Proposed 10km new double yellow lines across Dulwich

[rch]

There was a copy of the Order in the Feb 1st edition of the Southwark News listing all the roads in College, East Dulwich, and Village wards that will be painted with the double yellows (7.5 metres in length unless otherwise stated). There's probably a link to the specifics on the council's dysfunctional website, but I'm too lazy to search.

The Order comes into effect on Feb 5th, which is today.

In order to save money, the council tends not to get multiple car removal orders to access all the junction corners in one go, it's actually cheaper to have a team drive around the area for a couple of weeks extending the double yellows as cars relocate naturally. You can tell where the double yellows are going to be extended to as this will be marked by a backwards "F" looking symbol.

As the Order formally comes into effect today, I would avoid parking inside the F mark gap even if the double yellows haven't been painted yet...

Edited to add... the contact details of the relevant Highways officer is email [email protected] phone 020 7525 3197.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> I doubt it - I remember seeing an appeal a few

> years back where a new drain grating had been

> installed which broke a yellow line and it hadn't

> been repainted and someone appealed a ticket; as I

> recall the basis of rejection was that whether a

> part was missing or not there was enough line

> there to show that there were restrictions. An

> appeal claiming a driver didn't think double

> yellows meant they couldn't park there because

> there wasn't a bar at the end would get short

> shrift, I'd imagine.

All road markings have to comply with TSRDG 2002 (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions). It doesn't matter if the relevant TMO is in place and up to date, the physical markings on the road have to conform to the standard. If they don't, they may as well not be there because they're unenforceable.

The document is extremely pedantic. It specifies line width, colour, end bars, interactions with other markings, distances from kerbs, maintenance and a whole lot more as well. A break in the lines where a grating has been replaced by a contractor is absolutely a reason to invalidate the whole section of lines because it is the responsibility of the LA to keep road markings in compliance with TSRDG. If they don't, too bad. There is no recourse in law to 'common sense'; if the lines do not conform to TSRDG - for whatever reason - then they are invalid.

Having said all that, LAs will often wrongly reject appeals in order to put people off from taking things further. They'll drag things out for as long as possible and try their best to just get you to pay up. It will take months, possibly years. If you don't want to risk the stress and hassle of a lengthy legal process just to save ?60 on a parking ticket, don't park on the yellow lines.

[rendelharris]

Two cases with contrasting opinions on this, one lost and one won:

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/Missing-T-Bar-Minier-case/

http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/Missing-T-Bar-Case-Win/

End of the day though, we all know a double yellow line means don't park there, don't we!

[geh]

Glad to see this in action over the weekend. Complete parking chaos to the detriment of both residents and business. Given the proposed speed humps were never installed in my road but the double yellow lining has been I can only assume that southwark have a single and focussed agenda, the eventual introduction of a cpz

All very disappointing if inevitable

[James Barber]

Some double yellow lines circa 2-3 metres at corners to enabling people crossing roads on foot makes sense. 7.5 metres in each direction from corner apex is too much. And yes it is already adding to parking pressure.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The measurements look to be all over the place too. Some much longer than others, or stretch further round the corner in one direction. All very odd.

[bargee99]

Please tell me James that "your lot", as you say, will repeal this absurd 7.5 metre blanket rule. If so you have my vote in May. Other motorists please remember this and the Townley Road junction farce, and the ongoing Dulwich Village fiasco and the removal of bulky waste service when you cast your vote in the local election.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Two cases with contrasting opinions on this, one

> lost and one won:

>

> http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/Missing-T

> -Bar-Minier-case/

>

> http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/Missing-T

> -Bar-Case-Win/

>

> End of the day though, we all know a double yellow

> line means don't park there, don't we!

The 'de minimis' argument was incorrectly applied by the adjudicator in the first example. Precedent was set in Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R. 145:

"Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind."

But as you say, double yellows mean don't park there so even if they're unenforceable on a technicality, don't park there.

[alex_b]

Edited to delete potentially erroneous information.

The quietway proposals will make matters even worse if they come in, with further parking pressure and doing nothing to address the volume of traffic using ED roads as rat runs which in my opinion is the real issue.

James is there anything that council members can do? The Lane ward Councillors just ignore my emails.

[James Barber]

Hi Alex_b,

If you email me - ideally with a picture - I'll ask council officers to confirm which TMO covers the junction.

Hi bargee99,

If my lot win control of the council - yes.

