Parking on a grass verge next to zigzag lines

[barryrs]

Frank Foley Way seems to be a favorite spot these days.

[Slidingpillar]

First picture intrigues me. Not for the obvious reasons, but where do the pedestrians go once they've crossed the road? I see no footpath before and aft and it doesn't look the sort of place that would have a footpath leading out.

Perhaps relates to future development but at the moment, the crossing and lights just look an excuse to justify the 30 limit.

[Hackney]

surveyor_101 said:

Can you park on a verge next to a pedestrian crossing if your not parked in the road were the zigzag lines are if your not in the road but on the verge.

You would very tight to the pedestrian crossing.

What offence if any would you comit?

I don't have a not parked, can I still park there?
Nor do I have a not in the road, should I park on the verge?

[surveyor_101]

drf765 said:

What area is this in?

Highbridge in Somerset , near Tescos

[surveyor_101]

Slidingpillar said:

First picture intrigues me. Not for the obvious reasons, but where do the pedestrians go once they've crossed the road? I see no footpath before and aft and it doesn't look the sort of place that would have a footpath leading out.

Perhaps relates to future development but at the moment, the crossing and lights just look an excuse to justify the 30 limit.

I think people cross the road and access their the field to walk their dogs etc.

[barryrs]

It also links in with the recent Taylor Wimpey/Bellway development at the old BT Radio station site so it does serve a purpose.

[zarjaz1991]

Hackney said:

I don't have a not parked, can I still park there?
Nor do I have a not in the road, should I park on the verge?

Just...no need for this.
Poor spelling and grammar winds me up as well, but is there any need to disrupt the discussion with that?
(I'm aware the same question couild be asked of this post also!)

[herewego]

zarjaz1991 said:

Hackney said:

I don't have a not parked, can I still park there?
Nor do I have a not in the road, should I park on the verge?

Just...no need for this.
Poor spelling and grammar winds me up as well, but is there any need to disrupt the discussion with that?
(I'm aware the same question couild be asked of this post also!)

It would be nice to think that a calm explanation would be helpful but in fact it doesn't matter how polite or how rude a correction is, it is never taken kindly anyway.

[Hackney]

herewego said:

zarjaz1991 said:

Hackney said:

I don't have a not parked, can I still park there?
Nor do I have a not in the road, should I park on the verge?

Just...no need for this.
Poor spelling and grammar winds me up as well, but is there any need to disrupt the discussion with that?
(I'm aware the same question couild be asked of this post also!)

It would be nice to think that a calm explanation would be helpful but in fact it doesn't matter how polite or how rude a correction is, it is never taken kindly anyway.

Sorry, but I'm fed up with it. This and "could / would / should of" are currently really annoying me as I try to educate my son properly. Where do people learn this rubbish? I judge those who do it and the threads they post in.

Apologies for the disruption.

[herewego]

Hackney said:

herewego said:

zarjaz1991 said:

Hackney said:

I don't have a not parked, can I still park there?
Nor do I have a not in the road, should I park on the verge?

Just...no need for this.
Poor spelling and grammar winds me up as well, but is there any need to disrupt the discussion with that?
(I'm aware the same question couild be asked of this post also!)

It would be nice to think that a calm explanation would be helpful but in fact it doesn't matter how polite or how rude a correction is, it is never taken kindly anyway.

Sorry, but I'm fed up with it. This and "could / would / should of" are currently really annoying me as I try to educate my son properly. Where do people learn this rubbish? I judge those who do it and the threads they post in.

Apologies for the disruption.

I saw a solicitor write "would of" yesterday. I think there's no hope.

[Riley Blue]

surveyor_101 said:

Slidingpillar said:

First picture intrigues me. Not for the obvious reasons, but where do the pedestrians go once they've crossed the road? I see no footpath before and aft and it doesn't look the sort of place that would have a footpath leading out.

Perhaps relates to future development but at the moment, the crossing and lights just look an excuse to justify the 30 limit.

I think people cross the road and access their the field to walk their dogs etc.

The lower level street light to the right suggests some sort of right of way.

[Ramona]

Would your local newspaper be interested in running a story? That would get publicity while retaining your anonymity.

Down here, the local rag is always on the lookout for "free" stories, especially if you can provide them with some photographs to go with it.

[herewego]

Ramona said:

Would your local newspaper be interested in running a story? That would get publicity while retaining your anonymity.

Down here, the local rag is always on the lookout for "free" stories, especially if you can provide them with some photographs to go with it.

According to silverfox there's no offence committed so I can't think why they would be interested.

[Pip1968]

Maybe because despite the naysayers the van is obstucting safety of pedestrians. If you are crossing a busy/fast road why not cross at lights whether they have a green man or not. Motorists that have done any sort of progressive driving know that a crossing point is somewhere to be aware of whether a red light is shown or not.

The van blocks the view at a natural crossing point. How many miles of road have they got to choose from and they chose an area marked with zig zags.

The newspaper article should ask who is more important a motorist speeding or a pedestrian having a safe crossing - ???

It is like something out of the film 'iRobot' - who do you save?????

Pip

[Cliftonite]

It is not unknown for crossing zig zags to extend alongside marked parking bays let into the pavement area.

[vonhosen]

Cliftonite said:

It is not unknown for crossing zig zags to extend alongside marked parking bays let into the pavement area.

Indeed

[drf765]

Pip1968 said:

Maybe because despite the naysayers the van is obstucting safety of pedestrians. If you are crossing a busy/fast road why not cross at lights whether they have a green man or not. Motorists that have done any sort of progressive driving know that a crossing point is somewhere to be aware of whether a red light is shown or not.

The van blocks the view at a natural crossing point. How many miles of road have they got to choose from and they chose an area marked with zig zags.

The newspaper article should ask who is more important a motorist speeding or a pedestrian having a safe crossing - ???

It is like something out of the film 'iRobot' - who do you save?????

Pip

Well a careful motorist approaching a crossing where this van is parked will need to take even more care if the sight to the crossing is affected, simple.

[Cliftonite]

vonhosen said:

Cliftonite said:

It is not unknown for crossing zig zags to extend alongside marked parking bays let into the pavement area.

Indeed

Whilst being at best unsatisfactory when this layout is used with pedestrian light signals (as in the case of the parked Police van) when it is used at a Zebra/Belisha crossing, as above, in vonhosen's picture, (where it is vital that drivers, and pedestrians wishing to cross, can see each other clearly) this layout is clearly dangerous and the 'designers' should be made aware of their stupidity/incompetence.

[CoolHands]

It may be legal, for them, but it's clearly moronic. Not much else to say really, is there.

[surveyor_101]

Avon and Somerset have long been a shower.

Do as they please in many cases, seen numerous pcsos on blue light or in marked police car speeding with hazards on the wrong side of the road.

Their traffics/arv officer is bully people through reds lights despite signing up to blue lights aware. And it being contrary to their training.

Going back 19 years ago I was knocked off my bike by a marked police car for riding a bike without lights!

I am not anti police and served with Devon and Cornwall but I have never been impressed with the antics of Avon and Somerset. This somes them up, do as we say not as we do, is very much the force mantra.