PCN Experience

[DITTRICH]

Picked up SWMBO from Royal College of Westminster on Sunday in the early evening. Right outside the entrance are zig zags and further on a pedestrian crossing. I know what zig zags mean but thought 30 seconds or less ought to be chanceable. How wrong I was. Today I have just paid £65 for the priviledge of stopping there for less than 30 seconds. My fault, no doubt, as the law is very clear on the subject, but I now I think about it, they must know the locations and times that produce results and concentrate on them. 5pm on a Sunday evening and they are still fining away perfectly happily. This is the first time I have picked up a parking related PCN ever and I am kicking myself. Rant over.

 

[Scott_F]

It does seem rather steep to be charged £65 for 30 seconds parking. If you'd got drunk, punched someone, threatened and fought the police officers who eventually dragged you into the back of a van and spat on the desk as they booked you in at the police station you would probably have only got an £80 fixed penalty.

 

[raymont]

You could of course go shop lifting and only get a warning.

Punishment / penalty system is a complete mess. Punishments are in no way proportional to the offence.

 

[MOCAŠ]

It does seem rather steep to be charged £65 for 30 seconds parking.

Nice try, Scott_F, but stopping on zig-zags is taken very seriously, at any time of day or night. Sometimes it takes the occasional fine to remind us of these things. The OP will not make this mistake again.

 

[Scott_F]

Nice try, Scott_F, but stopping on zig-zags is taken very seriously, at any time of day or night. Sometimes it takes the occasional fine to remind us of these things. The OP will not make this mistake again.

I can't disagree with you. However, rather like the zealous pursuit of speeding drivers (many of whom need to be prosecuted), it sets an expectation that is rarely fulfilled.

If I was caught by an expensive and elaborate camera system for parking on zig-zags for a few seconds and fined £65, I would expect break-ins to houses and vehicles, vandalism and damage to property, reports of dangerous driving, drunken assaults and a whole range of other crimes to receive the same level of attention and zeal from the authorities.

Of course they usually don't and we are fobbed off with the "we'll look into it" or "nothing we can do" response. As a result, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that enforcement of the rule of law is too often motivated by the desire to raise cash.

Hardly equitable and one of the main reasons why fewer and fewer people have faith in our criminal justice system.

 

[markjay]

Nice try, Scott_F, but stopping on zig-zags is taken very seriously, at any time of day or night. Sometimes it takes the occasional fine to remind us of these things. The OP will not make this mistake again.

It is an offence enforceable by both the Council and the Police, and you will find that even Taxis won't stop for you on a white zig-zag. Yes, it is considered a serious offence.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I can't disagree with you. However, rather like the zealous pursuit of speeding drivers (many of whom need to be prosecuted), it sets an expectation that is rarely fulfilled.

If I was caught by an expensive and elaborate camera system for parking on zig-zags for a few seconds and fined £65, I would expect break-ins to houses and vehicles, vandalism and damage to property, reports of dangerous driving, drunken assaults and a whole range of other crimes to receive the same level of attention and zeal from the authorities.

Of course they usually don't and we are fobbed off with the "we'll look into it" or "nothing we can do" response. As a result, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that enforcement of the rule of law is too often motivated by the desire to raise cash.

Hardly equitable and one of the main reasons why fewer and fewer people have faith in our criminal justice system.

In an ideal world, every crime would be detected and every criminal punished proportionately. Or perhaps there wouldn't even be any crime...

As things stand, certain motoring offences are easily detectable, and we all know the rules, so we disobey them at our peril, knowing that the chances of being caught and fined are relatively high. I'm speaking as someone who once had 9 points on his licence.

 

[markjay]

For people who work in H&S the issue would be obvious.

The question is not whether the offence actually put anyone at risk. If it were, you could argue that jumping a red light when the junction is clear should not punishable.

To see it properly, you should think of a firearm. One of the obligatory safety rules is that you should never point a firearm toward another person, even the firearm is no loaded. Again, you could argue that if you thoroughly examined the firearm and the breech is empty, no round in sight, it is no more lethal than a metal rod -
For people who work in H&S the issue would be obvious.

The question is not whether the offence actually put anyone at risk. If it were, you could argue that jumping a red light when the junction is clear should not punishable.

