Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I wasn’t going to respond to this thread as my response was So! Not parking on double yellow lines is a well known rule and it’s common courtesy not to block someone’s s drive.

In the 40+ years I’ve been driving parking on a yellow line has risked a ticket and double yellow lines are often there for safety. I can’t think of any double yellow lines in Dulwich Village that are somewhere parking a car would not be inconsiderate to pedestrian’s or other road users. Sometimes double yellow lines appear to be in odd places but you can object. An order is needed before a double yellow line goes in and gives time to object, after they are in if you think it’s wrong you can contact the Council. It may or may not be removed.

Ianr whether there is a yellow line or not it’s common courtesy to leave someone’s driveway clear. How do you know they are not out shopping/will have someone in the car who can’t walk far without help or coming back from the hospital having just lost a relative. In any of those situations how would you feel if it was your driveway and you came back and it was blocked?

I’m sure one of the reasons there are more double yellow lines than when I started driving is to stop people parking inconsiderately or dangerously. Southwark has put in double yellow line junction protectors. The Highway Code might say DO NOT not MUST NOT but it also says DO NOT stop in a bus stop - I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s been on a bus that couldn’t get into the bus stop or held up by one.

We need some rules so we can avoid accidents most of the time sometimes they may inconvenience or delay us, other times they help us. Someone’s looking for a parking space for their van and sees one at the end of the road, gets there and there’s double yellow lines so parks somewhere else. Another driver is approaching that junction and sees someone walking along the pavement on their mobile phone and has time to slow gently not jolting their passenger with a bad back by needing to brake suddenly. The rules are not there for rules sake they are unfortunately needed as some people think of no one else once they get behind the wheel or even those that do don’t know the full situation when they are looking to park and need something to say not here.

Thanks for reading if you got to the end.

Well that has cleared things up! Sorry for sounding mean, I agree with your views


I got a ticket in Surrey once for parking across my friend's house. Locals were peed off with people taking a liberty. It was 20;years ago and in those days (a) police did get involved with such misdemeanours and(b) I could actually speak to someone and get it overturned


Fast forward 20 years and I can't get the Met or the council to take action when cars parked on doubles, and sometimes on the pavement on opposite side when there are large events at the banqueting house in Perry Vale. Pointing out that it creates a major hazard gets me nowhere. And yes I've raised it with my MP.


A mate in Bexley is so peed off with parents parking across his drive, due to his proximity to a secondary school, he is moving. He gets nowhere when he protests either to the parent or the school.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...