Endorseable offence?
Discussion
Guys,
Just stopped outside the offy for 2 minutes, on return 2 BiB looking at car, upshot was that I was parked in a "controlled crossing area" - I thought I was on double yellows
, but that rear of the car was obviously just over the zig zags on the pelican crossing nearby.
Anyway, got a producer and a 60 quid FPN
Just had a panic because looking at it it sas "Fixed Penalty Notice (endorseable offence)"
Please tell me I am not going to get points over this
Just stopped outside the offy for 2 minutes, on return 2 BiB looking at car, upshot was that I was parked in a "controlled crossing area" - I thought I was on double yellows
, but that rear of the car was obviously just over the zig zags on the pelican crossing nearby. Anyway, got a producer and a 60 quid FPN
Just had a panic because looking at it it sas "Fixed Penalty Notice (endorseable offence)"
Please tell me I am not going to get points over this
Seriously?
I can't believe I am going to get point on my license (for 4 years?) because of where I parked for 2 minutes. It wasn't dangerous, there was nobody around, I didn't even seen the pelican crossing.
Is it going to affect my insurance as much as an SP30 would?
Can't believe this...
>> Edited by nicecupoftea on Saturday 27th November 23:12
nicecupoftea said:
Seriously?
I can't believe I am going to get point on my license (for 4 years?) because of where I parked for 2 minutes. It wasn't dangerous, there was nobody around, I didn't even seen the pelican crossing.
Is it going to affect my insurance as much as an SP30 would?
Can't believe this...
>> Edited by nicecupoftea on Saturday 27th November 23:12
I don't know how many people get caught out like this.
I can fully understand the reasoning behind keeping the view of a crossing clear, particularly at rush hour, but most of the people I have seen getting hit are in similar circumstances to this, and it feels like a real liberty.
Hard lines old son, I doubt if there's anything you can do to defend this one.
Cheers.
Will go down tomorrow and check to make sure I was on the zig-zags, if I was then it was only barely.
If not, well, not much I can do is there.
, I drive like a saint most of the time, done my IAM, do my best to do the right thing.... Would it have hurt to give me a warning or advise me of what I had done? They didn't even mention points, just the fine.
Will go down tomorrow and check to make sure I was on the zig-zags, if I was then it was only barely.
If not, well, not much I can do is there.
, I drive like a saint most of the time, done my IAM, do my best to do the right thing.... Would it have hurt to give me a warning or advise me of what I had done? They didn't even mention points, just the fine. I know it's no consolation, but they've probably had a slow night, or didn't 'get any' the night before...
zero tolerance like that just serves to further hammer down the wedge between the police and the (motoring) public.
Simply saying "alright mate, your car's parked on the zigzags - i could do ya for it, and give you points as well, but i'm gonna let you off this time. Pop your docs down to the station and we'll leave it at that." would have made so much more sense than swelling another 60 quid out of the motorist.
A mate of mine is in the police, just out of probation - and he was told to excercise no discretion, if a offence was committed then it has to be penalised. It's highly possible that the two coppers were one probationer and one old hand, or a PCSO etc - still doesn't help, but it might justify.
Don't think any insurer in their right mind will load for a PC30 though... so I wouldn't worry about that unduly.
zero tolerance like that just serves to further hammer down the wedge between the police and the (motoring) public.
Simply saying "alright mate, your car's parked on the zigzags - i could do ya for it, and give you points as well, but i'm gonna let you off this time. Pop your docs down to the station and we'll leave it at that." would have made so much more sense than swelling another 60 quid out of the motorist.
A mate of mine is in the police, just out of probation - and he was told to excercise no discretion, if a offence was committed then it has to be penalised. It's highly possible that the two coppers were one probationer and one old hand, or a PCSO etc - still doesn't help, but it might justify.
Don't think any insurer in their right mind will load for a PC30 though... so I wouldn't worry about that unduly.
Just been down and had a look.
To be fair I was entirely on the zig-zags, so they got me bang to rights. Long zig-zags though, was at least a car length behind me and the crossing itself.
What was a little annoying though were the road works lorries sitting there, one on either side of the crossing, on the zig-zags, while the crossing was in use
Don't really feel that the punishment fits the crime, a word in my ear or a FPN would have ensured I never did it again, but I will be paying for the next 4 years through my insurance. What's the point?