[alex_b]

James - apologies having re-read the emails, I think it may be a case of the TMO just being really confusingly worded. When they talk about the "side" of a junction at a T-juntion they seem to mean one side of the street extending both sides of a junction rather than one side of the junction or the other. So I expect the TMO is correctly implemented.

Still annoyed about the unnecessary loss of parking and the much increased speed on Adys Rd. Unfortunately Lane Ward councillors seem to have little interest in the matter.

[rendelharris]

All sorts of points of view on this, but when one comes across twattery like this (corner of Copleston Road and Soames Street this morning) one can't help thinking some drivers have brought it on themselves.

[Mugglesworth]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> All sorts of points of view on this, but when one

> comes across twattery like this (corner of

> Copleston Road and Soames Street this morning) one

> can't help thinking some drivers have brought it

> on themselves.

Looks like it's parked across a dropped kerb, which is illegal regardless of yellow lines. I've reported cars doing this to Southwark in the past and a ticket appeared very quickly.

[Sally Eva]

Parking enforcement details here with opening hours Monday to sunday inclusive.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/report-a-parking-enforcement-issue

Direct line (hardly any delay) 0207 708 8587.

[Sue]

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> Parking enforcement details here with opening

> hours Monday to sunday inclusive.

>

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/report-a-parki

> ng-enforcement-issue

>

> Direct line (hardly any delay) 0207 708 8587.

Thank you for that.

I'm sick of seeing cars parked right on corners round here.

It's selfish and dangerous.

[Sally Eva]

oh good. I've amended the link so that it's not broken

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/report-a-parking-enforcement-issue

I haven't done anything special to it. I don't know why it broke -- or now doesn't

[Robert_F]

I received an e-mail notification from Southwark Council that they have posted feedback to the consultation on the "Southwark Spine" on their website. It seems that 63% of the 463 respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the proposals, with the most frequently cited reason being concerns around parking loss. They have said they are "making some changes to our proposals" but on review of the decision it appears none related to parking. Sounds like all too late for ED.

[James Barber]

Hi Robert_F,

The specific responses to measures along Crystal Palace Road were even more negative!

A bizarre way to spend ?1.7M.

Anyone who wants to park will find it a tad harder with the further double yellow lines proposed.

Cyclists wont appreciate cycling up and over the raised treatments when cycling up even the mild hill of Crystal Palace Road.

People walking wont appreciate the islands being removed which are particularly useful for unescorted children.

[uncleglen]

Driving around recently it seems that the double yellows are proving very useful to the delivery vans we have constantly moving around the area....

[seenbeen]

At the junction of Jennings Road and Landells builders have erected a station with a cement mixer- on the road on the corner where there are double yellows...and there is a large van parked on them as well....where are the traffic mopeds when you need them...I see at least 2 at 8am....

[Earl Aelfheah]

There seems to have been quite a random approach to the 'lining' of corners, with some done and some not. None of them appear to be being enforced. Did this really cost 1.7m, or is that for the proposed 'Soutwark Spine'?

How about bring Boris Bikes to Southwark, or creating a secure bike park at Brixton like they have at Finsbury Park? How about a Cycle Superhighway in SE London?

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is weird. If you look at the tube map, the cycle superhighway map and the Hirebike map, they all look the same. they all have SE London missing from them.

[wulfhound]

SE London was supposed to get a Cycle Superhighway - CS6 City to Penge - in the early plans (before they realised that painting blobs of blue paint on otherwise-unchanged "A"-roads didn't end very well). IIRC it was to run from Camberwell Green, over the top of Dog Kennel Hill, down to Goose Green and along Lordship Lane.

The plans were dropped very early on - once the paint-only approach became untenable, they figured that (for example) Lordship Lane would be too contentious if it's even physically possible at all.

Building all-abilities infra for bikes in the suburbs is politically difficult - traders and bus users complain if you build along the main roads, local drivers do the same if you create cycle routes by closing roads to traffic. The only real success in recent years has been Waltham Forest, where the project is led by a Cllr who recognises that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and is willing to incur a degree of unpopularity to get it done... up to and including a protest group (mostly minicab drivers) who held a "mock funeral" for a high street which was to be closed to general traffic. Even though Southwark as a borough is safe Labour, at a ward and seat level there's enough swing that few seem to have the cojones to do what's necessary... resulting in costly, half-baked crap like the Dulwich Village "re-design".