely no authority to issue these fines. Road Traffic Acts are nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, designed to squeeze more money from people who don't know their own rights. KnowYourRights
  • Score: 3

10:12am Fri 14 Mar 14

Horace Wimpole says...

This isn't news. If you believe your fine is unfair, appeal it. They can, and do, get overturned if circumstances warrant it.
This isn't news. If you believe your fine is unfair, appeal it. They can, and do, get overturned if circumstances warrant it. Horace Wimpole
  • Score: 5

10:44am Fri 14 Mar 14

cg1blue says...

KnowYourRights wrote:
Do some research, know the law of the land and know your rights. The driver has broken no law and the council have absolutely no authority to issue these fines. Road Traffic Acts are nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, designed to squeeze more money from people who don't know their own rights.
Yes, those tories are evil. Fancy bringing in laws for roads users...ridiculous. We should all just take our chances. I find if I close my eyes when I approach traffic lights it's a lot more fun - like being at a casino. Stupid government and their rules.....
[quote][p][bold]KnowYourRights[/bold] wrote: Do some research, know the law of the land and know your rights. The driver has broken no law and the council have absolutely no authority to issue these fines. Road Traffic Acts are nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, designed to squeeze more money from people who don't know their own rights.[/p][/quote]Yes, those tories are evil. Fancy bringing in laws for roads users...ridiculous. We should all just take our chances. I find if I close my eyes when I approach traffic lights it's a lot more fun - like being at a casino. Stupid government and their rules..... cg1blue
  • Score: 2

6:39pm Fri 14 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

BarryTanner wrote:
ThisYear wrote:
BarryTanner wrote:
You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.
Crass comment about a child!
Do accept my apologies, your Lordship.
Apology accepted...be kind to children, for in our latter years we are in their hands
[quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarryTanner[/bold] wrote: You didn't stop to "let" kids cross the road....they had right of way anyway. Pay up and look big, Graham....maybe next time get sulky Joel to walk., it isn't that far from Jena Close and it looks like he could do with the exercise.[/p][/quote]Crass comment about a child![/p][/quote]Do accept my apologies, your Lordship.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted...be kind to children, for in our latter years we are in their hands ThisYear
  • Score: -2

7:03pm Fri 14 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

cg1blue wrote:
KnowYourRights wrote:
Do some research, know the law of the land and know your rights. The driver has broken no law and the council have absolutely no authority to issue these fines. Road Traffic Acts are nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, designed to squeeze more money from people who don't know their own rights.
Yes, those tories are evil. Fancy bringing in laws for roads users...ridiculous. We should all just take our chances. I find if I close my eyes when I approach traffic lights it's a lot more fun - like being at a casino. Stupid government and their rules.....
He posted "law of the land"

There is a intimation there that maybe you haven't considered
[quote][p][bold]cg1blue[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KnowYourRights[/bold] wrote: Do some research, know the law of the land and know your rights. The driver has broken no law and the council have absolutely no authority to issue these fines. Road Traffic Acts are nothing more than a revenue stream for the government, designed to squeeze more money from people who don't know their own rights.[/p][/quote]Yes, those tories are evil. Fancy bringing in laws for roads users...ridiculous. We should all just take our chances. I find if I close my eyes when I approach traffic lights it's a lot more fun - like being at a casino. Stupid government and their rules.....[/p][/quote]He posted "law of the land" There is a intimation there that maybe you haven't considered ThisYear
  • Score: -2

8:01pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Bolloximian says...

Papermonkey wrote:
Answer me this, if you did this on your driving test would you pass?

That pretty much ends the discussion I think.
That's actually a very good point you've made. On the other hand, there are any number of reasons why an examiner might fail you but which are not neccessarily illegal.
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: Answer me this, if you did this on your driving test would you pass? That pretty much ends the discussion I think.[/p][/quote]That's actually a very good point you've made. On the other hand, there are any number of reasons why an examiner might fail you but which are not neccessarily illegal. Bolloximian
  • Score: 2

8:25pm Fri 14 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Papermonkey wrote:
Answer me this, if you did this on your driving test would you pass?

