Broken/unbarred double yellows?
Discussion
To bring in a statutory Prohibition in relation to No Waiting LA have to make a Traffic Regulation Order under RTRA 84.
This Order will stipulate the length of road involved, the effect of the order (partial - single yellow or total- double).If you can check it to ensure correct length of road has been marked.
It has to be signed by both plates and road markings in accordance with Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002:
www.tinyurl.com/b9kq
The yellow line is indicated at Image 126 of 337 Diagram 1018 (scroll half way down to reach)and has to comply with that shown including the T bar.
The absence has been used to show the signing illegal therefore restriction not enforceable. But, care should be taken as the T Bar could be round a corner,or the area might join another restriction meaning no T Bar required. Also not necessary where a line meets a pedestrian crossing or a parking bay.
IIRC then parking fine increases if not paid within a certain amount of time but this is put on hold if your appeal is made within the smaller fine time zone.
DVD
This Order will stipulate the length of road involved, the effect of the order (partial - single yellow or total- double).If you can check it to ensure correct length of road has been marked.
It has to be signed by both plates and road markings in accordance with Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002:
www.tinyurl.com/b9kq
The yellow line is indicated at Image 126 of 337 Diagram 1018 (scroll half way down to reach)and has to comply with that shown including the T bar.
The absence has been used to show the signing illegal therefore restriction not enforceable. But, care should be taken as the T Bar could be round a corner,or the area might join another restriction meaning no T Bar required. Also not necessary where a line meets a pedestrian crossing or a parking bay.
IIRC then parking fine increases if not paid within a certain amount of time but this is put on hold if your appeal is made within the smaller fine time zone.
DVD
king hell DVD! 
Good show sir! Dwight VanDriver said:
No Ghost just an old sad Traffic Officer.....
The bloke asked a question and as he is now contributing to my pension he deserves an answer....
Three and half per cent next April. Gas and leck up by 8 per cent. Thinking about doing a rob any suggestions?
DVD
I hear the scamera partnerships have plenty of cash hanging around
Thanks DVD/others,
Looked at the link, nice link. I was on a section of road with 2 patches breaking the lines and also an entrance to a side alleyway at 90 degrees to the road.
The markings there are unusual to say the least. The main road has the double yellows which end at the alleyway. They are unbarred and continue across the alleyway entrance as a single dotted line befdore becoming doubles after crossing the alleyway.
DWD, ever seen this before? The link says 'no variants'.
Boosted.
Looked at the link, nice link. I was on a section of road with 2 patches breaking the lines and also an entrance to a side alleyway at 90 degrees to the road.
The markings there are unusual to say the least. The main road has the double yellows which end at the alleyway. They are unbarred and continue across the alleyway entrance as a single dotted line befdore becoming doubles after crossing the alleyway.
DWD, ever seen this before? The link says 'no variants'.
Boosted.
Dwight VanDriver said:
No Ghost just an old sad Traffic Officer.....
The bloke asked a question and as he is now contributing to my pension he deserves an answer....
Three and half per cent next April. Gas and leck up by 8 per cent. Thinking about doing a rob any suggestions?
DVD
B&Q?
>> Edited by outrider on Thursday 25th November 10:08
Dwight VanDriver said:
No Ghost just an old sad Traffic Officer.....
The bloke asked a question and as he is now contributing to my pension he deserves an answer....
Three and half per cent next April. Gas and leck up by 8 per cent. Thinking about doing a rob any suggestions?
DVD
All the same, the speed an efficiency with which the answers come back is astounding.
I take my hat off to you sir!
Boosted.
You have me flummoxed to what you describe. I understand that the start/end of the DYL has to have a T Bar except where it meets a parking bay or zebra crossing. These virtually superimpose themselves on top of the yellow as a restriction in themselves.
I am of the opinion that where the line passes across the alleyway then in should be complete or T Barred and the fact mentioned in the Order as not applying to that part of the road.
Just had some yellow perils x 2 on the road where our lane meets it and they have gone straight across with the lines, no breaks. Normally at road junctions they wrap round into the joining road and T barred but you say it is only an alley. Has there been any resurfacing recently in that area?
I should consider lodging an appeal, nicely as bluntness and sarcasm will get the adjudicators back up, if I were you on the grounds that because of the break the signs do not comply with TSGD and therefore the restriction is unlawful.Photo may help.
Incidentally are you in a large town where the Council have invoked a Controlled Parking Zone - blanket waiting restriction for the area? In which plate signs only required on roads at the start of the Zone.
As I have said get the appeal in before 14 days of receipt of the ticket and you should preserve the 50% reduction if adjudicator does not accept your submission. Don't get false hopes but survey recently published 2 out of every three appeals succeed. Advise any outcome.
To the rest of you Gents thanks for the kind words...
DVD
You have me flummoxed to what you describe. I understand that the start/end of the DYL has to have a T Bar except where it meets a parking bay or zebra crossing. These virtually superimpose themselves on top of the yellow as a restriction in themselves.
I am of the opinion that where the line passes across the alleyway then in should be complete or T Barred and the fact mentioned in the Order as not applying to that part of the road.
Just had some yellow perils x 2 on the road where our lane meets it and they have gone straight across with the lines, no breaks. Normally at road junctions they wrap round into the joining road and T barred but you say it is only an alley. Has there been any resurfacing recently in that area?
I should consider lodging an appeal, nicely as bluntness and sarcasm will get the adjudicators back up, if I were you on the grounds that because of the break the signs do not comply with TSGD and therefore the restriction is unlawful.Photo may help.
Incidentally are you in a large town where the Council have invoked a Controlled Parking Zone - blanket waiting restriction for the area? In which plate signs only required on roads at the start of the Zone.
