New double yellow lines!

[delirium]

Does anyone know if there's any process for contesting new double yellow lines?

Ten years I've lived here and in all that time we've been able to park on the road behind my tenement block with no problems. It's not a through route (just leads to some parking and office units), there's no gates or doors onto it and it's plenty wide enough for the bin lorry etc to get past parked cars without difficulty. Only issue arises when someone comes in at the same time as someone going out and now and again somebody has to reverse - not a problem.

Now it seems somebody with too much time on their hands has complained that the parked cars are an obstruction (they aren't) and the council is putting down double yellows. The objection period was last summer (no visible notices that either I or my neighbours ever saw).

Oddly enough, when I phoned about streetlighting a while back I was told it was private land and not adopted.

Not happy at all! It's going to cause more congestion and put more pressure on the existing parking spaces and it was fine... unless you're too arrogant to reverse a few yards of course!

[tobester]

Does anyone know if there's any process for contesting new double yellow lines?

Ten years I've lived here and in all that time we've been able to park on the road behind my tenement block with no problems. It's not a through route (just leads to some parking and office units), there's no gates or doors onto it and it's plenty wide enough for the bin lorry etc to get past parked cars without difficulty. Only issue arises when someone comes in at the same time as someone going out and now and again somebody has to reverse - not a problem.

Now it seems somebody with too much time on their hands has complained that the parked cars are an obstruction (they aren't) and the council is putting down double yellows. The objection period was last summer (no visible notices that either I or my neighbours ever saw).

Oddly enough, when I phoned about streetlighting a while back I was told it was private land and not adopted.

Not happy at all! It's going to cause more congestion and put more pressure on the existing parking spaces and it was fine... unless you're too arrogant to reverse a few yards of course!

If the coucil are doing it would it not be the roads department?

Obvioulsy as we all know calling any council places etc, you get passed from pillar to post or have to phone back, what i would say is keep a log of who you talked to, time, and date, so as to prevent the old 'we have no record of your call' guff they like to hit you with

[The Egg Man]

I find it better to use email. You're unlikely to get an answer on the phone from anyone you're able to speak to so email your councillor/s - contact info on glasgow.gov.uk That way you've a record of who you asked, what you asked them and when you asked them.

If you haven't had a reply in 10 working days, email again.

[tobester]

I find it better to use email. You're unlikely to get an answer on the phone from anyone you're able to speak to so email your councillor/s - contact info on glasgow.gov.uk That way you've a record of who you asked, what you asked them and when you asked them.

If you haven't had a reply in 10 working days, email again.

I never thought about email d'oh, also you could set up the email so that they have to send a receipt of opening

[The Egg Man]

I find it better to use email. You're unlikely to get an answer on the phone from anyone you're able to speak to so email your councillor/s - contact info on glasgow.gov.uk That way you've a record of who you asked, what you asked them and when you asked them.

If you haven't had a reply in 10 working days, email again.

I never thought about email d'oh, also you could set up the email so that they have to send a receipt of opening

I'm never sure whether the 'acknowledgement of opening' business actually works. I'd have thought email arriving at, for example, Glasgow City Council's email server would be 'opened' by their anti-virus/ anti-spam checking and that opening would trigger the 'email opened' message - even if no real person ever actually read it.

[Dexter St. Clair]

I'm never sure whether the 'acknowledgement of opening' business actually works. I'd have thought email arriving at, for example, Glasgow City Council's email server would be 'opened' by their anti-virus/ anti-spam checking and that opening would trigger the 'email opened' message - even if no real person ever actually read it.

No. How would GCC gaffers know their lackeys were awake?

[delirium]

From enquiries it seems the owners of the land (it is still a private road seemingly) have requested the lines. They claim there was signs up about it last summer... invisible ones clearly. The lines aren't down yet, just the no loading signs. I don't think there's much to be done.

They'll create more problems than they solve. But, if a kid gets knocked down because a car is flying up to make the lights without the care the single lane forced on them, it'll be their fault as much as the drivers.

