14th June 2017 at 4:30 pm #3413DrizParticipant
We have an issue at a small number of sites where cars are being parked on wide footways alongside the zigzag markings for pedestrian crossings. These vehicles are presenting a visibility problem for school children waiting to cross at one zebra crossing in particular, which of course raises a road safety concern for parents. The advice from the police is that they would not take action as no ‘obstruction’ is taking place on the footway due to it’s width and as the vehicles are not being parked within the confines of the pedestrian crossing area no offence was taking place that they could enforce on.
According to regulations the no stopping zigzag marking restriction applies purely to the on-carriageway area either side of the crossing point. It apparently doesn’t apply the adjacent footway or verge.
The site isn’t suitable for the introduction of bollards or railings due to underground services etc and so I had instead intended on introducing a double yellow line outside of the zigzag marking that just applied to the footway rather than the carriageway – as that could be displayed as such on our mapped TROs. I have however been told that this is not permitted combination of road marking, but I can’t find any reference to this either in previous 2002 TSRGD or current 2016. When asked, my senior engineer wasn’t entirely sure why he thought it was so, but he was certain that it wasn’t permitted and said that this was raised by LAs outside of London and they were intending to deal with this in the 2016 TSRGD, but it was not actioned.
Any ideas where I might find that Regulation or Direction that specifically says that parking restrictions cannot be applied to the outside area of a pedestrian crossing? Otherwise I’m tempted to proceed and claim ignorance….14th June 2017 at 5:30 pm #3850
This problem is raised quite often. To answer your actual question, the place in TSRGD where is says what road markings may be used within a zebra controlled area is in its definition in Schedule 1 on page 36. As you rightly say, the controlled area only applies to the carriageway, but the definition prevents ‘incompatible’ signs and markings being placed “in or near” the area. I don’t think the issue of “how near is near?” has ever been tested in any widely available judgement or adjudication. Arguably it could prevent yellow lines being butted up to the end of the zig-zags, as they commonly are. If you can argue that the footway (being wide) is not particularly ‘near’ the controlled area, then go ahead with your double yellow on it. If you were planning to put it on the carriageway though, I would advise against doing so.
However, the advice I have given to authorities previously on this issue is just to make the no waiting at any time order that applies to length of road in question (and, as you say, show it on any map-based schedules or by means of the start and end points in a text-based one). The correct way to sign and mark such an order within a zebra controlled area is … nothing at all! But that does not invalidate the order. A traffic authority is perfectly entitled to make such an order, it has been correctly made and signed in accordance with TSRGD and TSM. Therefore the no waiting order is enforceable across the entire width of the highway, notwithstanding the lack of signing.
It would also be prudent to put in your evidence to the adjudicator if anyone appeals on the grounds of inadequate signing, that it is impossible to place a vehicle on the footway in question without committing the criminal offence of driving on a footway. Add that it would be unreasonable to expect a traffic authority to provide signing that was only for the benefit of people intending to commit a criminal offence.
A number of authorities are doing what I have outlined above, as far as I am aware without ever having lost an appeal on this point.
Hope that helps,
Simon1st January 2018 at 3:32 pm #3851
I recently received a fixed penalty for driving on a footpath after I parked on a wide pavement adjacent to a pedestrian crossing. In Scotland it is not an offence to park on a footpath so how else are you supposed to get there without driving on it. Sub section 3 of section 34 of the road traffic act 1988 states it is not an offence under this act to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on ANY land within 15 yards of a road, and road being a place where a mechanically propelled vehicle is entitled to be if the sole intention is to park the vehicle. I defender myself in a trial which lasted 5 hours and my motion of no case to answer was upheld. Bottom line it is not an offence to park on a footpath except for in London unless you are obstructing the footpath.1st January 2018 at 3:32 pm #3852
That’s why I advise the authority to make a “no waiting or loading at any time” order covering the controlled area of the crossing. That restriction applies to the whole highway (including the footways) so nullifies any possibility that it is permitted to park on (and therefore drive on) the footways adjacent to the crossing.1st October 2018 at 3:35 pm #3853
You would still have to sign the waiting order. To make it clear have the restriction and sign NWAAT on footway / verge1st October 2018 at 3:35 pm #3854
There is no vertical sign prescribed for NWAAT. And double yellow lines on the footway would look rather strange and arguably be non-compliant. So I say, just make the order and then put up all the signs that are legally prescribed (within a crossing controlled area) for such a restriction, the sum total of which is … none at all.26th October 2018 at 3:35 pm #3855
I’ve seen map-based orders that specifically target footway areas adjacent to zigzags and bus stops. They are then signed with “NWAAT on footway” (old TSRGD 2002 Diag 637.1). No road markings used.26th October 2018 at 3:35 pm #3856
Yes, that’s possible to reinforce the message, although strictly speaking it is not one of the signs permitted “in or near” a crossing controlled area. The no waiting symbol implies that loading is permitted on the footway, so I’d use the variant with the no stopping (642) roundel. It’s now prescribed using S4-3-5 (or 6).26th October 2018 at 3:35 pm #3857
Good point about it not being permitted “in or near” a controlled area. However, these signs would normally be at the back of a wide footway (wide enough to wholly park on) so the signs wouldn’t be “near” in the sense that they’d interfere with the operation of the crossing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.