As I have said get the appeal in before 14 days of receipt of the ticket and you should preserve the 50% reduction if adjudicator does not accept your submission. Don't get false hopes but survey recently published 2 out of every three appeals succeed. Advise any outcome.
To the rest of you Gents thanks for the kind words...
DVD
Thanks DVD,
May I send you a pic. Normally where I see dotted yellow lines they may be across a bus laybye or similar. In which case iirc the double yellows still follow the kerb outline.
This marking is unusual, I've never seen a dotted yellow going across a private alleyway. The double yellows don't go into the alleyway and aren't barred. They go from double yellow to dotted single yellow and back to double yellow, no end bars.
I'm sure it's all incorrect and irregular, not to mention the breaks and lack of end bars.
Boosted.
May I send you a pic. Normally where I see dotted yellow lines they may be across a bus laybye or similar. In which case iirc the double yellows still follow the kerb outline.
This marking is unusual, I've never seen a dotted yellow going across a private alleyway. The double yellows don't go into the alleyway and aren't barred. They go from double yellow to dotted single yellow and back to double yellow, no end bars.
I'm sure it's all incorrect and irregular, not to mention the breaks and lack of end bars.
Boosted.
Also just to add, I read of one person whose appeal was denied and the adjudicator used the term "the law does not concern itself with trifles", however see the commentary at this chap's site - Take note of the quote that lines on the road = a sign, and read the page in that context:
www.rmbconsulting.co.uk/
Gareth
www.rmbconsulting.co.uk/
Gareth
Thanks chaps, good link by the way. I sent my paperwork off yesterday and reminded them about statute! Tha adjudicator had dismissed my appeal saying that the signage was 'reasonable' even though I had pointed out that the lines were broken and unbarred.
He won't be happy now I've asked for his decision to be reviewed. I sent the specification for the lines as required by statute, some more piccy's, the BBC News extract and a letter from my local authority saying unbarred laws are unenforcible (they still pursue you for the dosh though.
I'll post the result when I get it.
Boosted.
He won't be happy now I've asked for his decision to be reviewed. I sent the specification for the lines as required by statute, some more piccy's, the BBC News extract and a letter from my local authority saying unbarred laws are unenforcible (they still pursue you for the dosh though.
I'll post the result when I get it.
Boosted.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Boosted
Incidentally I can confirm Mr Bentley is a top bloke.
Got to be as he was from my old force.
DVD
Ah yes, I remember a Mr Bentley being involved when two North Yorkshire police officers were charged with exceeding the 50 mph speed limit at Charltons (near Guisborough) just over a year ago. Included in the local press coverage of the incident were some comments by the Chief Executive of Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council. His remarks provoked me into writing the following letter:
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Town Hall
Fabian Road Tel. (01642) 444000.
South Bank
Middlesbrough
TS6 9AR.
For the attention of Mr. Colin Moore - Chief Executive.
RCBC-01. 9 September 2003.
Dear Mr. Moore,
A SENSE OF PROPORTION IN ROAD SAFETY.
I refer to the recent unfortunate incident in which two officers from North Yorkshire Police were charged with exceeding the 50 mph speed limit on the A171 near Charltons.
While many people will naturally disapprove of the law being broken in this way, especially by police officers, I question whether your reported comments on the case are soundly based. The fact that you are the Chief Executive of a local authority does not, of itself, qualify you to judge these matters.
According to the Whitby Gazette dated Friday 15 August, you are reported to have said:
‘There is no dispute that the officers were speeding and the place they were doing it was clearly unsafe to travel at that speed. This is a dangerous stretch of road and is clearly signed with warnings about the high rate of accidents’.
I have seen some of the signs, and the message they seek to convey is nonsense. At least one of the signs near Scaling Dam referred to 111 casualties in three years, and until recently that sign had been presenting exactly the same message for no less than two years to my knowledge. It can not possibly have been correct throughout that period. If you are going to quote statistics, they have got to be right.
Since September 1960 I have driven between Scarborough and Middlesbrough hundreds of times, and I do not believe the 50 mph limit is necessary all the time on the stretch of the A171 between Birk Brow and Guisborough. In good conditions an experienced and fully competent driver can safely exceed that speed - in places - without causing any problem at all.
According to my information one of the police officers involved is a highly trained advanced driver, and should therefore have high level driving skills and an understanding of the subject that you, so far as I am aware, do not have. If I am mistaken about your driving qualifications, I trust you will let me know.
Should you care to substantiate your allegation that their conduct amounted to unsafe driving, by all means do so, but on any rational basis being seen to drive faster that a speed limit can not be taken as reliable evidence of dangerous driving. It must inevitably depend on all the circumstances at the time.
In view of my comments above, please do not make the further mistake of concluding that I am indifferent to the subject of road safety, as nothing could be further from the truth. I would dearly love to see less of the suffering that results from road accidents, but we really need to put more effort into trying to get people to take more interest in their driving and raise their skill levels. If you truly wish to see improvements in road safety, I would ask you to support my campaign.
I am enclosing the first seven of my leaflets on the subject, and I hope you will find these of interest. You may heartily disapprove of ‘Mr. 3.4 Jaguar’ but he had skills that are still relevant today.
We are making a fundamental mistake by placing too much emphasis on compliance with speed limits. There is much more to safe driving than simply the speed factor. Let us all enjoy improving our ability to drive safely in a spirit of mutual support, and try to encourage other road users to do the same.
Yours sincerely,
David Knowles.
Copy (letter only) to:
Mr. Sean Price, Chief Constable, Cleveland Police.
Ms. Della Cannings, Chief Constable, North Yorkshire Police.
Inspector Tim Hutchinson/Sgt. Graham Lee, North Yorkshire Police, Whitby.
Sgt. Chris Charlton, North Yorkshire Police, Scarborough.
No reply was received from Mr. Moore.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff