The LTNs are advice and guidance - as it says on the DfT site about LTN 2/95 "This note recommends the practices to be followed when planning, designing and installing at-grade pedestrian crossings." In this case I think they are wrong - the Regulations, which are the definitive legislation, clearly say that the controlled area is marked by the edge of the carriageway, and the TSRGD also provide for an edge of carriageway marking which is intended to mark the separation between a layby and the carriageway. If there was no edge of carriageway marking then the zig-zags would need to be against the kerb, and the layby would need to be taken out of use as the note recommends. Peter Bull Incidently, when I looked for LTN2/95 on the DfT's website I found that the pdf file was "broken and could not be repaired", so I sent them an e-mail about it. Within 7 minutes I had a response including a working copy of the file and an undertaking to sort out the problem on their site - well done DfT webmaster (or mistress in this case)! -----Original Message----- From: james.buckley@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:james.buckley@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 15 March 2007 09:03 To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [TCUG] Re: FW: zigzag markings where a layby exists LOCAL TRANSPORT NOTE 2/95 Para 2.9.5 "It should be remembered that restrictions imposed by zig-zag markings apply to laybys as well as the main carriageway. Any part of an affected layby, used by general traffic, should be hatched or physically infilled to prevent ambiguity" Jim Buckley Senior Road Accident Investigation Officer Development Department (0113) 2476327 Join Leeds' 800th Birthday Celebrations! www.celebrateleeds07.com "Dick Andrews" <dick.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 14/03/2007 13:59 Please respond to tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc Subject [TCUG] Re: FW: zigzag markings where a layby exists My understanding is that the zigzags should follow the kerb, ie include the layby in the controlled zone Dick Devon County Council's disclaimer -----Original Message----- From: tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcug-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bull Peter Sent: 14 March 2007 13:49 To: 'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx' Subject: [TCUG] FW: zigzag markings where a layby exists From: Wallis, Ian [mailto:Ian.Wallis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]=20 Sent: 14 March 2007 12:54 To: Bull Peter Subject: tcug forum =20 Peter, =20 Following your offer the other week I'd be grateful if you would post this message on the forum for me. =20 Thanks, =20 Ian Ian Wallis | Senior Signals and Projects Engineer | Regeneration and Community | Roman House, Friar Gate, Derby DE1 1XB | telephone 01332 715016 | www.derby.gov.uk <http://www.derby.gov.uk/>=20 Derby City Council - committed to being an Excellent council=20 =20 =20 Does anyone have advice on the use of zigzag markings where a layby exists. Chapter 5 (15.21) suggests that the marking should be laid along the carriageway edge but applies to the layby behind the marking whereas the TSRGD in regulation 27 talks of a "controlled area" with "a zigzag marked along each of it's edges" and doesn't appear to suggest that there may be any circumstances when it might apply outside the controlled area. To my mind the regulations are the legal definition so I'm not sure where the reference in Chapter 5 comes from. =20 Before you all decry my design philosophies I should point out that we generally don't allow parking bays alongside zigzag markings - the query arises due to some old sites where this layout exists and the Police have been inconsistent in their approach to parked vehicles. =20 Ian Wallis Derby City Council _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The information in this email is=20 intended for the addressee(s) only.=20 If you are not the addressee, please=20 tell us by using the reply facility=20 in your email software as soon as=20 possible.=20 Sheffield City Council cannot accept=20 any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it=20 has been transmitted over a public=20 network. If you suspect that the=20 message may have been intercepted or=20 amended please tell us as soon as=20 possible. Sheffield City Council may monitor all email passing through its networks. ----------------------------------------------------------- A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug ----------------------------------------------------------- A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug ________________________________________________________________________ The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this email (and any attachment) from your system. The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail. ________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------- A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The information in this email is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council may monitor all email passing through its networks. ----------------------------------------------------------- A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug