Double Yellow Line Extension

[Johnjohn]

Can anyone shed any light on what may have happened here please?

See attached photo, a side road nearby had had the double yellow line mysteriously extended.

You can just about see the where the previous DYL ended by the hash mark ending, and it has now been extended by a good 3 meters or so.

The perpendicular corner of the same junction hasn't been extended, neither has the parallel opposite side of the same road.

If all the junctions were to be extended by this amount it would add up to a significant loss of parking spaces.

Perhaps that is the tactic? ..... but I didn't  think this could happen with consultation or notice?

 

 

[Moovart]

Maybe they're about to plant a cycle hangar in that spot.  I've seen DYLs go in a couple of weeks before the hangar goes in, I guess to keep the space free.  🤔

[Rockets]

The council are extending all of the DYLs in the area to the legal permissible maximum to create parking pressure to try and create demand for CPZs.

Where is this?

The irony is they claim it is to make junctions safer but it seems to be having an adverse impact because people can now see more around the corners and are not slowing down.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

The irony is they claim it is to make junctions safer but it seems to be having an adverse impact because people can now see more around the corners and are not slowing down.

I see. Being able to see what's coming when you turn in / out of a junction is dangerous... oooookay then 🤣

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

The council are extending all of the DYLs in the area to the legal permissible maximum to create parking pressure to try and create demand for CPZs.

They restricted parking on the grassy Knowle to make the Kennedy assassination possible. 🤷‍♂️

Any evidence at all for the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff? 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I see. Being able to see what's coming when you turn in / out of a junction is dangerous... oooookay then 🤣

Think about it Earl, just think about it for a moment. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They restricted parking on the grassy Knowle to make the Kennedy assassination possible. 🤷‍♂️

Any evidence at all for the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff? 

No just years and years of the council doing this...speak to James Barber about it...he was on the case years ago. Anyone with a modicum of sense can work out why the council extends them as far as legally permissible (when many other authorities do not) - its to create parking pressure. Ask anyone on a street where they have done it. 

 

[first mate]

Of course they are doing it to create parking pressure, they want that CPZ revenue. 

[mfp]

The DYLs were extended on my road approx 10 years ago. No reason for them - quiet street. The council at the time said they were abiding by the law and they had no choice. Yet I see so many streets that do not have them - including one at the end of my road. Lies again by Southwark Council!

Edited Friday at 20:43 by mfp

[malumbu]

What do you base this on?  Have you proof of Southwark lying?  If so complain to them.  Seems to be a sweeping generalisation on this site.

[Kurt_Lane]

Do the lines extend more than 10 meters from the junction? It’s hard to find a junction in Dulwich that doesn’t have cars contravening HC r. 250 so hopefully all junctions get marking to stop dangerous parking. 

[Rockets]

46 minutes ago, Kurt_Lane said:

It’s hard to find a junction in Dulwich that doesn’t have cars contravening HC r. 250 so hopefully all junctions get marking to stop dangerous parking. 

It's hard to find a junction now where Southwark have not extended double yellow lines to the legally permissible length - whether they are needed or not.

This has zero to do with road safety and everything to do with revenue generating CPZs. Look at what has happened around Townley and Calton: the council manage to persuade a few supporters to support a CPZ. One or two roads get a CPZ (whether the majority want them or not) then teams of council workers extend the double yellow lines on the surrounding roads - ostensibly to make our roads safer but actually to make parking more challenging.

When people then write to their councillors the suggested solution to the problem (that the council have created) - a CPZ!

Honestly,  anyone else who thinks anything else is a deluded (or blinkered) fool....it's so transparent it's laughable.

There were never parking problems in Dulwich until the council started meddling. They are the ones solely responsible for creating parking pressure on our streets and all because they have managed to persuade a very vocal (and gullible) minority that there is "dangerous parking".

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Kurt_Lane said:

Do the lines extend more than 10 meters from the junction? It’s hard to find a junction in Dulwich that doesn’t have cars contravening HC r. 250 so hopefully all junctions get marking to stop dangerous parking. 

This is brilliant.

There are discussions elsewhere that we should have more faith in drivers as they will have to have demonstrated that they know the Highway Code.  Thanks for alerting me to R 250, which I had to Google:

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 2500 kg laden weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are:

at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow

Well if you asked the majority of drivers they would be unaware. And I have passed both the car and motorcycle test.  So extension of the double yellows will ensure that drivers do not fall foul of this regulation, parking without their lights on.  Older motorists will recall a time when cars were in deed fitted with parking lights, ie a back light and side light on the drivers' side.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/parking-lights/

Nice one!  Thanks

Just shot myself in the foot as this will not apply to 20 mph roads.

[first mate]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

There were never parking problems in Dulwich until the council started meddling. They are the ones solely responsible for creating parking pressure on our streets and all because they have managed to persuade a very vocal (and gullible) minority that there is "dangerous parking".

Nail on head. Extended double yellows are just one example of how the council deliberately create parking pressure. It is so cynical.

[Penguin68]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

What do you base this on?  Have you proof of Southwark lying?  If so complain to them.  Seems to be a sweeping generalisation on this site

Well, thank goodness sweeping generalisations aren't something we get from you, oh, wait a second, 'Southwark Council is always right, posters who disagree with me are always wrong' sort of leans into  that. As you neither live in Southwark, vote in Southwark or pay taxes in Southwark your loyalty to Southwark is curiously touching, unless, as I have suggested in the past, you're employed by Southwark? 

[snowy]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

This is brilliant.

