On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:12 +0000, Humbug wrote:

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,

So lets get this correct. He parked on the zig zags whilst the shops
were opened (reasonable to expect pedestrians to be around) and in the
rain, meaning poor visibility and increased stopping distance and you
are trying to defend him! That's almost as bad as him thinking that he
should be able to get away with it.

regards

nemo2

Humbug ] said:
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.

I totally disagree. The zig-zags are there for a reason even though an
astonishing high number of people seem to choose to disregard them.


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

One parking offence = one mugging in the numbers game.


Anyone parking on zig-zags deserves having the book thrown at them IMHO.
I used to live near a zebra crossing and I never ceased to be astonished
at the number of people who parked on them (even though there were
perfectly good double yellows for them to illegally park on a few yards
up the street and legal spaces a little further on) regardless of the
number of vehicles or pedestrians using the street.

Bloody dangerous, selfish act.

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

People who illegally park (and I'm *not* talking about people who out
stay bays or park in residence spaces) have the choice not to. And they
definitely have the choice not to park on a pedestrian crossing.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:12 +0000, Humbug wrote:

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.

How on earth could he *possibly* have been "aware" of that?

If anybody had wanted to use the crossing while he was bringing out
the set, then he *would* have been endangering them, because the
visibility would have been restricted. That is the whole point of the
zig zag markings.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Circular logic will only make you dizzy. - Peri
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:55:04 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

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.

There are no timetables showing when people will want to cross the
road.

It is impossible to predict whether anybody will do so in any given 10
minutes, particularly during business hours.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You are only young once, but you can be immature forever.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Humbug ] said:
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.

Maybe when he parked, in his opinion, it was safe. But what if his
opinion was wrong? And if it was correct, what if the situation changed
20 seconds after he left his car?

This is one of those rules that is there for a very good reason.


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

And what exactly is wrong with that?


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.

Parking on the zigzags is a hazard to pedestrians and that is
justification enough to ban it.

The officer got an easy result.

Good for him!

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.

Roland Perry ] said:
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.

Is that really a good enough excuse for some people using the zigzags as
their own personal free and empty parking space?

And if he
knows the area it's quite easy to predict what might happen in the next
ten minutes.

How on earth can someone predict the flow of pedestrians wanting to
cross the road, however familiar they might be with the street?

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.

Is that not an issue for local council as bus stop restrictions can be
set to suit? Or do you really think traffic wardens should carry bus
timetables with them, to consult before they ticket illegally parked
cars?

Yellow wrote:
Humbug ] said:
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.

Maybe when he parked, in his opinion, it was safe. But what if his
opinion was wrong? And if it was correct, what if the situation changed
20 seconds after he left his car?

This is one of those rules that is there for a very good reason.


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

And what exactly is wrong with that?

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.

Parking on the zigzags is a hazard to pedestrians and that is
justification enough to ban it.

The officer got an easy result.

Good for him!

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.



If I walked around with a loaded unbroken shotgun because it was
inconvenient to unload it or shot blind across a public footpath because
there was nobody on it five minutes ago people would consider this
unacceptable.
If people deliberately endanger others by parking in dangerous places or
using mobile phones while driving they seem to think they are the victim
and look for loopholes.
Sadly it appears that George Orwell's 1984 may be largely necessary to
enforce ever more laws to control ever more irresponsible behaviour.
Bit off topic but perhaps more public information might help.
I would like to see a law requiring that driving tests have to be passed
every 10 years including hazard recognition.

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

As has been pointed out the analogy is verging on the ridiculous.

The actual danger of parking in the zig-zags is actually quite small (in
terms of the likelihood that an accident actually would occur).

The point really is that it creates an *unnecessary* risk. Why does
this person believe that it is acceptable to expose people to
unnecessary risk simply for his TV-viewing convenience.

Leaving aside the risk it is also extremely inconsiderate to other road
users as it makes it harder for them to negotiate that hazard.

Wouldn't the shop either deliver it or help him carry it to somewhere
more convenient?

How does this shop receive deliveries? You can bet your bottom dollar
that it isn't from lorries parked on the zig-zags. So in this case,
there *was* somewhere else nearby.

At the end of the day, he should have known that there was a risk of a
fine and he took it.

In message , at 22:10:04 on
Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Alex Heney remarked:
There are no timetables showing when people will want to cross the
road.

And if there were, would that excuse parking on a zig-zag?

It is impossible to predict whether anybody will do so in any given 10
minutes, particularly during business hours.

What seems even harder to predict is what kinds of parking on zigzags
will have a detrimental effect on safety.

I was looking at a few zebra crossings near my house this morning. One
has just a single pair of white zig-zag lines, less than a car length.
Others have several. And it's not correlated to the width of the road
and other sight lines. Another has a bus stop (no layby) one car length
from the crossing.

If the OP was parked four car lengths away on the trailing side of a
crossing, it's unlikely to have been as much "in the way" (and
obstructing sight lines) as that bus-stop on the leading side of my
local crossing.
--
Roland Perry

"James" wrote in message
...
Just got a fixed penalty for parking for 90 seconds on the zigzag bit of a
pelican crossing, whilst I was loading a TV into my car. It was raining,
my
nice new telly was large, and there were no pedestrians anywhere to be
seen,
but as the nice officer reminded me, the law is the law. The officer
seemed
a bit inept in filling the form in, which in hindsight I should have
capitalised on more than I did. Just wondered if any mistakes might
invalidate the fixed penalty?

He got my registration number wrong and I foolishly corrected him, but the
correction isn't initialed - not sure if has to be, or even if incorrect
details matter? The car cc is incorrect (1900 not 1700). The offense
committed on the form was "stopping in pelican crossing controlled area"
with code K06 - which I cant seem to find listed as an endorsable offense.

Am I clutching at straws in trying to get out of £60 and 3 points?!!


Was the officer on foot patrol?