
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Ped Xing Controlled Areas</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748456</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:13:27 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2023 10:33:16 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2023 Institute of Highway Engineers</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://members.theihe.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?group=214541&amp;id=1748456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title>Ped Xing Controlled Areas</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748456</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748456</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Question posted on our BPA LA Forum:

Hi, we have a loading bay (in force 24hrs a day) but it is situated behind zig zag pedestrian crossing markings. There is some uncertainty as to if this can be enforced if a member of the public parks in the loading bay. Any advice would help,”

I think the pedestrian controlled area is independent of the loading bay, which can be enforced as normal. Do you agree? Sorry, I don't have an image to support the question.
]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:24:22 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748457</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748457</guid>
<description><![CDATA[The DfT would say that you can't have a loading bay 'behind' the zig-zag lines, as the controlled area has to apply to the whole width of the carriageway (or of the relevant half of the carriageway if the markings aren't the same length both sides). Also, there are only a limited range or markings that can be used in a controlled area, and a loading bay marking isn't one of them.<br /><br />But having said that, a lot of authorities do it! <br /><br />In order to avoid a challenge to TPT that might invalidate the whole arrangement, I would advise the authority to go easy on the enforcement of the bay and to allow any representation that questions its legality.<br />]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:28:35 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748464</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748464</guid>
<description><![CDATA[Section 15.8.2 of the newer Chapter 6 offers a view on this, previously i am sure that the guidance was that the zig zag should be on the carriageway and the area in the “lay-by” is still part of the controlled area, however the guidance in chapter 6 is now that the zig zag should essentially follow the kerb line therefore the loading bay technically can’t sit behind the zig zag as it now doesn’t have a “behind the zig zag area”.  Or at least that is how i interpret it now.]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2023 17:40:29 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748527</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748527</guid>
<description><![CDATA[That's interesting and helpful, folks. It would be interesting to see what others think, given the prevalence of these things. Like 'advisory' Blue Badge spaces! <br />]]></description>
<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2023 11:33:16 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
