Parking fine while picking up children

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It doesn't need to be extraordinary, it can be normal that the child has to be escorted - then the exemption applies.

If it was just a case of walking a very short distance, dropping the child off, and then returning to the car, then yes you are right. But not for 9 minutes.

Paradigm

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The problem is with the interpretation of the boarding and alighting exemption. As I have previously stated, you are supposed to be able to return to the vehicle in a hurry if required to move it.

Is this written in legislation or are you using your "interpretation"?

Jamie_Carter

Paradigm wrote: »

Is this written in legislation or are you using your "interpretation"?

There is no legislation, as has already been discussed.

Paradigm

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

There is no legislation, as has already been discussed.

The end of your argument then

Jamie_Carter

Paradigm wrote: »

The end of your argument then

No. Just read back through the thread, and all will become clear.

Tilt

andygb wrote: »

Judging by the police response on Friday at my local school, you are the one who uis wrong.
It is (was hopefully) a common sight in our village to see the school run cars parked everywhere, without regard to road markings/restrictions - zigzag approach to crossings, across people's drives, on pavements. The vehicles are never therwe for just five minutes whilst they drop/pick up said child from school, it is up to an hour, whilst they stand around in groups socialising, leaving the vehicles to create chaos in what is normally a quiet village with hardly any traffic. It is also on a bus route, and there have been many instances where the bus cannot get through because of the selfish, ILLEGAL actions of the drivers.
Please do not try to defend the indefensible, and please try to have a bit of consideration for other people, because your advice/actions are a right PITA for most reasonable people.

Not sure why you are saying "you are the one who is wrong" when the advice given had nothing to do with that scenario. Obviously in the cases you describe, these people would not be entitled to use boarding & alighting exemptions.

Tilt

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Fair enough. You decided to give advice based on guesswork.

No. I gave "advice" based purely on the information that the OP gave us. I simply provided a POSSIBLE avenue of appeal. This was mainly due to the age of the child.

DirectDebacle wrote: »

No doubt CM will be able to confirm it a fact that "packs of parking people" consist entirely of CEO.

Possibly... if she knew what you was talking about!

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Anyone with an ounce of sense would realise that the OP's description of events is open to more than one interpretation.

Quite so as I've already pointed out numerous times in the thread.
Could be that the OP was painting a completely different picture than the one he/she presented... could be that he/she wasn't alone in the car with the child... could be that the car was parked within 50 yards of the school thus making it unreasonable to leave the car for 9 minutes... So you are right, more than one interpretation. But what exactly is your point? If you look back to one of my original posts, you will sere that I used the terms of; "providing that..." and "the advice is based on assuming that..."

So anything that the OP's information would be their responsibility.

Wouldn't you agree?

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Don't change my posts. Instead try to concentrate on posting correctly yourself.

Just because a child is young it would not be grounds for appeal outside a nursery, or infant school, because that would be the norm, and not extraordinary circumstances.. And being the norm would allow all the parents to ignore the parking regulations. Why can't you understand this??

According to that example from "one council" it could be! Who has said that the OP ignored the parking regulations??? The OP may of had no choice but to walk the child into the school for safety reasons thus coming under the boarding/alighting exemptions.

Why can't you understand this?? :wall:

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Do you actually read what you post?? :rotfl::rotfl:

Yep, but clearly you dont.

Rubbish. You just ganged up to get the post removed. If the forum team wanted to actually investigate anything, then all the proof is there.

"Ganged up?" Wrong yet again... I asked the site team to consider MY input as well as yours. As you say, the proof is there.

As for bad advice, there is certainly nothing new about people giving out bad advice on forums. But most people don't get all upset if people don't agree with them.

True, but i'm far from upset... frustrated maybe of having to continue in hammering this nail into a solid brick wall.


And most posters on this thread don't agree with you. So maybe you should consider that there is a chance you could be wrong.

Most posters (I think the figure mentioned by CM was about 80%) on here obviously don't know about yellow line exemptions.

But what the OP has told us that they didn't want their child to walk because it was 'too cold'. This implies that there was no other reason, otherwise I'm sure they would have told us.

Perhaps, but I took into account of the age of the child as well and my own experiences in dropping a young child off at a school situated on a main, busy road. As I have said numerous times (and it still dosn't seem to be sinking in) that IF the OP was painting a different picture than the one he/she gave us and choose to appeal, then that would be his/her responsibility if that appeal fails. I did use the terms "providing that..." and "the advice is being given assuming that..." when making the OP aware of the exemptions. HOW MANY MORE TIME HAVE I GOT TO STRESS THIS???

So yes it would be for the adjudicator to decide. But plain old common sense tells most people what the decision would be.

Most people would want more information before making "common sense" judgments. Ever heard of the term "innocent until proven guilty"?

Yes they are entitled to be made aware of their options, and they do seem to be already aware that they can appeal. BUT what is wrong is when someone gives them false hope that they will be successful.

I started to think you were beginning to see sense at long last! But then you spoiled it by suggesting I had given the OP false hope of being successful. Can you highlight this please because I can't remember saying any such thing.

I, and it would appear many other people in this thread, seem to think that you have given them false hope. Which I would regard as bad advice (I suppose you are going to report me again for saying so?).

Havn't we covered this bit numerous times already? "Many other people" are obviously wrong then if they think I have given "false hope" because I strongly refute that I did. I don't need to "report" anything... no doubt the thread is being monitored!

It appears that your view is clouded by your crusade against parking restrictions, and that you struggle to look at this issue from a balanced point of view.

Now you have got me completely wrong! I go out of my way reporting drivers who park outside my son's school on the zig zag markings. If anything I am on a crusade AGAINST illegal parking! But I am also aware that there are exemptions (when used correctly) to parking on yellow lines.

We all find parking restrictions extremely annoying at times, but we need to remember some of the reasons why they exist. Put yourself in the shoes of the driver of an emergency vehicle, that can't get through because someone who thinks that parking restrictions are just there to be challenged has just parked where they like. Or put yourself in the shoes of the person/s who need assistance from the crew of the emergency vehicle. Or you could put yourself in the shoes of the parents of many children who are seriously injured or killed, when crossing the road from behind illegally parked cars.

There is a street near me that has no parking restrictions but is too narrow for an ambulance to drive down when cars are parked both sides. But what relevance is this? We Don't know where the school was so have o idea how wide/narrow the road the OP parked on was.

So when the adjudicator considers the evidence, they should have the above at the back of their minds. So do you really think that the excuse that 'it was cold' would wash with them??

The adjudicator (assuming it goes that far) will look at the facts presented by the OP. The age of the child will be the most important factor so I doubt the "being cold" bit will even be mentioned. It will boil down to how far the OP parked and whether or not it was safe for the child to walk un-assisted from the car to the school plus whether there was anyone else with the OP who could of escorted the child. The adjudicator will also want to know about the school's location so they can understand if there were any alternatives available to the OP to safely park other than on the yellow lines.

NEXT! :wall:

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Do you have any idea how often emergency vehicles are delayed because people believe that they can park where they want if they only leave the vehicle for 5 or 10 minutes??

In many emergency situations seconds can make the difference between life and death. So the boarding/alighting exemptions are supposed to be for when someone stays with the vehicle, or they will be close enough to rush back to the vehicle should it need to be moved in a hurry.

Absolute tosh. You will be saying that there is no exemption for loading/unloading on yellow lines next! How can you do that by "staying with the vehicle"? :rotfl: