Humbug wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:55:03 +0000, Yellow
wrote:

James ] said:
"Steve Walker wrote in message

Yes. As you were phsyically present and admit the offence, there's no
way
that a court would regard the errors above as a miscarriage of justice.
It's likely that it isn't an endorsable offense, by the way.

If its not an endorsable offense, is there anything I can do? I've been
given a fixed penalty notice which states "(endorsable offense)" after it.
Where would I establish whether it is or not, and if it isn't can I
challenge it?
Yes it is endorsable because parking on the zigzags is dangerous act.

Stopping on a zizgzag line in order to load a heavy item, at a time
when there is no traffic and there are no pedestrians, is an offence
which can be prosecuted easily.

It is not *necessarily* dangerous.

But it does make the figures look better for the Police.

One parking offence = one mugging in the numbers game.

And they don't (normally) even need to go through the courts to get
their positive result.

Zig-zags are there for a reason. The OP had no idea what might happen in
the time it took to unload.

If a minor misjudgement results in death everyone bays for blood. If
someone makes a deliberate decision to behave recklessly by using a
mobile phone whilst driving or parking in a dangerous position such as
on zig-zags then they feel hard done by when they get a minor penalty.

I spent a lot of years dealing with the fallout from motor accidents.
Reading about digital evacuation of a tetraplegic father is not nice.
We make a lot of fuss about gun licences but all expect to have the
right to driving licences however criminally we behave when in charge of
a motor vehicle.

Sadly a lot of regulations have been made necessary because some people
believe they can act as irresponsibly as they like.

IMHO people who deliberately endanger others should be banned at least.
A misjudgement is one thing. Deliberately doing something that might
endanger others is another. The OP should be ashamed of him/herself.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:30:08 +0000, Invisible Man
wrote:

Sadly a lot of regulations have been made necessary because some people
believe they can act as irresponsibly as they like.

Exactly so.

IMHO people who deliberately endanger others should be banned at least.
A misjudgement is one thing. Deliberately doing something that might
endanger others is another. The OP should be ashamed of him/herself.

The OP was well aware that he would not cause danger or inconvenience
to anyone else in that location at that time.

He fell victim to a rule which says that doing something might
possibly be dangerous.

That rule is useful when an inconsiderate person does something which
actually *is* dangerous, but is only really effective when they are
caught.

More commonly, people who take care *not* to be dangerous are
prosecuted under a regulation which is aimed at those who really are
dangerous.

The officer got an easy result.

He could make the figures look even better if he were to patrol
Willesden High Road opposite the bus station between 7 and 9 am, but
that doesn't seem to be a priority.

I expect that the OP wasn't driving a BMW, as they seem to be
specifically immune.

--
Humbug

"James" wrote in news:GIKkj.379$HV6.156
@newsfe4-win.ntli.net:


Am I clutching at straws in trying to get out of œ60 and 3 points?!!

In a word, "yes", I'd advise paying the fine now.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

"Steve Walker" wrote in
:


Yes. As you were phsyically present and admit the offence, there's
no way that a court would regard the errors above as a miscarriage of
justice. It's likely that it isn't an endorsable offense, by the way.

It is, 3 points and a fine, parking on zig-zags restricts the drivers view
of the crossing and hence creates danger, raining as well - ie making
stopping harder and further reducing visibility.

--

Regards,

Periander

Humbug wrote in news:tkh7p39a5cndfvig56ik2b6i3sobassbfp@
4ax.com:


One parking offence = one mugging in the numbers game.

You're talking absolute nonesense, traffic offences even ones that cause
danger to others (note not a parking offence) do not count as "cries" under
Home Office rules and consequently are not included in the crime figures
and of course from that can never count as a "clear-up".

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Periander wrote in
:

do not count as "cries" under

Doh! - "crimes"

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Invisible Man wrote in
:

A misjudgement is one thing. Deliberately doing something that might
endanger others is another. The OP should be ashamed of him/herself.

I'm not sure that this is the best place to pass judgement regardless of
how one belief and the reasons for that belief.

I find news:uk.legal a great place to educate folks if you ever feel the
urge.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

In message , at 23:30:08 on Sun, 20
Jan 2008, Invisible Man remarked:
IMHO people who deliberately endanger others should be banned at least.
A misjudgement is one thing. Deliberately doing something that might
endanger others is another.

The problem is elevating what is often a very minor parking violation to
the status of mass murder. It just makes people think that *other*
similarly punished offences (like running a red traffic light) are no
more serious than putting a TV in the back of your car on a deserted
road. Yes, there are times when stopping on the zigzags are extremely
dangerous, but in the case of my local High Street I'd rather they spent
more time catching the people who drive against the one-way system ie
illegally use the contraflow bus lane, which involves driving past "No
Entry" signs.
--
Roland Perry

Humbug wrote in news:gqm7p31j9lr5p4jg06pijjojp07nnnev3e@
4ax.com:


The OP was well aware that he would not cause danger or inconvenience
to anyone else in that location at that time.

Whereas he had no idea of how many people would turn up at the crossing
whilst he was in the shop collecting his TV, or if he would be delayed
whilst picking up his TV from the shop or any number of variable. Parking
just a few extra yards away would have caused next to no additional
inconvenience to him and yet kept his safe from points.

--
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

In message , at 08:20:05 on
Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Periander remarked:
Humbug wrote in news:gqm7p31j9lr5p4jg06pijjojp07nnnev3e@
4ax.com:

The OP was well aware that he would not cause danger or inconvenience
to anyone else in that location at that time.

Whereas he had no idea of how many people would turn up at the crossing
whilst he was in the shop collecting his TV, or if he would be delayed
whilst picking up his TV from the shop or any number of variable. Parking
just a few extra yards away would have caused next to no additional
inconvenience to him and yet kept his safe from points.

It's not always the case that there is somewhere else nearby. And if he
knows the area it's quite easy to predict what might happen in the next
ten minutes. A friend once got a ticket for parking a few minutes in a
bus stop in the High Street on a Sunday morning. It was extremely
predictable that no buses would be along soon - one glance at the
timetable showed no service at all that day.
--
Roland Perry