To see it properly, you should think of a firearm. One of the obligatory safety rules is that you should never point a firearm toward another person, even the firearm is not loaded. Again, you could argue that if you thoroughly examined the firearm and the breech is empty, no round in sight, then it is no more lethal than a metal rod - and you would be right. But you would still be expelled from any self-recording shooting club for doing that.

The idea is that if you have no respect for rules, you will eventually, at some point of time, pose a risk to yourself and/or others. If you always adhere to rules, you are less likely to become a safety hazard. It's a statistical approach, and it works.

 

[Colin_b]

Nice try, Scott_F, but stopping on zig-zags is taken very seriously, at any time of day or night. Sometimes it takes the occasional fine to remind us of these things. The OP will not make this mistake again.

Normally £60 and 3 points on your licence, I believe. The maximum is 6 points and £1,000 fine.

Highway code 191.


191

You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines. You MUST NOT overtake the moving vehicle nearest the crossing or the vehicle nearest the crossing which has stopped to give way to pedestrians.

[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 18, 20 & 24, RTRA sect 25(5) & TSRGD regs 10, 27 & 28]

 

[markjay]

Picked up SWMBO from Royal College of Westminster on Sunday in the early evening. Right outside the entrance are zig zags and further on a pedestrian crossing. I know what zig zags mean but thought 30 seconds or less ought to be chanceable. How wrong I was. Today I have just paid £65 for the priviledge of stopping there for less than 30 seconds. My fault, no doubt, as the law is very clear on the subject, but I now I think about it, they must know the locations and times that produce results and concentrate on them. 5pm on a Sunday evening and they are still fining away perfectly happily. This is the first time I have picked up a parking related PCN ever and I am kicking myself. Rant over.

DITTRICH, you made a small error of judgement and were made to pay a price, and you seem to accept both. It's only a traffic offence, no blemish on your character, time to move on...

 

[Scott_F]

As things stand, certain motoring offences are easily detectable.....

........and are an easy source of revenue.

 

[trapperjohn]

Sleepy town of Kirkham, Friday. Lady was getting a parking ticket from a lady Police Constable for parking on Zig Zags (Just nipped into the shops no doubt)

Please note other genders are available.

 

[MOCAŠ]

........and are an easy source of revenue.

Only if people break the law...

I haven't incurred any motoring/parking fines in the past seven years, so they've had no "revenue" from me in that time...

The fact is that some people place a high value on the convenience of parking wherever they want to, and they accept the occasional fine as the price of that convenience. There really is no excuse for stopping on zig-zags - they're pretty difficult to miss.

 

[Scott_F]

Only if people break the law...

I haven't incurred any motoring/parking fines in the past seven years, so they've had no "revenue" from me in that time...

The fact is that some people place a high value on the convenience of parking wherever they want to, and they accept the occasional fine as the price of that convenience. There really is no excuse for stopping on zig-zags - they're pretty difficult to miss.

Once again I can only agree - it is very foolish to park in such a place. My issue is with the lack of interest shown in far more serious matters because there isn't a quick quid to me made.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Once again I can only agree - it is very foolish to park in such a place. My issue is with the lack of interest shown in far more serious matters because there isn't a quick quid to me made.

Understood, but then we're back to the ideal world/unlimited resources argument.

 

[Colin_b]

Once again I can only agree - it is very foolish to park in such a place. My issue is with the lack of interest shown in far more serious matters because there isn't a quick quid to me made.

172 police people (8 murder squads) working on investigations into phone hacking?

 

[markjay]

It makes sense to place speed cameras where motorists are likely to speed. But most people will speed on straight wide open roads, and not in small residential streets.

It would be far more dangerous if someone was speeding in a small residential street. But there would be no financial justification in placing a camera there if it will only prevent a driver from speeding say once every three years...

The (unjustified) impression that comes out of this is one of maximising revenues.

 

[Scott_F]

Understood, but then we're back to the ideal world/unlimited resources argument.

Not at all. Resources are disproportionately allocated towards relatively minor issues (speeding, parking etc.) where there is money to be made to the detriment of pursuing far more important matters.

 

[Scott_F]

172 police people (8 murder squads) working on investigations into phone hacking?

Better late than never.

 

[markjay]

172 police people (8 murder squads) working on investigations into phone hacking?

The hacking scandal is handled by 8 police murder squads? Isn't it a bit excessive, I would have thought that kneecapping was punishment enough.