Jump to content

Shortest Double Yellow Lines in SE22?


Recommended Posts

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was under the impression you had to have your

> wheels on the lines to get a ticket.

>

> ...SO could you park your car with its wheels

> either side of the lines. ???

>

> DulwichFox


I think it's any part of your vehicle between the two end bars - hence you can often appeal if the end bars are missing or incomplete. Stand to be corrected though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was under the impression you had to have your

> wheels on the lines to get a ticket.

>

> ...SO could you park your car with its wheels

> either side of the lines. ???


I always thought it was based on the wheels, too, but just checking on t'net I see that it is indeed any part of your car overhanging the prohibited area. If it's just a little bit over, you can usually often appeal on the principle of de minimus (the law does not deal in trifling matters), but since you'd be straddling the entire length of this particular line you'd probably fail.


Mind you, you might be able to appeal on the basis that the line is pretty damn de minimus in itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the left of the double yellows is a white bar to prevent parking across a driveway. To the right is nothing. The line painters have presumably been told to mark lines from the junction with Red Post Hill to a point x metres along East Dulwich Grove. They've done this, carefully ending with a bar as they've come to each driveway and restarting on the other side. However, "x metres" is a point about 40 centimetres the other side of a driveway and they've dutifully marked the lines rather than take the pragmatic view that they're a bit bloody pointless! (I would guess that the line markers are not authorized to use common sense.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No idea. Ask One Dulwich   No. There are two seperate issues. I believe some cover their plates deliberately (delivery drivers etc) and a number are confused by signage. I spend a lot of time in that area and have only ever seen one car drive through and it was an elderly couple who were incredibly confused (and subsequently very apologetic to an angry cyclist who was calling them all the names under the sun).   Some questions for you to answer now: 1) Which consultation are you referring to? 2) Did you agree with the council's insistence on keeping the junction closed to emergency vehicles despite the emergency services telling them it was delaying response times?   3) At a time of funding crisis do you think £1.5m is a good spend to redesign a junction and those redesigns: - potentially increase emergency vehicle response times - do nothing to stop persistent number plate covering offenders - do nothing to slow cyclists at a pedestrian area  
    • I tell you what, I've answered every question you've posed to me on this thread so far, so before you deflect any further, why don't you address the simple questions I've put to you several times first. Here, give them a go: Who has been pressurising the emergency services and how? Do you genuinely believe that people are partially covering their plates and driving through the square due to inadequate signage?  
    • Which original consultation?    Err be careful with the expert opinion and data part.....if you think the cycle lobby and Aldred et al is the sole source of sound opinion on such issues! 😉 And this is where they fell foul of the law and had to re-run the consultation. It actually casts huge doubt on a lot of previous consultations (including the latest DV one) as they do not pass the legal watermark because they do not provide a yes/no response. The council are terrified of a judicial review because, I suspect under legal advice, they know they cheated the system in many previous consultations. Do you remember when the council claimed they had a mandate for the CPZs because of some seriously dodgy research conducted with a large tranche of students in the north of the borough in 2018.....
    • Perhaps the issue is that Southwark don’t listen. They didn’t take account of responses. The proposed CPZs for west Dulwich  stopped when the Council was threatened with a judicial review. Not before. Whatever consultation process was worse than flawed with McAsh arguing that because they were in power, they had a mandate and didn’t need to listen to anyone’s views, rendering any democratic process void. The criteria for LTNs was high population density, high public transport usage and low car ownership so Dulwich Village was a perfect candidate…not. Just a coincidence but I believe some councillors live within the scheme 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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