Parking fine while picking up children

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

...except I, and others, are being told we are "missing the point" because we haven't put in any assumptions (like others have), nor have we suggested the OP might be able to appeal based on these assumptions. The OP left their car on a single yellow line for at least 9 minutes. That is a fact.
The reason the OP did it was because it was cold. That is a fact.
Yellow lines are put on public roads for safety and traffic management reasons. That is a fact.
There are no assumptions in those three facts. There are no ifs or maybes. I haven't missed the point.

Apart from the fact that the child concerned was 4 years of age where by it may not of been safe for a child of that age to walk un-assisted from where the car was parked to the school. However, had it been the case that there was another capable person in the car (other than the OP) who could of walked with the child, then I very much doubt that the OP would be able to successfully use the boarding and alighting exemptions in an appeal.

Not sure how many times this has got to be repeated before the penny drops!!! :wall:

WTFH

Tilt, you are still using the word "may", you are even making it bold and underlining it. Yet you missed the sentence before the one you made red in my post. There are no ifs or maybes.

Not sure how many times this has got to be repeated before the penny drops!!! (to quote someone who chooses not to read some things if it contradicts their argument)

Oh, and another thing, it's "may not have", not "may not of". If you're going to try to create an argument, I'd prefer if you use logic and grammar, rather than ignoring both.

Tilt

WTFH wrote: »

Tilt, you are still using the word "may", you are even making it bold and underlining it. Yet you missed the sentence before the one you made red in my post. There are no ifs or maybes.

Not sure how many times this has got to be repeated before the penny drops!!! (to quote someone who chooses not to read some things if it contradicts their argument)

Oh, and another thing, it's "may not have", not "may not of". If you're going to try to create an argument, I'd prefer if you use logic and grammar, rather than ignoring both.

WTFH, what are you talking about??? :rotfl:

There ARE "ifs or maybes" here!!!

IF the child was only 4 and couldn't walk safely into the school from the car from where ever it was parked, then the OP could appeal under the boarding and alighting exemptions because MAYBE it actually took 9 minutes to complete the task.

IF the OP takes it all the way to PATAS, then MAYBE the adjudicator will uphold the appeal.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the age of the child is of significant grounds to appeal under the boarding and alighting exemptions?? It would be for the adjudicator to decide whether or not 9 minutes was excessive to escort the child into the school.

What part of that don't you understand??? :wall:

iammumtoone

Tilt wrote: »

No problems... nice to have a diversion from the hammer and chiseling going on here!

Simple answer is no, they are not allowed to park on the pavement unless there are signs indicating that you can (very rare places indeed!)

Have you bought this problem to the attention of your local authority? They should send a CEO down to check it out if you contact them with your concerns.

Thank you, I shall let the authorities know about the situation.

Jamie_Carter

WTFH wrote: »

...except I, and others, are being told we are "missing the point" because we haven't put in any assumptions (like others have), nor have we suggested the OP might be able to appeal based on these assumptions. The OP left their car on a single yellow line for at least 9 minutes. That is a fact.
The reason the OP did it was because it was cold. That is a fact.
Yellow lines are put on public roads for safety and traffic management reasons. That is a fact.
There are no assumptions in those three facts. There are no ifs or maybes. I haven't missed the point.

Well said ^^^^^

Tilt

iammumtoone wrote: »

Thank you, I shall let the authorities know about the situation.

Can you do me a favour...can you start your own thread so we can take it further if necessary.

Rover_Driver

WTFH wrote: »

Tilt, you are still using the word "may", you are even making it bold and underlining it. Yet you missed the sentence before the one you made red in my post. There are no ifs or maybes.

Not sure how many times this has got to be repeated before the penny drops!!! (to quote someone who chooses not to read some things if it contradicts their argument)

Oh, and another thing, it's "may not have", not "may not of". If you're going to try to create an argument, I'd prefer if you use logic and grammar, rather than ignoring both.

The exemption is in the legislation, it may or may not apply, depending on the circumstances.

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Well said ^^^^^

But completely irrelevant.

Jamie_Carter

iammumtoone wrote: »

On our way to school today we nearly got run over, on the pavement :eek:

I am mentioning it on this thread (hope no one minds) as I don't want to start another and cause yet another argumentative thread around school parking issues. I know people are reading this that know the law so just asking before I considering complaining.

This is not the first time it has happened to my son and I. We walk everyday and the cars mount the pavements to park (there are no lines or anything so they are entitled to park there). The cars park half on the pavement and on several occasions I have had to stop/move to avoid a car that clearly has not seen us (probably too busy looking to avoid other cars on the road)! sometimes it feels as if we are walking along a road. Are they allowed to do this? To be fair if they didn't the cars would not be able to get through the road so its a difficult one but surely my son and I should be able to feel safe walking along a pavement.

This is what the Highway Code says about it:

244

You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
Law GL(GP)A sect 15

So it would depend on your local council. It might be worth complaining to the council to see if anything can be done in the way of parking restrictions (but as you can see from this thread, some people will just try to find loopholes if they do).


Are there other places to park nearby if parking restrictions are put in place down that road? This would probably determine the council's decision.

shaun_from_Africa

Even if the local council permits pavement parking, it would still be worth putting in a report about it.
The parking aspect might well be okay, but doing so when there are pedestrians present who have to move out the way to avoid being hit won't be legal.

The cars park half on the pavement and on several occasions I have had to stop/move to avoid a car that clearly has not seen us