Another Yellow Line Query

[Alice Cupra]

sorry, guys, another yellow line query (have tried seaching but can't find the answer to this specific one......)

It has been said before (by DVD) that :

"The yellow line is indicated at Image 126 of 337 Diagram 1018 [of TSRGD 2002] and has to comply with that shown including the T bar.......
....Also not necessary where a line meets a pedestrian crossing or a parking bay."

It now seems that someone in Kirklees council has had nightmares about this and sent out the local line painting crew to make sure that all the yellow lines in the district have the T-bars on them.

However, as well as making sure they are painted at the start and end of the lines, they have also now seen fit to put T-bars where the lines meet a pedestrian crossing.

As DVD said "not necessary where a line meets a pedestrian crossing or a parking bay...."

Are they just "not necessary" (i.e. they can have them if someone can be bothered to paint them in), or does their presence now make the line unenforcable??

[7db]

They are enforceable, but unnecessary -- as they look like one of the lines in TSRGD.

[alice Cupra]

Thanks 7db.

Looks like they may have got caught out by some unenforcable lines in the past, and were spending up their highways budget before the tax-year-end...........

[Dwight VanDriver]

Does not the 'T' bar indicate the commencement/termination of the 1017/1018 waiting restriction, the total length of which is set out in the Traffic Regulation No Waiting Order.

By ending/starting the restriction at Parking Bays/Crossings, if they have not ammended the Order to take out these areas, which have their prohibitions elsewhere, then could that certain Manchester Solicitor make capital of this and claim the Order is unenforceable.?

TVRgit,I believe your signage knowledge and access to references far superceed mine - your comment appreciated.

dvd

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Tuesday 2nd May 08:38

[7db]

Good question, DVD. It could be that the zigzags (etc) are sufficient in the bench's mind to denote a continuation of the restriction. Would be interested to hear a more informed view.

[vonhosen]

Always been my understanding there is no need for a "T" bar where meeting a pedestrian crossing, because the yellow line effectively is continuous under the crossing markings, so to speak.

[alice Cupra]

7db said:

Good question, DVD. It could be that the zigzags (etc) are sufficient in the bench's mind to denote a continuation of the restriction.

These are on pelican-type crossings, rather than zebras, so there aren't actually any zig-zags on the approaches.

The lines have been T-barred as they meet the "studded" controlled-area of the crossing, (I say "studded" as they are painted "studs" rather than the metal ones) where you would expect the lines to go "under" the crossing markings.

[rodney59]

alice Cupra said:

7db said: Good question, DVD. It could be that the zigzags (etc) are sufficient in the bench's mind to denote a continuation of the restriction. These are on pelican-type crossings, rather than zebras, so there aren't actually any zig-zags on the approaches. The lines have been T-barred as they meet the "studded" controlled-area of the crossing, (I say "studded" as they are painted "studs" rather than the metal ones) where you would expect the lines to go "under" the crossing markings.

But what about parking bays?

Around where I work in London, the council have now painted white car parking bays on the road and just removed (rather badly in places) the double/single yellow lines and terminated each line with a T bar next to the car bays. (some of these bays are 100 yards long).

Surely without changing the Order the yellow lines, each side of the bays would now be incorrect?

[7db]

In London, I'm afraid, you are stuffed. View of the law is based on the adjudicator, who is not bound by the usual constraints of needing to follow what is written in statute / SI. He will more usually base his view (AIUI) on whether the intention was clear, rather than whether the letter of the law was followed.