There are discussions elsewhere that we should have more faith in drivers as they will have to have demonstrated that they know the Highway Code.  Thanks for alerting me to R 250, which I had to Google:

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 2500 kg laden weight, invalid carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if they are:

at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb and facing in the direction of the traffic flow

Well if you asked the majority of drivers they would be unaware. And I have passed both the car and motorcycle test.  So extension of the double yellows will ensure that drivers do not fall foul of this regulation, parking without their lights on.  Older motorists will recall a time when cars were in deed fitted with parking lights, ie a back light and side light on the drivers' side.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/parking-lights/

Nice one!  Thanks

Just shot myself in the foot as this will not apply to 20 mph roads.

Its 243 - do not / must not stop within 10m

28 minutes ago, first mate said:

Nail on head. Extended double yellows are just one example of how the council deliberately create parking pressure. It is so cynical.

It really isn't. It's Its the minimum distance set out by the highway code. 

[Rockets]

Double yellow lines are becoming part of the armoury of underhand techniques the council uses to try to create demand for revenue generating CPZs.

I know some people complained about the problems they were causing and councilors responded by saying: we can help you get a CPZ.

It's brazen and utterly reprehensible and they need to be held to account.

[march46]

Improving sightlines which increases safety for everyone is a really odd thing to be against. 

[malumbu]

Absolutely, in the same way that road users should not cut junctions, taking left turns well away from the curb to maintain good site lines (not crossing the centre line except if there are obstructions (illegally parked cars, narrow roads or where there is an obstruction such as road works), and the right turn do not cut into the left hand lane.

Its actually rule 242

Rule 243

DO NOT stop or park:

• near a school entrance
• anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services
• at or near a bus or tram stop or taxi rank
• on the approach to a level crossing/tramway crossing
• opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space
• near the brow of a hill or hump bridge
• opposite a traffic island or (if this would cause an obstruction) another parked vehicle
• where you would force other traffic to enter a tram lane
• where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles
• in front of an entrance to a property
• on a bend
• where you would obstruct cyclists’ use of cycle facilities

The other relevant section are worth a refresh too for example checking over your shoulder after stopping before opening the door.

[Rockets]

Funny how the council has only shown interest in this when it's trying to get CPZs in....I mean for how many decades has it not been of any concern.

The council uses it to create parking pressure and the usual suspects start regurgitating the "sightline" narrative they have been fed. So predictable. Of course CPZs are part of addressing the climate crisis too.....ahem...

 

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Double yellow lines are becoming part of the armoury of underhand techniques the council uses to try to create demand for revenue generating CPZs.

I know some people complained about the problems they were causing and councilors responded by saying: we can help you get a CPZ.

It's brazen and utterly reprehensible and they need to be held to account.

The application of existing laws under the highway code is now a Southwark war on motorists? Such a strange take for someone apparently committed to improving road safety.

Cars legally shouldn't be parked there as has been pointed out three times in the posts above.

Drivers can get a ticket if they do (irrespective of DYLs or not). 

That clearer signage has to be done suggests that drivers are unaware contents of the test they passed or are just ignoring rules of the highway code. 
 

I would love to think who you perceive will hold them to account. DFT for applying the law?  Or the electorate who didn't vote for Tory Clive Rates who is also coincidentally campaigning on this issue.
 

 

Edited Saturday at 09:51 by snowy

[first mate]

Are you seriously denying Southwark's stated aim to reduce car use while also monetising it? It is a cynical pursuit of money by creating problems. You know that very well.

Again, there was no parking issue in the Dulwich area until Southwark started to create one.

Also such intense concern about an alleged sightlines issue, but intensely relaxed about the growing issue of cyclists and high powered e-bikes riding in pedestrianised areas- and seemingly no monitoring of this.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:36 by first mate

[snowy]

46 minutes ago, first mate said:

Are you seriously denying Southwark's stated aim to reduce car use while also monetising it? It is a cynical pursuit of money by creating problems. You know that very well.

Again, there was no parking issue in the Dulwich area until Southwark started to create one.

Also such intense concern about an alleged sightlines issue, but intensely relaxed about the growing issue of cyclists and high powered e-bikes riding in pedestrianised areas- and seemingly no monitoring of this.

 

 

Are you seriously saying that car drivers should be allowed to ignore sections of the highway code and park illegally next to junctions? 
 

the last point is just 'but cyclists'.

 

[mfp]

14 hours ago, malumbu said:

What do you base this on?  Have you proof of Southwark lying?  If so complain to them.  Seems to be a sweeping generalisation on this site.

I was initially told by the Southwark Highways team that it was a legal requirement, and they had no choice. However, they later reduced the yellow lines on my section from 10m to 7m, indicating that it was no longer a legal requirement.

I did file a complaint and also requested an extended yellow line at one of the junctions with Lordship Lane, as it was difficult to see when turning right. I received no response, and it took five years for that request to be addressed.

I agree with your point about my generalisation of Southwark Council – I should have been more specific, particularly when referring to the Southwark Highways department.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, mfp said:

I was initially told by the Southwark Highways team that it was a legal requirement, and they had no choice.

I do not believe this is true (Southwark's claim they had to). Didn't Cllr Barber flag this many years ago around the time of the first attempt to force a CPZ on Dulwich that it was Southwark's decision to extend them?

Edited Saturday at 13:29 by Rockets

[march46]

Again, surely any safety improvement is an odd thing to be against? Blocking the tactile paving is a major problem for people who are blind or visually impaired.

(Photos from Clean Air Dulwich & Dulwich Roads Twitter/X)

[alice]

These are not really illustrated the problem with massive extended double yellows