That pretty much ends the discussion I think.
If your driving examiner felt the need to open their door and get out when you had stopped, then I guess no, you wouldn't pass
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: Answer me this, if you did this on your driving test would you pass? That pretty much ends the discussion I think.[/p][/quote]If your driving examiner felt the need to open their door and get out when you had stopped, then I guess no, you wouldn't pass stopmoaning1
  • Score: 11

8:34pm Fri 14 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Papermonkey wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Bookemdanno wrote:
stopmoaning1 wrote:
Bookemdanno wrote:
I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier.

You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping.
Law RTRA sects 5 & 8

Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing.
Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.
Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions.
You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.
Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence.
As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction'
ticket if Police issued it.
And that's the difference and my point!
The white zig zag restrictions are 'offences' that are dealt with by police/magistrates courts and not the council which is why I was asking exactly what the ticket was issued for as it's obviously not that. The man has said that even the police told him he was not committing an 'offence' and if the police did issue the ticket, it would be for the specific offence of parking within the zebra controlled area and not unnecessary obstruction. (I work in motor insurance and know the relevant codes for points/offences on licences)
My own view on this from the seeing the photo is that the driver has stopped as required at the crossing to let pedestrians cross. While he is stopped, the passenger takes the opportunity to leave the vehicle. This does not automatically make the van 'parked' and I would argue any clients case if an accident were to somehow happen in these circumstances.(Altho


ugh I can's see how a vehicle stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians to cross is 'an accident waiting to happen')
When you say "I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions" I assume not as a police officer then.
Presumably then you would also advocate the use of a mobile phone during this time, or perhaps a quick beer?

Why on earth do some of you feel that the normal rules of the road are suspended because he's at a pedestrian crossing? There is a reason that zig zag lines are around these types of crossings, it's because due to the age and number of pedestrians knocking about at. School opening and closing time it's inherently dangerous. Laws of the road should be more observed at these places not ignored
Ah, here we are, resorting to ridiculous comments when you have no argument.

Facts; the zig zag offences are a police/magistrates court matter. (Please feel free to check with the local police)
It is not an offence to open a car door on a stationary vehicle. (Please feel free to check with the local police)

Questions; why is opening a door on a stationary vehicle an accident waiting to happen? (please don't use the cyclist undertaking point some others have, as that could happen wherever the vehicle stopped if they were stupid enough to do that)
What law or deregulated parking matter has been broken.
What was the ticket issued for exactly, because that is the crux of this story.
[quote][p][bold]Papermonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stopmoaning1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bookemdanno[/bold] wrote: I can't believe some of the posts here saying there is nothing wrong. The offence has been pointed out earlier. You MUST NOT wait or park on yellow lines during the times of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a Controlled Parking Zone) – download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB) and ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB). Double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs. You MUST NOT wait or park, or stop to set down and pick up passengers, on school entrance markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB)) when upright signs indicate a prohibition of stopping. Law RTRA sects 5 & 8 Boring to read but, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and this is just a disaster waiting to happen. All sorts of scenarios come to mind especially if someone decided to overtake on that crossing. Come on people. It's a about Safety and not making money.[/p][/quote]Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions. You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.[/p][/quote]Apologies Stopmoaning, I did paste the wrong page. Don't know how. This is the one. From Highway Code. 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28 RTRA Section 25 says it is an offence. As I said earlier, don't know how the council can give penalty tickets but they must be able to. They obviously can't issue the penalty points. To me, it's a simple 'unnecessary obstruction' ticket if Police issued it.[/p][/quote]And that's the difference and my point! The white zig zag restrictions are 'offences' that are dealt with by police/magistrates courts and not the council which is why I was asking exactly what the ticket was issued for as it's obviously not that. The man has said that even the police told him he was not committing an 'offence' and if the police did issue the ticket, it would be for the specific offence of parking within the zebra controlled area and not unnecessary obstruction. (I work in motor insurance and know the relevant codes for points/offences on licences) My own view on this from the seeing the photo is that the driver has stopped as required at the crossing to let pedestrians cross. While he is stopped, the passenger takes the opportunity to leave the vehicle. This does not automatically make the van 'parked' and I would argue any clients case if an accident were to somehow happen in these circumstances.(Altho ugh I can's see how a vehicle stopped at a crossing to allow pedestrians to cross is 'an accident waiting to happen') When you say "I have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions" I assume not as a police officer then.[/p][/quote]Presumably then you would also advocate the use of a mobile phone during this time, or perhaps a quick beer? Why on earth do some of you feel that the normal rules of the road are suspended because he's at a pedestrian crossing? There is a reason that zig zag lines are around these types of crossings, it's because due to the age and number of pedestrians knocking about at. School opening and closing time it's inherently dangerous. Laws of the road should be more observed at these places not ignored[/p][/quote]Ah, here we are, resorting to ridiculous comments when you have no argument. Facts; the zig zag offences are a police/magistrates court matter. (Please feel free to check with the local police) It is not an offence to open a car door on a stationary vehicle. (Please feel free to check with the local police) Questions; why is opening a door on a stationary vehicle an accident waiting to happen? (please don't use the cyclist undertaking point some others have, as that could happen wherever the vehicle stopped if they were stupid enough to do that) What law or deregulated parking matter has been broken. What was the ticket issued for exactly, because that is the crux of this story. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 12

8:50pm Fri 14 Mar 14

essex bad boy says...

was this what the PCN was for??
Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zigzags
Further details of contravention code 99
The law
Contravention code 99 shall be used for vehicles seen to be stopped on a Pedestrian Crossing or the associated area marked by zigzags. No observation period will be applied.

This particular contravention is enforced by traffic attendants but may also be enforced by the police.
is loading/unloading permitted? No
are Blue Badge holders exempt? No
The result a PCN is issued
was this what the PCN was for?? Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zigzags Further details of contravention code 99 The law Contravention code 99 shall be used for vehicles seen to be stopped on a Pedestrian Crossing or the associated area marked by zigzags. No observation period will be applied. This particular contravention is enforced by traffic attendants but may also be enforced by the police. is loading/unloading permitted? No are Blue Badge holders exempt? No The result a PCN is issued essex bad boy
  • Score: 1

8:56pm Fri 14 Mar 14

essex bad boy says...

Wrong answer
Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions.
You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council.

See above
Wrong answer Can you please explain in what context you have dealt with many Road Traffic Collisions and which of the PDF's show the law on the white zig zags, as you seem to be showing us yellow line restrictions. You may also be able to answer a question on an earlier post of mine, what EXACTLY was the ticket issued for as white zig zag offences are police/magistrate court matters and not local council. See above essex bad boy
  • Score: 1

9:47pm Fri 14 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

For clarity, Southend Council deal with the following deregulated parking policies; (Taken directly from the SBC website)
Parking fines are issued for:
•Parking on yellow lines or where waiting or loading restrictions are in force
•Parked, loading or unloading in a restricted street
•Parking without clearly displaying a valid ticket
•Parked longer than permitted
•Return to the same parking place within the prescribed time (as shown on the traffic sign) of leaving the parking place
•Parking in a specially reserved bay, e.g. a loading place, a disabled bay or taxi rank unless you are authorised to do so
•Parking at a bus stop during prohibited hours.

Nothing there about stopping at a zebra crossing to let pedestrians cross the road.
For clarity, Southend Council deal with the following deregulated parking policies; (Taken directly from the SBC website) Parking fines are issued for: •Parking on yellow lines or where waiting or loading restrictions are in force •Parked, loading or unloading in a restricted street •Parking without clearly displaying a valid ticket •Parked longer than permitted •Return to the same parking place within the prescribed time (as shown on the traffic sign) of leaving the parking place •Parking in a specially reserved bay, e.g. a loading place, a disabled bay or taxi rank unless you are authorised to do so •Parking at a bus stop during prohibited hours. Nothing there about stopping at a zebra crossing to let pedestrians cross the road. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 12

8:46am Sat 15 Mar 14

mercilessblue says...

I see a youngish male driver in a spy car on the a127 near the bell a few weeks back in traffic texting on his mobile, I could have taken film evidence on my phone, but, I was driving legally , unlike him .......
I see a youngish male driver in a spy car on the a127 near the bell a few weeks back in traffic texting on his mobile, I could have taken film evidence on my phone, but, I was driving legally , unlike him ....... mercilessblue
  • Score: 3

1:41pm Sat 15 Mar 14

jetfixer says...

QuestionTime wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.
Must be my eyes, but looks to me the van is off the zig-zags, someway from the kerb and the driver has his foot on the brake (rear brake lights illuminated) which all in all suggests to me the driver is allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely and at the same time he is allowing his passenger to disembark......so what rule is the motorist breaking?
The vehicle is parked if one or more doors is opened. The van is parked on the zig zag lines. No question about it.
[quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.[/p][/quote]Must be my eyes, but looks to me the van is off the zig-zags, someway from the kerb and the driver has his foot on the brake (rear brake lights illuminated) which all in all suggests to me the driver is allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely and at the same time he is allowing his passenger to disembark......so what rule is the motorist breaking?[/p][/quote]The vehicle is parked if one or more doors is opened. The van is parked on the zig zag lines. No question about it. jetfixer
  • Score: -5

1:53pm Sat 15 Mar 14

jetfixer says...

QuestionTime wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.
Must be my eyes, but looks to me the van is off the zig-zags, someway from the kerb and the driver has his foot on the brake (rear brake lights illuminated) which all in all suggests to me the driver is allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely and at the same time he is allowing his passenger to disembark......so what rule is the motorist breaking?
Nope. He has parked to disembark a passenger. The rule is you are not allowed to park on the crossing or the area within the zig zag lines. The fact he has not applied the handbrake and is sitting on the footbrake is of no consequence. Rule 191 of highway code. His suggestion the the police did not know what rule had been broken is somewhat vague. The Highway code, is just that, a code not law, but magistrates look to the code to enforce the rule.
[quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: I've heard some excuses in my time but this takes the the zig zags, yes the children crossed, but he stopped on the forbidden zigzag, and opened his door to boot, hence the ticket, now he runs to the press, double the fine.[/p][/quote]Must be my eyes, but looks to me the van is off the zig-zags, someway from the kerb and the driver has his foot on the brake (rear brake lights illuminated) which all in all suggests to me the driver is allowing pedestrians to cross the road safely and at the same time he is allowing his passenger to disembark......so what rule is the motorist breaking?[/p][/quote]Nope. He has parked to disembark a passenger. The rule is you are not allowed to park on the crossing or the area within the zig zag lines. The fact he has not applied the handbrake and is sitting on the footbrake is of no consequence. Rule 191 of highway code. His suggestion the the police did not know what rule had been broken is somewhat vague. The Highway code, is just that, a code not law, but magistrates look to the code to enforce the rule. jetfixer
  • Score: -1

1:59pm Sat 15 Mar 14

jetfixer says...

QuestionTime wrote:
Brooks Forbutox wrote:
He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park.

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)
191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.
240

You MUST NOT stop or park on:

a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191)

Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'
[quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park. 5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199) 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28[/p][/quote]How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.[/p][/quote]240 You MUST NOT stop or park on: a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191) Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped' jetfixer
  • Score: -6

5:31pm Sat 15 Mar 14

ThisYear says...

jetfixer wrote:
QuestionTime wrote:
Brooks Forbutox wrote:
He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park.

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)
191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.
240

You MUST NOT stop or park on:

a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191)

Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'
Which came first the chicken or the egg...the stopping to let people cross or the passenger leaving the car?
[quote][p][bold]jetfixer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park. 5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199) 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28[/p][/quote]How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.[/p][/quote]240 You MUST NOT stop or park on: a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191) Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'[/p][/quote]Which came first the chicken or the egg...the stopping to let people cross or the passenger leaving the car? ThisYear
  • Score: 5

11:12am Sun 16 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

jetfixer wrote:
QuestionTime wrote:
Brooks Forbutox wrote:
He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park.

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)
191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.
240

You MUST NOT stop or park on:

a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191)

Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'
But you have to stop in order to let the pedestrians cross.
Can anybody find any further clarity that states the vehicle changes status from 'stopped to let a pedestrian cross' to 'parked' just because a passenger gets out at that point. (I say 'parked' because that must be why the ticket was issued as the 'stopping' offences are a police/court matter the local council have no authority to enforce)
Good hunting if you look but I can tell you that you won't find anything.
[quote][p][bold]jetfixer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park. 5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199) 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28[/p][/quote]How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.[/p][/quote]240 You MUST NOT stop or park on: a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191) Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'[/p][/quote]But you have to stop in order to let the pedestrians cross. Can anybody find any further clarity that states the vehicle changes status from 'stopped to let a pedestrian cross' to 'parked' just because a passenger gets out at that point. (I say 'parked' because that must be why the ticket was issued as the 'stopping' offences are a police/court matter the local council have no authority to enforce) Good hunting if you look but I can tell you that you won't find anything. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 12

3:21pm Sun 16 Mar 14

_Lotus_ says...

jetfixer wrote:
QuestionTime wrote:
Brooks Forbutox wrote:
He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park.

5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199)
191
You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28
How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.
240

You MUST NOT stop or park on:

a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191)

Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'
So enlighten us all, how the hell do you allow people to cross if you cannot stop at the crossing????

You reply shows us all how a person takes the letter of the law so literally, all common-sense flies promptly out of the window.

So come on then, how do pedestrians cross if the vehicles cannot stop there??
[quote][p][bold]jetfixer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]QuestionTime[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brooks Forbutox[/bold] wrote: He's parked. He let his son out of the car. You don't need to stop your engine to park. 5. Pedestrian crossings (191 to 199) 191 You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians. Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28[/p][/quote]How can he be parked, he has his foot on the brake pedal and is positioned in the middle of the highway? I would suggest he is waiting for the pedestrians to cross the crossing. Please print the definition of 'parked'.[/p][/quote]240 You MUST NOT stop or park on: a pedestrian crossing, including the area marked by the zig-zag lines (see Rule 191) Doesn't need to be 'Parked'. He 'stopped'[/p][/quote]So enlighten us all, how the hell do you allow people to cross if you cannot stop at the crossing???? You reply shows us all how a person takes the letter of the law so literally, all common-sense flies promptly out of the window. So come on then, how do pedestrians cross if the vehicles cannot stop there?? _Lotus_
  • Score: 3

1:49pm Mon 17 Mar 14

southendcivilservant says...

My partner drives me to work every day, and usually drops me off outside my building in Victoria Avenue, but sometimes I get out earlier, at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing, if the lights are red and we've stopped. I'm now wondering if we could be fined for this, even though the lights are red at the time and we can't move before the lights turn back to green. I do hope not.
My partner drives me to work every day, and usually drops me off outside my building in Victoria Avenue, but sometimes I get out earlier, at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing, if the lights are red and we've stopped. I'm now wondering if we could be fined for this, even though the lights are red at the time and we can't move before the lights turn back to green. I do hope not. southendcivilservant
  • Score: 2

2:42pm Mon 17 Mar 14

rayleigh123 says...

southendcivilservant wrote:
My partner drives me to work every day, and usually drops me off outside my building in Victoria Avenue, but sometimes I get out earlier, at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing, if the lights are red and we've stopped. I'm now wondering if we could be fined for this, even though the lights are red at the time and we can't move before the lights turn back to green. I do hope not.
If it is at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing in Victoria Avenue, you will note that it has zig zags - therefore it is an offence for you to get out of your vehicle on these zig zags.

Don't listen to most of the drivel on this thread by people who have a frightening lack of knowledge of basic motoring law.
.
.
.
[quote][p][bold]southendcivilservant[/bold] wrote: My partner drives me to work every day, and usually drops me off outside my building in Victoria Avenue, but sometimes I get out earlier, at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing, if the lights are red and we've stopped. I'm now wondering if we could be fined for this, even though the lights are red at the time and we can't move before the lights turn back to green. I do hope not.[/p][/quote]If it is at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing in Victoria Avenue, you will note that it has zig zags - therefore it is an offence for you to get out of your vehicle on these zig zags. Don't listen to most of the drivel on this thread by people who have a frightening lack of knowledge of basic motoring law. . . . rayleigh123
  • Score: -4

3:57pm Mon 17 Mar 14

rude boy says...

Wonder why kids are so lazy and half the ones that have been caught only live 2 mins round the corner lazy gits
Wonder why kids are so lazy and half the ones that have been caught only live 2 mins round the corner lazy gits rude boy
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Mon 17 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

rayleigh123 wrote:
southendcivilservant wrote:
My partner drives me to work every day, and usually drops me off outside my building in Victoria Avenue, but sometimes I get out earlier, at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing, if the lights are red and we've stopped. I'm now wondering if we could be fined for this, even though the lights are red at the time and we can't move before the lights turn back to green. I do hope not.
If it is at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing in Victoria Avenue, you will note that it has zig zags - therefore it is an offence for you to get out of your vehicle on these zig zags.

Don't listen to most of the drivel on this thread by people who have a frightening lack of knowledge of basic motoring law.
.
.
.
I'm always open to reasoned discussion and happy to be proved wrong, but despite working in motor insurance for nearly 30 years, I can't find any information that states it's an offence to get out of your vehicle if the car is stopped on the zig zags.(unless of course you are the driver and you leave it there!)

Please enlighten us all and end the debate once and for all by pointing us in the direction of that law.
[quote][p][bold]rayleigh123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southendcivilservant[/bold] wrote: My partner drives me to work every day, and usually drops me off outside my building in Victoria Avenue, but sometimes I get out earlier, at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing, if the lights are red and we've stopped. I'm now wondering if we could be fined for this, even though the lights are red at the time and we can't move before the lights turn back to green. I do hope not.[/p][/quote]If it is at the pedestrian traffic lights crossing in Victoria Avenue, you will note that it has zig zags - therefore it is an offence for you to get out of your vehicle on these zig zags. Don't listen to most of the drivel on this thread by people who have a frightening lack of knowledge of basic motoring law. . . .[/p][/quote]I'm always open to reasoned discussion and happy to be proved wrong, but despite working in motor insurance for nearly 30 years, I can't find any information that states it's an offence to get out of your vehicle if the car is stopped on the zig zags.(unless of course you are the driver and you leave it there!) Please enlighten us all and end the debate once and for all by pointing us in the direction of that law. stopmoaning1
  • Score: 8

5:23pm Mon 17 Mar 14

stopmoaning1 says...

Just to clarify the above, you can not stop on the ziz zag 'in order to drop off or pick up a passenger'. My comment relates to this case where a car has stopped 'in order to allow pedestrians to cross'
Just to clarify the above, you can not stop on the ziz zag 'in order to drop off or pick up a passenger'. My comment relates to this case where a car has stopped 'in order to allow pedestrians to cross' stopmoaning1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree