It's how I read it. ~~Because it starts out using must and cites London, it doesn't make sense to then add elsewhere and use must again.~~

And now I've read your quote and written out the above, I've definitely misread the rule.

And I know why. Other replies to my comment alluded to it but it's only now I understand. I didn't begin with the term must as being anything to do with criminal prosecution.

To me, it says you can't park on a pavement in London or when signposted else where, and you can be given a fine for doing so.

I don't see how receiving a fine makes you a criminal so I didn't consider it in those terms.

My mistake, but it's poorly worded. For example -

Rule 130

Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.

If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.

If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.

That's a much more clear distinction. But I don't see anyone being made a criminal for the second part. It doesn't describe an act that would have you arrested and prosecuted with the threat of prison.

I'll be taking this up with them and I'll use all these examples to see if we can get them to make the wording less confusing.

Because if I have to drive around constantly worried that I could go to prison for crossing a line, I'll give up driving, sell my car and retire early. Fuck that.