[The Egg Man]

...............

They'll create more problems than they solve. But, if a kid gets knocked down because a car is flying up to make the lights without the care the single lane forced on them, it'll be their fault as much as the drivers.

That's a bit of perverse logic if ever there was one.

[delirium]

It might seem that way. But the few cars going along there have no choice but to go slowly at the moment in case there's someone coming the other way. Clear the parked cars and they'll put the foot down.

[The Egg Man]

It might seem that way. But the few cars going along there have no choice but to go slowly at the moment in case there's someone coming the other way. Clear the parked cars and they'll put the foot down.

That may very well be the case but, if they do, it'll be their 100% fault. Any suggestion otherwise would lead to allegations that anyone caught drunk-driving is entitled to blame the purveyor of the alcohol.

Anyone who drives a car (bus, motorcycle, etc) is wholly and entirely liable for ensuring they comply with and and all regulations pertaining to their use of that vehicle both in terms of their licence, the vehicle itself and the roads, private or public, they drive on.

[Josef]

It might seem that way. But the few cars going along there have no choice but to go slowly at the moment in case there's someone coming the other way. Clear the parked cars and they'll put the foot down.

That may very well be the case but, if they do, it'll be their 100% fault. Any suggestion otherwise would lead to allegations that anyone caught drunk-driving is entitled to blame the purveyor of the alcohol.

Anyone who drives a car (bus, motorcycle, etc) is wholly and entirely liable for ensuring they comply with and and all regulations pertaining to their use of that vehicle both in terms of their licence, the vehicle itself and the roads, private or public, they drive on.

Whilst taking the point that any accident after the installation of the yellow lines wouldn't be the fault of the owners, the point that they would potentially increase the chance of such a thing happening would be valid.

There are laws against burglary, but I won't be leaving my front door open when I go to work today.

[delirium]

Thank you Josef, exactly.


As it was 1am when I wrote my previous post shall I rephrase in more length;

They'll create more problems than they solve. But, if a kid gets knocked down because a car is flying up to make the lights, then of course it will have been 100% the responsibility of the driver to obey the rules of the road, be alert to the presence of pedestrians and drive with due care and attention and if he/she has shown negligence in the above then the fault shall unquestionably be theirs. However the owners of the road, and requesters of the restriction change would also be required, in my opinion, to assume responsibility for creating an environment where pedestrians and other road users are more at risk than they previously were by removing the parking which naturally slowed traffic and freeing up a newly unobstructed two lane road with poor visibility and a short signal light at the top which leads the aforementioned thoughtless drivers to use less caution than they were previously forced to use and so leading to said (hypothetical) accident.

Better? have I covered all bases?

[The Egg Man]

Thank you Josef, exactly.


As it was 1am when I wrote my previous post shall I rephrase in more length;

They'll create more problems than they solve. But, if a kid gets knocked down because a car is flying up to make the lights, then of course it will have been 100% the responsibility of the driver to obey the rules of the road, be alert to the presence of pedestrians and drive with due care and attention and if he/she has shown negligence in the above then the fault shall unquestionably be theirs. However the owners of the road, and requesters of the restriction change would also be required, in my opinion, to assume responsibility for creating an environment where pedestrians and other road users are more at risk than they previously were by removing the parking which naturally slowed traffic and freeing up a newly unobstructed two lane road with poor visibility and a short signal light at the top which leads the aforementioned thoughtless drivers to use less caution than they were previously forced to use and so leading to said (hypothetical) accident.

Better? have I covered all bases?

Did you get that from Jasper Carrot's Big Book of Excuses?

[rude_kid]

Did you get that from Jasper Carrot's Big Book of Excuses?

What an oddly irrelevant thing to be so cunty about.

[busdriver]

Did you get that from Jasper Carrot's Big Book of Excuses?

What an oddly irrelevant thing to be so cunty about.

What an oddly irrelevant argument in which to be so obtuse.