Ah well, learn from it, move on
To be fair I was entirely on the zig-zags, so they got me bang to rights. Long zig-zags though, was at least a car length behind me and the crossing itself.
What was a little annoying though were the road works lorries sitting there, one on either side of the crossing, on the zig-zags, while the crossing was in use
Don't really feel that the punishment fits the crime, a word in my ear or a FPN would have ensured I never did it again, but I will be paying for the next 4 years through my insurance. What's the point?
Ah well, learn from it, move on
nicecupoftea said:
Don't really feel that the punishment fits the crime...
...a FPN would have ensured I never did it again...
Unfortunately there isn't the option of a non endorsable for this offence, so if it's a ticket, it's always going to be 3 points and £60.00
Is it a crossing where there have possibly been a few complaints, so the local BiB are having a crack down?
Could of course be as someone else posted, probationer and tutor type thingy.
They had a van round the corner, and there was another pair of them wandering around. No idea what they were up to, always very quiet around there.
Irritatingly, when they asked me to move my car (before they told me what they were doing me for) they told me to park it further up on double yellows, just before a traffic island - IMHO a much more dangerous place than where I'd left it!
They said they had just done another bloke for the same thing and he "wasn't very happy"...
Here's some pictures of the situation :
Firstly : here's a pic from the crossing. My car was parked from where the back of the lorry stops to the tree just beyond it. Notice where the truck is parked, and how the crossing is in use
Another view - the marked space was filled with cones and piles of bricks last night, so I stopped just before it, just before the tree. Some of the brick piles have been moved since.
Finally, here's a couple of pics roughly pasted together. The zig-zags end just at the right end of the picture; my car was parked roughly where the two stacks of bricks are. Notice the van just the other side of the crossing itself from the lorry.
Of course I was totally in the wrong, and I accept that. Just slightly frustrated at the severity of the penalty when IMHO I was causing nobody a problem...
>> Edited by nicecupoftea on Monday 29th November 01:59
Irritatingly, when they asked me to move my car (before they told me what they were doing me for) they told me to park it further up on double yellows, just before a traffic island - IMHO a much more dangerous place than where I'd left it!
They said they had just done another bloke for the same thing and he "wasn't very happy"...
Here's some pictures of the situation :
Firstly : here's a pic from the crossing. My car was parked from where the back of the lorry stops to the tree just beyond it. Notice where the truck is parked, and how the crossing is in use
Another view - the marked space was filled with cones and piles of bricks last night, so I stopped just before it, just before the tree. Some of the brick piles have been moved since.
Finally, here's a couple of pics roughly pasted together. The zig-zags end just at the right end of the picture; my car was parked roughly where the two stacks of bricks are. Notice the van just the other side of the crossing itself from the lorry.
Of course I was totally in the wrong, and I accept that. Just slightly frustrated at the severity of the penalty when IMHO I was causing nobody a problem...
>> Edited by nicecupoftea on Monday 29th November 01:59
nicecupoftea said:
They had a van round the corner, and there was another pair of them wandering around. No idea what they were up to, always very quiet around there.
Irritatingly, when they asked me to move my car (before they told me what they were doing me for) they told me to park it further up on double yellows, just before a traffic island - IMHO a much more dangerous place than where I'd left it!
They said they had just done another bloke for the same thing and he "wasn't very happy"...
Here's some pictures of the situation :
Firstly : here's a pic from the crossing. My car was parked from where the back of the lorry stops to the tree just beyond it. Notice where the truck is parked, and how the crossing is in use
Another view - the marked space was filled with cones and piles of bricks last night, so I stopped just before it, just before the tree. Some of the brick piles have been moved since.
Finally, here's a couple of pics roughly pasted together. The zig-zags end just at the right end of the picture; my car was parked roughly where the two stacks of bricks are. Notice the van just the other side of the crossing itself from the lorry.
Of course I was totally in the wrong, and I accept that. Just slightly frustrated at the severity of the penalty when IMHO I was causing nobody a problem...
>> Edited by nicecupoftea on Monday 29th November 01:59
Martin,
I've just had another look at this and saw your photographs. Are you saying that the position that you were parked in was behind the lorry coz it was actually there and so were all the cones and works going on; because if this is the case, it's a different ball game.
