Zig Zag lines??

[dirac]

It's so obvious that it's a money making scheme for the local council, it's almost like entrapment! Literally inviting people to park there: a nice shady lay-by, loads of room, totally off of the road...only to get slapped with a nice greedy fine.

[nxjen]

Not sure you mean honey trap

[Seabag]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not sure you mean honey trap

No, but it sounds sexier than a 'set up'

[DulwichFox]

I looked carefully at the Zig-Zag Lines yesterday...

..although not visible from the picture, the zig-zag linea are in the actual bay but end allowing space for one vehicle.

the space to the right of that space is gravelled and Private land..

DulwichFox

[Seagal78]

DukwichFox, maybe it is one space for Range Rover ? I have seen at least 3 small cars parked there and all three duely received the parking tickets. Anyway I now escalated the complaint and also received response from two of the counsellors, aparantly this issue has been a hot topic for the past year. So figures crossed common sense prevails

[Seagal78]

I got a response -

Thank you for your request for information that was received on 31 March 2016 in which you requested:

May I ask you how much has Southwark Council collected in penalty charges over the past 3 years 2013-2015 for parking offences in these "bays" ?

Response: Since April 1st 2013, 341 PCNs have been issued with ?20,930 penalty charge paid.

[Abe_froeman]

Wow that's quite a lot of easy money. The car collision map shows no accidents involving pedestrians at that crossing so this cash cow only solves a problem that doesn't exist.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I get that you can't park within a certain distance of a crossing, but due to the way this area is recessed, parking there does not in anyway obscure sight lines down the road. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

[Seagal78]

Abe_froman can you please send a link to car collusion maps ? I will send the info to Dulwich Diverterr as they are now working on the article

[Abe_froeman]

Sure...

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/london-collision?intcmp=33888

[Seagal78]

The latest response from Daniel Toms, Invstogations Officer, where he acknowledges that no obvious safety issues with the zebra crossings.

Also I have been in touch with ward Councillor Andy Simmons and he has advised that this issue has been raised before but was not considered a priority for the council. Now 1.5k Green Award has been allocated to review the safety implications.

So it has been worth complaining !

My Findings

In terms of the enforcement position here, Highway Code rule 191 states ?You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines.?

My understanding of the regulations relating to white zig zags lines is that these cannot be parked on at any time. They are classed as ?dual enforcement restriction? which means the Council can issue tickets to vehicles parked in contravention and the Police canalso enforce against vehicles parked in contravention. The only difference is the Police fine also carries penalty points. The Department for Transport assumes all motorists will know that they are not allowed to park on white zig zag lines. The penalty for parking on white zig zag lines adjacent to a zebra crossing is a Penalty Charge of ?130 reduced to ?65 if paid in the first 14 days. However, the contravention is considered so serious that it was not fully decriminalised and the Police can still issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for it and 3 points on your license.

No additional signage is required for enforcement in these locations and I do not believe signage exists which tells a motorist that they must not park on white zig zags adjacent to a zebra crossing. This is as opposed to yellow zig zag lines which are not legally enforceable without a sign in place close to the location that details the restriction or times of restriction.

Having visited the site myself, I am satisfied that the white zig zag lines in the bay in question are clear and easy to see. I do not believe that a driver would in reality not notice the road markings. I am not necessarily in agreement with the opinion in the initial complaint response that vehicles parked in this bay would likely endanger pedestrians attempting to use the crossing (they would be looking in the opposite direction when attempting to cross the road towards Dulwich Picture Gallery) albeit it may be difficult for vehicles parked there to reverse back out onto the road (and the end 1 or 2 vehicles closest to the crossing may have to reverse back over the crossing).In saying this, I must highlight that this is my opinion only and is not a qualified assessment. As is stated later in this response, a proper process needs to be followed when assessing road safety.

I have not been able to establish the historical reason for the existence of what you describe as the ?layby?. The Council?s most recent involvement here was simply to re-surface and reinstate the road markings that were already there. It may be that enforcement was not conducted prior to this if the road markings were faded.

There is the potential for the existing layout to be changed ? for example, by shortening the extension of the zig zag lines or creating a layby by continuing the zig zag lines along the road rather than them following the indented section of road. However, any such change would require a design, road safety audit and possibly a statutory process. As touched on above, there are road safety implications here that would necessitate resources being dedicated to a proper review process. It is not possible for Council officers to change road layout of this type without due consideration.

Dulwich Community Council has recently (in March) allocated a small sum of Cleaner Greener Safer (CGS) funding to investigate possible changes to the road layout here. As a result, officers are currently in the process of commissioning a road safety review to understand how easy it would be to change.

It has not been a priority for this to be done before now because it is considered there are plenty of alternative parking options in the vicinity. The feedback I have from Parking & Traffic Enforcement is that there is no controlled parking in this area, the local roads are free to park on and there is a sizeable car park inside Dulwich Park with another in the nearby Belair Park. Parking within 5 minutes walk of this location would not in their experience represent a difficulty even at weekends.

My Decision

I should first outline to you the role of the Customer Resolutions Team.

The Customer Resolutions Team exists to examine complaints from residents or service users in relation to any service provided by the Council, where a shortcoming or failure to provide the service has been alleged. It endeavours to establish whether a department has acted outside any governing legislation or its own procedures, and if so, whether these actions or a decision resulting from them has lead to injustice to the resident. If this is found to be the case, then I am required to restore you to the position you would have been in, had the injustice not occurred.

The Customer Resolutions Team does not though have any powers to overturn a decision made correctly within a governing legislative framework, or where accepted procedure has been applied.

Given the findings set out above, I have not been able to uphold your complaint on this occasion. I do not agree that the initial complaint response was overly formalistic or that it failed to show the necessary level of sympathy. In my view, the zig zag markings areeasy to see, I have not found that any signage to further highlight the white zig zags exists or is necessary and I do not agree that parking enforcement here represents some kind of entrapment.

The feedback I have from Parking Enforcement is that since April 2013, 341 PCNs have been issued here with?20,930 of penalty charges paid (to put that number in some context, the Council has issued 321,336 PCNs in that period receiving over ?17 million in Penalty Charge payments). This averages out at approximately 2 enforced contraventions per week so I would not be able to reach the conclusion that the Council is heavily enforcing on a large number of unaware drivers at this location.

There is some uncertainty over the reasons for the layout being as it is but I understand a process has now commenced to review the feasibility of changes being made. In the meantime, I would expect enforcement to continue given the regulations on parking on white zig zag lines are clear cut and offer no room for discretion.

I expect that this is not the outcome you were seeking but hope that this investigation has at least demonstrated to you that the Council has taken your concerns seriously.

This is the final stage of the Council?s complaint process.

If you remain unhappy with the outcome you can pursue your dissatisfaction by asking the Local Government Ombudsman to review your complaint. The Local Government Ombudsmaninvestigates complaints about Councils including housing allocations, planning, education and social services.

[Loz]

As I said earlier in this thread, I don't see how the markings are in line with the legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/schedule/4/made

I would say the lines would have to be as per diagram 3 or 6, depending on how you view that central reservation. In either case, there seems to be a requirement for lines at the edge of the carriageway, which that photos suggest none exist.

[ianr]

Loz, see regulation 10:

Non-compliance with requirements of this Section

10.?(1) Where, as respects a crossing or controlled area, the requirements of this Section of these Regulations as to the placing of traffic signs and road markings to indicate the crossing or controlled area have not been complied with in every respect, the crossing or, as the case may be, the controlled area shall nevertheless be treated as complying with these Regulations if the non-compliance?

(a) is not such as materially to affect the general appearance of the crossing or the controlled area;

(b) does not, in the case of a Pelican or Puffin crossing, affect the proper operation of the vehicular and pedestrian signals at the crossing; and

© does not relate to the size of the controlled area.

(2) Nothing in any other provision of these Regulations shall be taken to restrict the generality of paragraph (1).

BTW, zebra crossings are Schedule 1, not Schedule 4.

[Loz]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BTW, zebra crossings are Schedule 1, not Schedule 4.

Ah, yes. Good point!

Nevertheless, there is a very good argument that the layby does not constitute the carriageway and the lines within the layby are therefore invalid.