Parking fine while picking up children

Tilt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

There is no legislation, as has already been discussed.

So how do we know that is what we are "supposed" to do if there is no legislation? I don't think it even states in the highway code "you are supposed to rush back to your car to move it for an emergency vehicle". :rotfl:

Lum

TBH I think rushing back to your car to let an emergency vehicle past comes under the social law of "don't be a d**k".

As does avoiding unnecessarily blocking emergency vehicle access in the first place!

WTFH

Lum, you're forgetting that the opinions of some "mad" people on here are "tilted" towards the idea that you can park anywhere, and who cares about the consequences to others. The law is only a nuisance to be worked around/avoided/evaded, and is not there to help with traffic management.:(


We would have no need for lines or parking restrictions if people were responsible for their own actions and were civilised enough to act in a way which did not cause a problem for others.
As can be seen by some of the posts on here, it's clear that some spend an inordinate amount of their time trying to find ways to get round regulations and common sense, because they are selfish and greedy and have no concern for their actions and the impact they have on others.

George_Michael

Tilt wrote: »

I don't think it even states in the highway code "you are supposed to rush back to your car to move it for an emergency vehicle". :rotfl:

There is a simple reason why the highway code doesn't state that you need to rush back to move your car for an emergency vehicle and that reason is that the HC clearly states that you shouldn't park anywhere where you could impede the access of those vehicles in the first place.

Lum

Thing is, I'm actually starting to come around a little towards Tilt's viewpoint.

I'm a carer for my disabled partner, and boarding & alighting exemptions do exist. It is perfectly legit for me to stop on a double yellow to unpack her wheelchair. Once she's transferred she can go and do whatever it is she is doing (she's an adult who is capable of taking care of herself) so I'll then go and park elsewhere, even though I could just use her badge to leave my car on that double yellow for two hours. Since the badge is not being used, that stop comes under boarding&alighting.

However there are rules about stopping on a double yellow; for example if you stop half way around a corner, or blocking the road on a street that is only wide enough to allow parking on one side; then you are going to get ticketed and rightly so.

And this is where this argument is coming from. I've been following YPLAC for long enough to see the chaos that happens around schools, with parents parking on the zig-zags in the hatched area in the centre of the road, in front of people's driveways etc. etc. this is the image that has sprung to mind for most posters in this thread and is also where I would put my money if asked to bet on how the OP has parked, however we don't know this to be the case, it is simply the most likely case.

It is also possible that this school is on a wide main road with a zigzag area and then single yellows either side of the zigzags in which case it is entirely legit for parents to park on the single yellow without causing an obstruction for only the length of time to escort the child straight into the school and then immediately return to their car, no stopping for a natter or a fag first.

I wouldn't put my money on this being the case but based on the information given it's certainly possible. I'd give it a 20% probability with the other 80% being the parent has parked like an inconsiderate douchebag and spent longer than is reasonable.

All Tilt is saying is that if (long list of requirements) are in place then the OP may be able to appeal based on boarding & alighting.

If those requirements are not in place, then they cannot appeal based on this, because they were parked like a ****.

If councils want to remove boarding&alighting from the area around the school, they need to put in double red lines!

Tilt

Lum wrote: »

TBH I think rushing back to your car to let an emergency vehicle past comes under the social law of "don't be a d**k".

As does avoiding unnecessarily blocking emergency vehicle access in the first place!

Quite. But there was not suggestion that the OP would (or would not) of been impeding an emergency vehicle. Quite frankly I think that JC is simply bringing in yet another pointless argument just to prove his paper-thin point.

He fails to grasp that while I made the OP aware of a possible route of appeal, there would be certain criteria to exist for the appeal to succeed. For all we know, the OP could of been parked on a road which is the width of the runway at an airport.

Tilt

George_Michael wrote: »

There is a simple reason why the highway code doesn't state that you need to rush back to move your car for an emergency vehicle and that reason is that the HC clearly states that you shouldn't park anywhere where you could impede the access of those vehicles in the first place.

Perfectly correct.

How do we know though that the OP had parked which could impede an emergency vehicle? Could it possibly be a pointless argument bought into play??

Tilt

Lum wrote: »

Thing is, I'm actually starting to come around a little towards Tilt's viewpoint.

I'm a carer for my disabled partner, and boarding & alighting exemptions do exist. It is perfectly legit for me to stop on a double yellow to unpack her wheelchair. Once she's transferred she can go and do whatever it is she is doing (she's an adult who is capable of taking care of herself) so I'll then go and park elsewhere, even though I could just use her badge to leave my car on that double yellow for two hours. Since the badge is not being used, that stop comes under boarding&alighting.

However there are rules about stopping on a double yellow; for example if you stop half way around a corner, or blocking the road on a street that is only wide enough to allow parking on one side; then you are going to get ticketed and rightly so.

And this is where this argument is coming from. I've been following YPLAC for long enough to see the chaos that happens around schools, with parents parking on the zig-zags in the hatched area in the centre of the road, in front of people's driveways etc. etc. this is the image that has sprung to mind for most posters in this thread and is also where I would put my money if asked to bet on how the OP has parked, however we don't know this to be the case, it is simply the most likely case.

It is also possible that this school is on a wide main road with a zigzag area and then single yellows either side of the zigzags in which case it is entirely legit for parents to park on the single yellow without causing an obstruction for only the length of time to escort the child straight into the school and then immediately return to their car, no stopping for a natter or a fag first.

I wouldn't put my money on this being the case but based on the information given it's certainly possible. I'd give it a 20% probability with the other 80% being the parent has parked like an inconsiderate douchebag and spent longer than is reasonable.

All Tilt is saying is that if (long list of requirements) are in place then the OP may be able to appeal based on boarding & alighting.

If those requirements are not in place, then they cannot appeal based on this, because they were parked like a ****.

If councils want to remove boarding&alighting from the area around the school, they need to put in double red lines!

Finally someone has got it!! :T:T:T:j:j:j:T:T:T

No doubt JC will come up with something else though... :rotfl:

goonarmy

WTFH wrote: »

Lum, you're forgetting that the opinions of some "mad" people on here are "tilted" towards the idea that you can park anywhere, and who cares about the consequences to others. The law is only a nuisance to be worked around/avoided/evaded, and is not there to help with traffic management.:(


We would have no need for lines or parking restrictions if people were responsible for their own actions and were civilised enough to act in a way which did not cause a problem for others.
As can be seen by some of the posts on here, it's clear that some spend an inordinate amount of their time trying to find ways to get round regulations and common sense, because they are selfish and greedy and have no concern for their actions and the impact they have on others.

Id not trust anyone that quantifies them selves and others by the amount of posts made on a forum :rotfl:

DirectDebacle

Works both ways. How do you know the OP wasn't ticketed for failing to
display a current tax disc, unnecessary obstruction etc. You and CM are equally
ridiculous.

Before advising on how to appeal a ticket it might be useful
if you knew exactly the reason(s) it was issued.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well that would be difficult because a Council CEO can't issue tickets for either of those things!

Any more dissent? Before posting about me and Tilt being ridiculous, perhaps you should check the facts before engaging the keyboard?

Perhaps you should. When you have you will realise that the ticket could have been issued by a PC/PCSO and for an offence other than a yellow line infringement.

More codswallop from someone who should know better.