There is facility within the Road Traffic Act for temporary provision of regulations to have them altered, suspended whatever.
A classic example of this is the huge revenue made from temporary speed cameras at motorway road works, in some cases where the speed limit is reduced from NSL to as low as 30 MPH and is maintained even when the road is clear and no one is working.
If these works were being carried out and a commercial vehicle parked at an area that is coned off, I reckon that you would have a first class defence in claiming that you assumed suspension of regulations, otherwise the lorry should not have been parked there.
You can reinforce this by demonstrating absolutely that this lorry is quite clearly a seriously dangerous hazard to be parked at a crossing, (I mean, look at the photographs!!)
If you're being charged with the offence, why is the driver and company who owns the lorry not being charged with the same offence.
Lastly, it is clear from these photos that the crossing should have been suspended and the lights switched off for the duration of the works in the interests of pedestrian safety; you want to know why this was not the case and who is responsible for endangering the public.
You couldn't possibly be accused of obstructing vision on or near the crossing; your vehicle wouldn't even be in view behind a truck of that size.
Think about it.
IOLAIRE,
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately the lorry and van weren't there at the time. The cones and bricks were mostly in the marked out space that you can see in the second picture. The space behind my car was totally empty.
I do find it annoying that it's "okay" for the lorries to be there during construction work, but not for me (further away, smaller, nobody around, etc.)
It has further occurred to me that I wouldn't have been obstructing anybody's view as traffic driving towards the crossng would have been on the far side of the road from me - there's just no way I could be obstructing anybody's line of sight!
Further, it's a pelican crossing, and so the lights change when it is safe to cross, irrespective of where I am parked!
If I was a braver man perhaps it might be worth going to court over it, but all the prosecution would have to say was "were you parked on the zig-zag lines?" and I would be stuffed...
As it is I took my docs to the local cop shop this afternoon and my licence has gone away to be "decorated" 12 years without any points, it was only a matter of time...
Out of interest, how would you suggest I proceed with contacting the police about the apparently acceptible lorry parking? Probably not worth it, will just mark me out as a target and certainly won't get me off.
Just so frustrating (especially after the amount of atrocious driving I saw on the roads tonight!)...
Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately the lorry and van weren't there at the time. The cones and bricks were mostly in the marked out space that you can see in the second picture. The space behind my car was totally empty.
I do find it annoying that it's "okay" for the lorries to be there during construction work, but not for me (further away, smaller, nobody around, etc.)
It has further occurred to me that I wouldn't have been obstructing anybody's view as traffic driving towards the crossng would have been on the far side of the road from me - there's just no way I could be obstructing anybody's line of sight!
Further, it's a pelican crossing, and so the lights change when it is safe to cross, irrespective of where I am parked!
If I was a braver man perhaps it might be worth going to court over it, but all the prosecution would have to say was "were you parked on the zig-zag lines?" and I would be stuffed...
As it is I took my docs to the local cop shop this afternoon and my licence has gone away to be "decorated"
12 years without any points, it was only a matter of time... Out of interest, how would you suggest I proceed with contacting the police about the apparently acceptible lorry parking? Probably not worth it, will just mark me out as a target and certainly won't get me off.
Just so frustrating (especially after the amount of atrocious driving I saw on the roads tonight!)...
The whole point about this Martin is that either the builders or local authority have applied for the regs to be suspended for the duration of the works or they haven't.
If they have you're not guilty, it's as simple as that.
If they haven't, all the works vehicles are guilty, and you insist that they are all charged or you're let off; that's a powerful argument, and I would pursue it.
If they have you're not guilty, it's as simple as that.
If they haven't, all the works vehicles are guilty, and you insist that they are all charged or you're let off; that's a powerful argument, and I would pursue it.
Council will reply that under Zebra, Pelican,Puffin Pedestrian Crossing Regs 1997, Reg 22 exempts:
vehicle being used for purpose of any building operation,demolition or excavation.
in connection with road works
in connection with Gas, Electricity, serwage works etc.
So there is no need to make a Statutory instrument suspending the above Reg- its already been covered.
DVD
vehicle being used for purpose of any building operation,demolition or excavation.
in connection with road works
in connection with Gas, Electricity, serwage works etc.
So there is no need to make a Statutory instrument suspending the above Reg- its already been covered.
DVD
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff