'Legal' Yellow Lines..... |
Helping the motorist get justice
Helping the motorist get justice
'Legal' Yellow Lines..... |
 Tue, 15 Aug 2006 - 23:40
Post
#1
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 22 Mar 2006 From: West Yorkshire. Member No.: 5,081  |
O.K. So I've read various references to whether a yellow line is 'legal' or not......
Whilst I was out today,I spotted a single yellow line which butted right up to the start of the 'zig-zag's that you get,approaching a pelican crossing. It did not have a 'cross bar' at the point where it jioned the zig-zag's !! So,am I correct in thinkung that this line was not legal ?? As in....if it does NOT have a terminating 'cross bar',then it can't be enforced. Is this the same for ANY yellow line,please ?? |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Tue, 15 Aug 2006 - 23:40
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 00:09
Post
#2
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 1,119 Joined: 21 Jun 2005 From: Poole, Dorset Member No.: 3,211 |
Pretty much, yeah.
Sounds like you are at the "Blimey look how many of these lines are wrong, surely the council can't be that incompetant, I must have missed something?!" stage. It is quite supprising how many lines are wrong. These days I'm supprised if I find any which are right. -------------------- Andrew.
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 07:34
Post
#3
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 4,428 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
QUOTE (Jayen4 @ Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 00:40)  O.K. So I've read various references to whether a yellow line is 'legal' or not...... Whilst I was out today,I spotted a single yellow line which butted right up to the start of the 'zig-zag's that you get,approaching a pelican crossing. It did not have a 'cross bar' at the point where it jioned the zig-zag's !! So,am I correct in thinkung that this line was not legal ?? As in....if it does NOT have a terminating 'cross bar',then it can't be enforced. Is this the same for ANY yellow line,please ?? First we should look at the meaning of T Bar and why its so named. T is for Termination which means end of the line just as when trains Terminate at the end of the line. The absence of a T Bar at the zig zags of both sides of the crossing means simply that the restriction is NOT Terminated and continues after the zig zags. The zig zags are a restriction in themselves. -------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 08:43
Post
#4
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,783 Joined: 6 Jul 2006 Member No.: 6,518 |
that is one imaginative interpretation
is there then no need for the terminating bars of the pelican crossing zig-zags if there is another pelican crossing down the road - the pelican restrictions in the same way running under the yellow lines ?? the regulations require the line to terminate in a t-bar |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 11:27
Post
#5
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 1 Dec 2004 Member No.: 1,969 |
I did find something once that stated that overlaid markings such as crossings and even parking bays were just that, considered to be an overlay and thus the yellow lines didn't need a T bar.
David. |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 12:26
Post
#6
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,119 Joined: 21 Jun 2005 From: Poole, Dorset Member No.: 3,211 |
Or, the diagram in which double and single yellow lines are defined shows an end bar and has no permitted varients allowing the removal of it.
-------------------- Andrew.
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 13:04
Post
#7
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,428 Joined: 19 Oct 2003 From: Lancashire Member No.: 436 |
QUOTE (Ziltro @ Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 13:26) Or, the diagram in which double and single yellow lines are defined shows an end bar and has no permitted varients allowing the removal of it. 
-------------------- DW190
BLUNT PENCILS ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN SHARP MEMORIES |^^^^^^^^^^^\|| |www.PePiPoo.com_||'""|""\_____ |_________________||__ |__|____|) |(@) |(@)""**|(@)(@)**|(@)|(@) Frequently Asked Questions |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 13:23
Post
#8
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,783 Joined: 6 Jul 2006 Member No.: 6,518 |
the idea that a parking bay or zig-zag crossing is just an idea
which apparently has no legal basis even PATAS in minier v camden accepted that t-bars were required in law but allowed them on the basis of de minimis variation this is subject to the challenge of the proper legal authoriites of davies v heatley and cotterill v chapmen |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 13:30
Post
#9
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 95 Joined: 22 Mar 2006 From: West Yorkshire. Member No.: 5,081 |
O.K. Difference of opinions here !
 Someone please tell me if my following 'interpretation' is correct or not...... ''If the yellow line does NOT have a 'T' bar at the end of it,then it is not enforceable,regardless of whether it butts up to 'zig zags' or any other type of restriction'' Answer yes or no,please ! Also,same for yellow lines with 'breaks' in them.....for road repairs or for whatever reason,some of the line is 'missing' . 
|
|
|
|
|
Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 14:31
Post
#10
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,783 Joined: 6 Jul 2006 Member No.: 6,518 |
a yellow line requires t-bars where it trminates under the regulations
the patas minier v camden decision said that missing t-bars were required but were not fatal under the de minimis principle - this is open to challenge as minier did not cite the proper supporting authoriites see my post 'how to claim on mising t-bars http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=12740 councils are of the opinion that yellow lines do not need t-bars where the yellow line ends but a differently marked parking restriction such as a parking bay or a zig-zag crossing starts - the yellow line in their opinion continues 'under' this other section and restarts the other side and so requires no t-bars this is not tested in law but for the moment is supported by the minier decision although they are based on diffent legal arguments missing and broken lines are not valid (subject to de minimis) This post has been edited by dominicp: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 - 14:32 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 25th May 2013 - 05:16 |
