Police vehicles and the Law?

[Druk]

Have a look at this. It had been parked in this position for approx 30mins. There is a Pelican crossing 6ft from it's rear doors. Not a sign of anyone in or near it. Are there valid reasons why the driver is exempt from laws all the rest of us have to abide by? (Other than the WPC was in getting her hair done )

.

 

[renault12ts]

You could send it to the local police station and ask them. But, that might not be a good thing to do.

They are a law unto themselves sometimes.

 

[davidjpowell]

Have a look at this. It had been parked in this position for approx 30mins. There is a Pelican crossing 6ft from it's rear doors. Not a sign of anyone in or near it. Are there valid reasons why the driver is exempt from laws all the rest of us have to abide by? (Other than the WPC was in getting her hair done )

.

It's not really obscuring vision that much though. What's the problem?

Would be different on the other side of the road.

 

[renault12ts]

It's not really obscuring vision that much though. What's the problem?

Would be different on the other side of the road.

Except, if you or I parked on zig zags we couldn't argue that.

 

[davidjpowell]

Except, if you or I parked on zig zags we couldn't argue that.

True, but I can live without their powers.

 

[bing]

Well it's not actually parked on a zig zag, It's on a yellow line ! Hasn't anyone seen this type of layout before where you can park in between the zig zag and yellow line during unforced hours? Because of the pavement indent/set back you're not actually obscuring the view of roadusers to pedestrians.

 

[LTD]

If the 'hair done' comment is true then who permitted the use of the vehicle ?

 

[StevenN]

I hate zebra crossings at the best of times!
The ones like this with a pull in are the worst.
The police van is causing an obstruction to traffic approaching the crossing.
How many times have you had someone just step out onto a zebra just because they have right of way rather than giving the car driver chance to see them coming, anticipating their need to cross, and giving the driver time to halt smoothly?
I believe it's generally other car owners using the crossing who give you that level of consideration!
A town near home has 5 crossings on one road in about a 200 yard stretch
Some of the pavements are narrow and coupled with pull in parking either side it makes it an unfriendly unsafe place to drive or cross the road

 

[markjay]

Not directly related, but ... the yellow line is quite redundant here I believe, and I think that having a single yellow line and white zigzag on the same spot is very misleading.

 

[Mblinko]

IIRC the offence is parking within the boundaries of a pedestrian pelican crossing. You don't have to be on the zig zag. It's all about vehicles obscuring a pedestrian's view and that's inconclusive from the photo.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Have a look at this. It had been parked in this position for approx 30mins. There is a Pelican crossing 6ft from it's rear doors. Not a sign of anyone in or near it. Are there valid reasons why the driver is exempt from laws all the rest of us have to abide by? (Other than the WPC was in getting her hair done )

.

Is Alex Speedie moonlighting as a hairdresser?

 

[jefrs]

Yup, it is parked in a legitimate parking bay
- one that has a single yellow line for restricted parking
- need to see the blue/white shingle hanging from the post to tell what the parking restriction is ...

Otherwise the no-obstruction zig-zags would have to be painted alongside the kerbs.

Btw - parking on zig-zags is a big-slap road traffic not a parking offence.
- except en France where they park wheresoever they feel like, even on the centre island of a zebra ...

 

[219]

Have a look at this. It had been parked in this position for approx 30mins. There is a Pelican crossing 6ft from it's rear doors. Not a sign of anyone in or near it. Are there valid reasons why the driver is exempt from laws all the rest of us have to abide by? (Other than the WPC was in getting her hair done )

.

If you criticise her , she might claim you are nit-picking or splitting hairs since there was no perm-anent hazard . Any obstruction may have amounted to little more than a hair's breadth anyway .

On the other hand , the WPC might have come clean and dyed of embarrassment at the thought of having illegal tints highlighted ?

 

[Dieselman]

As already said, the van is parked in a restricted time parking area, but because it's on police business can use such a bay at any time.
It isn't parked within the boundary of the zig-zags and no offence has been committed.

 

[Mblinko]

As already said, the van is parked in a restricted time parking area, but because it's on police business can use such a bay at any time.

That is incorrect. Police must abide by all laws at all times except in an emergency. That's what I was taught when I was one.

It isn't parked within the boundary of the zig-zags and no offence has been committed.

This isn't correct either. Boundary does not mean on. See my earlier post.

 

[Dieselman]

This isn't correct either. Boundary does not mean on. See my earlier post.

I don't think you are correct otherwise the single yellow restriction would not be operational.
Anyone can park in that bay once outside the times of the restriction.

 

[renault12ts]

You are not permitted to park in the area covered by the zig-zag lines.

I take that to mean that you should not park on either side of the zig-zags. So, the vehicle should not be parked where it is...imho.

Can anyone show me where it says I am wrong/they are right?

 

[Dieselman]

You are not permitted to park in the area covered by the zig-zag lines.

I take that to mean that you should not park on either side of the zig-zags. So, the vehicle should not be parked where it is...imho.

Can anyone show me where it says I am wrong/they are right?

Can you show us where you are correct and others are wrong.


The van is neither on the zig-zags or in an area bounded by them, ergo, it isn't parked in an area covered by zig-zags as it's outside that area.

The "area" is the space between the zig-zag lines.

 

[renault12ts]

Can you show us where you are correct and others are wrong.


The van is neither on the zig-zags or in an area bounded by them, ergo, it isn't parked in an area covered by zig-zags as it's outside that area.

The "area" is the space between the zig-zag lines.

No I can't, nor can it be proven the other way. It is ambivalent.

 

[Dieselman]

No I can't, nor can it be proven the other way. It is ambivalent.

The van is outside the area and there is a single yellow line parking restriction.
The yellow line means it is a parking bay with timed restrictions, which in itself is proof that anyone can park in it.


Simple.