Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
A parking conundrum in Crouch End
My neighbour got a ticket the other day, for parking across two pays on our road, Nelson Road, N8. The only weird thing is: We do not have parking bays. We just have lines. There is ONE random line, and that’s it. That was under his car, and he was told he was across two bays.
He is disputing it, of course, but I am now wondering: How can we get this weird line removed, and why is it there in the first place? We’re now getting a bit paranoid about jobsworth parking wardens giving out parking tickets when there’s no good reason for it. They’re just a pain in the a** to dispute, and no one wants the hassle, even though it’s pretty clear there’s no bay there, see photos.
Here's the one little line in question:
See - no bays!!!
Any suggestions?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Anette, now you're really asking.
Mr Weston says residents can park anywhere inside the bay. On either side of the line; or across the line. (You could even take your visitors on sightseeing trips around the bay. Wear a jaunty naval hat.)
But what about ensuring that common sense prevails "on the ground" now? And in the future after current staff have left for pastures new?
This reminds me of two very old jokes. One is the countryman who is asked for directions. He answers: “If I were you, I wouldn't start from here.” The other is the couple standing outside the door of an Italian Cathedral. A large notice reads:
Entrata - 500 Lire. Per un Miracolo - 1000 Lire
Actually you've already gone some way to solving this particular problem: by raising it publicly on HoL. Stuff on the Internet persists*. With efficient search engine software, retrieving past information and even turning it into present knowledge becomes significantly easier. Which of course is why it's even more important to get the facts accurate.
(Tottenham Hale troublemaker May 2014 onwards)
( * P.S. As some of our worst local politicians may not yet have grasped. I plan to help them out.)
-
Permalink Reply by Alexander Smith on
-
Hi Alan,
I'd be very surprised if parking across a line dividing 2 bays is not a contravention even if the vehicle is showing a permit valid for both. My neighbour got a ticket on Thursday for doing this. After all you'd get a penalty if you parked across the identical lines sometimes used for individual spaces within bays. Not only that, a car parked straddling the line will make it much harder for other drivers to spot the "changeover point".
The main problem I see is the confusing way these CPZs are micromanaged and over complicated. There is no reason, that I can guess, for CPZs like this to corral different permit holders into separate bays. I think that all permits should be valid for the whole CPZ with residents, businesses and, if possible, pay&display sharing all bays.
Of course there will always be some special cases - e.g. disabled, car club, and loading bays, so there is still the serious problem of people parking in the wrong bay accidentally. The root cause of this is the DfT guidance and diagram showing councils how they can join bays together by sharing end markings (Traffic Signs Manual Ch. 5 para 20.22 and fig. 20-7). In my view this is wrong because I cannot find any basis for it in the statutory regulations and the manual admits it cannot override these. Strangely, in the case of adjacent P&d bays of different types, this advice seems to be contradicted in Ch. 3 para. 7.23 where it says they should be completely separate and at least 100 mm apart. Also chapter 3 para. 7.51 warns councils there is a danger of confusion with adjacent bays and advises the use of extra signs at the boundary.
In any case the Council should, by now, know there is a problem and completely separated bays would go a long way to solving it.
There is also still the problem of "not as prescribed" markings. I've noticed that the markings where my neighbour parked are not even close to the spacing requirements in the Regulations - unlike the above this is inexcusable.
-
-
I've just realized that the line-sharing conjoined bays in fig. 20-7 mostly have legends. Perhaps that's why the people who wrote the manual thought they wouldn't need to be separate. Legends would certainly help with some other bays too e.g. Business. This is something I suggested when I complained to my councillor in 2012 after being ticketed for accidentally parking in one.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Neighbouring Barnet Borough has been knocked back in the High Court after trying to more-than-double the tax annual charge for Parking Permits. BBC story here.
This should have wide implications. And perhaps a warning for LBH, whose Parking profits surplus is already more than £6,000,000 and who are looking to further its reach.
Charm Offensive
Barnet is likely to Appeal. The council leader, conceded however that after five years of a price freeze, the council increased the price of permits "too abruptly and rather charmlessly".
-
-
I haven't yet seen the written judgement. But even if it says what I hope it says, I won't be entirely confident.
Hundreds of councils are now hopelessly addicted to their regular parking fine injections. This includes Haringey, of course, which depends on their fix of overcharged PCNs.
When I read about this earlier today I assumed a legal appeal was possible. Or an outraged plea in private to the Government by the Quango London Councils. Or perhaps more persuasively, a quiet word from Tory London boroughs which depend on parking income surplus to keep their council tax lower. An amending Bill may be along soon.
The parking tax has been a lucrative scam. Legalised Highway robbery in broad daylight. I've argued for several years that using the Parking Accounts to make huge profits was in complete defiance of the legislation.But local councils thought they'd got away with a perfect crime. Maybe they still will.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
Update 8pm. That splendid Barnet Blogger Mr Mustard has now posted a comment plus a link to the full judgement which I shall be savouring after a cold beer and some roast chicken with family visitors.
-
-
An amending Bill may be along soon.
Yes, that a piece of speculation I'd go along with (in the sense that I expect it, not welcome it).
Apropos the observations about the council's PCN addiction – I don't think they could survive going Cold Turkey, if that analogy doesn't put Alan off his roast chicken.
-
-
One of the things I have never been able to understand is why parking zones in the east of the borough run all day, while those elsewhere are for two hour periods to prevent commuter parking.
Michelle, could it be that, in east of the Borough, the designs of council officers are allowed to be implemented as officers want them, but in the west of the borough, their plans are blunted and moderated by local representatives who are more responsive to residents' wishes?
-
-
Then, of course, Clive, it could be sunspots, or ley lines, or perhaps Feng Shui.
Always more entertaining to speculate, eh? Rather than ask for boring old facts.
-
-
Good morning Alan!
First, I think Michelle has set out the evidence clearly. I assume that its factual and if true, does show a stark difference in treatment.
Second, the background that affected my thinking is partly informed by council officers' plans to build housing over one third of a Tottenham public park (I appreciate you are likely to quibble over the exact measurements).
I was flabbergasted at how far the plans to build in Down Lane Park were advanced, before they were rightly quashed.
It is surely unthinkable that council officers would try to pull a stunt like that in the western side?
-
-
1. "First, I think Michelle has set out the evidence clearly . . ." Michelle is asking reasonable questions. You are simply speculating about possible answers.
2. "Council Officers' plans to build housing over one third of a Tottenham public park."
As I've repeatedly explained, the plans for Down Lane Park were a land swap whereby it was intended to build on a southern section of the park, and adding a new equal area on the northern side.
My "quibble over the exact measurements" - as you call it - was work done by Seamus Carey (then Secretary of the Friends of Down Lane Park), me and other people. A key part was our careful check of the measurements of the two areas which showed that Council officers had made serious errors. The plan was dropped when we pointed this and other problems out to councillors Claire Kober and Lorna Reith.
I have posted this information on Harringey Online, on my Flickr photoblog and - I seem to recall - explained it to you. So I don't understand why you choose to believe your own made-up version of these events.
I have very many criticisms of both Claire Kober and Lorna Reith. However on Down Lane Park they both listened carefully to the views of local residents and paid respect to the facts about the land swap that we demonstrated.
Which, on this topic, is more than you have done. Flee from falsehood, Clive.
-
-
-
Michelle, you know how to get factual answers from local councils ;-)
I'm happy to discuss the general issue with you. If the Barnet judgement produces the changes I hope to see across all local councils, there'll be a need to rethink parking policies.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
