Jump to content

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.

What is not clear, I now realise, from the picture, is what is the parking opportunity on either side of this yellow? If is is placed to obviate parking on either side (because the spaces left are too small) it's quite an economic use of the paint.

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...

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.)

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

    • I hate the idea of someone with a genuine disability losing money, it's heart-breaking. I thought the whole idea of these cuts was to get kids with mental health issues, which we used to call 'the human condition', off benefits and into a job. Before anyone says anything, I'm not talking about people with severe autism.  If the tests are so astringent, Spartacus, how come healthy youngsters with anxiety are getting benefits? It's ludicrous.  This from The Times:  Then there is mental health. This is the fastest-growing category of claim; anxiety and depression is now the single biggest reason to claim PIPs, accounting for 16 per cent of spending. Including problems such as autism and ADHD, there are 1.4 million people claiming for “psychiatric disorders”, almost 40 per cent of the total.   NHS figures on Thursday found that 23 per cent of people of working age now have a mental disorder, up from 18 per cent a decade ago, rising to 26 per cent in 16 to 24 year-olds. Young people are most likely to claim benefits for mental health problems and there is growing concern about a generation who may do so for decades. The number of children on disability living allowance, the precursor to PIPs, will reach a million by the end of the decade, double pre-Covid levels. Most of these are for behavioural problems such as ADHD or learning disabilities  
    • I don't think anyone wants people who need support not to have it.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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