Zig Zag

[vonhosen]

This is what it says with regard to yellow lines:

"You may stop to load or unload (unless there are also loading restrictions as described below) or while
passengers board or alight."

Double yellows mean no waiting at any time, but you may stop to load or unload (unless there are also loading restrictions as described below) or while passengers board or alight. That doesn't mention no parking.

Zigs zags mean no stopping in the controlled area (except for the exceptions outlined in Regs 21 & 22). Again nothing to do with no parking.

[MGF]

That doesn't say double yellows mean no parking (they mean no waiting), or that zig zags mean no parking (they mean no stopping - save for in the exceptions mentioned in Regs 21 & 22).

Double yellows mean no waiting at any time, but you may stop to load or unload (unless there are also loading restrictions as described below) or while passengers board or alight. That doesn't mention no parking

Your splitting of hairs is misconceived



Parking and waiting are synonymous.


Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

2 (2)

[The provision that may be made by a traffic regulation order] ... includes any provision—
...
(c) prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles;

32 (4)

(b) “parking place” means a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any class, may wait;

The Act uses the terms in such a way that the Courts have interpreted waiting and parking as being the same thing.

Zigs zags mean no stopping in the controlled area (except for the exceptions outlined in Regs 21 & 22). Again nothing to do with no parking.

DTH didn't say what the regs. state but what they mean. Try parking without stopping.

Although 'stopping' and 'parking' are not coterminous 'stopping' obviously includes 'parking'.

[vonhosen]

But the important thing is that when stopped you aren't always parked (not that when parking you are stopped). In outlawing stopping you outlaw more than only cases of parking. There is no need to change it from the wording used in the regs, it adequately outlines what is involved. If they'd meant parking instead of stopping they could have used that word.

[MGF]

Ah..apologies... Just re-read DTH's post which I thought said no parking and no stopping on zig-zags but he actually quoted martine's earlier comment. If DTH also believes zig-zags = just 'no parking' then yes, you were right to point out that that is incorrect.

[dth]

What I'm saying is what I've said with regard to double yellows.

I haven't entered the detailed discussion about 'controlled areas" have I, merely that they are being confused in this thread?

[vonhosen]

What I'm saying is what I've said with regard to double yellows.

I haven't entered the detailed discussion about 'controlled areas" have I, merely that they are being confused in this thread?

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that you have quoted martine, but have not placed the comments made by him in a quote box. I have therefore mistakenly attributed them to you as I haven't read every previous post & because of that it looks like you saying it in free text in relation to controlled areas (not you quoting him).

However the point I was making in relation to the content still stands.

[JonW]

Yup, my wife's just received a penalty charge notice over exactly this issue. The letter says the alleged contravention is "99J Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags".

It's come from the London Borough of Ealing, and it happened in Southall. You can see the heads of a couple of people crossing at the time in one of the photos they've sent, but where she made her mistake was she let her passenger get out when the car was stopped in the zig-zag zone before the crossing, so there's a picture (which they say is from a video) that catches the car at that moment, with the passenger door open and someone getting out.

Seems very unfair, as I'd have thought NOT stopping would be a worse "contravention", since she would then have killed a few Southall pedestrians. Ealing council obviously takes the opposite view. I'm glad I don't have to live there.

JonW

[michael769]

If the car would have been stopped anyway throughout the time the passengers were getting out then she should appeal on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

There is nothing in ZPPPCRGD that prohibits drivers from allowing passengers to board or alight whilst they avail themselves of the statutory exceptions - provided that the circumstances that gave rise to the exception applying remain in force throughout the time they are stationary. It will be for the Local Authority to present evidence that the exemptions do not apply to her - and evidence of passengers getting in our out is not in itself sufficient to establish that the exceptions do not apply IMO. They will need to also present evidence that the crossing was not occupied and that there were no vehicles in front preventing her for continuing her journey safely, through the time that she was stationary. As strict liability applies to this offence the fact that she would not have been in the position to move off if the traffic/pedestrians had cleared is not relevant.

If you drop me a PM I can put you in touch with some campaigners that have experience of appealing against decriminalized penalties.

[dombooth]

"99J Stopped on a pedestrian crossing and/or crossing area marked by zig-zags".

So are we supposed to carry on and mow people over or stop 3 miles before the crossing?

Dom