Stopped on a double yellow

[PuncturedBicyclette]

DS usually walks to school. Today it was chucking it down, so I drove him. Stopped briefly on double yellows outside the school. NOT on the zigzags. No kerb markings or other signs. As far as I know it's fine to stop (not park) on a double yellow, to let passengers out.

Was there 30 seconds. Stopped, DS got out, I left.

As I was pulling back out, man on bike shouts through my window "Do you know it's f*ing double yellows?". I reply "Yes thank you, I was letting a passenger out". He swears at me again and cycles off.

I'm not doing any thing wrong, am I?

The only way I'll listen to a Smiths song, @PuncturedBicyclette is if it's Rick Astley singing.

@user1477391263
Yes, but she decided to drive him. So what? Do you never get a lift in the rain? What’s it got to do with teenagers needing more exercise FFS? You don’t like it but she wasn’t wrong, just like you are not wrong for walking. It’s a personal choice.

The law is the law (or the Highway Code is the Highway Code), so what you think in this situation doesn’t matter. Being able to stop for a few seconds, to let someone off, is a sensible exception to this rule. If it wasn’t thought to be sensible, there would be pavement markings, to prevent this. OP also specifically said she didn’t stop on the zig zag lines, which are there to prevent anyone stopping on them, even if it’s just to let passengers alight or board.

For info. - I’m actually disabled and have a blue badge and the following rule applies to me -
”Badge holders may park on single or double yellow lines for up to 3 hours, but in general not where there are restrictions on loading or unloading – indicated by yellow kerb dashes and / or signs on plates”
Do you also wrongly think that this shouldn’t be allowed as well, which would be taking away a large chunk of the limited independence I still have?

you were fine - straight forward double line no stripes on the curb and no signage fine to drop and collect folk quickly and also to load or unload again short duration and most parking wardens wouldn;t allow more than 15 mins and certainly no hanging around inside unpacking etc.

I suspect cyclist has no idea of highway code as most dont

My understanding is you can't park on double yellow lines as it is likely to cause an obstruction. However blue badge holders are able to park on double yellows. Won't their car cause an obstruction? Say if two or more cars parked along side them with blue badges. Isn't that a big obstruction and the only difference between them and other cars ( not the drivers or passengers I want to add) is the blue card?

But that's 2/3 cars. Outside a school that would be 30 cars if they didn't need a BB

I was asking in general terms. I asked how a car on double yellows is causing an obstruction but if the same car had a blue badge it’s not causing an obstruction.

Whether or not a car causes an obstruction isn't affected by the presence or absence of a blue badge.

The point of the blue badge in relation to yellow lines is that the parking restriction in and of itself does not prohibit a blue badge holder from parking in a particular place. However, blue badge holders are still not allowed to park there if doing so will cause an obstruction. They must not park "where it would endanger, inconvenience or obstruct pedestrians or other road users", for example,

• school entrances, bus stops, on a bend, or near the brow of a hill, or
• opposite or within 10 metres of a junction, or
• where it would make the road narrow, e.g., by a traffic island, or
• where it would hold up traffic, such as in narrow stretches of road or blocking entrances.

Source - The Blue Badge scheme: rights and responsibilities in England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

This all raises the question: why are there double yellow lines there if parking won't cause an obstruction? I suppose there might be situations where parking is restricted for other reasons - e.g., because it would be unsightly or something - and in these cases the needs of disabled people trump whatever considerations led to the lines being painted.

We have this locally.
Town fully double yellows and supposed to be pedestrianised but
Full of parked cars with blue badges
I approached a traffic warden and asked him and he explained whilst disabled badge holders do obstruct the road their badge trumps it.
That may be just his thoughts on the issue though.

I walk one way cyclist cycles towards me whilst I’m walking forward, does that make sense? Often it happens even if there’s hardly room for both of us. Children/teens I give a pass to but adults should know better considering they’re not supposed to cycle on pavements.

Use of yellow lines is rather random round here. We have a really busy road which takes people in and out of town, is used by school traffic, HGVs, buses, all sorts. It's also a major walking route to school for hundreds of kids. However it has victorian cottages on either side with now driveways and so the residents quite rightly want to park outside their homes on both sides. It's chaotic with everyone trying to squeeze through between the parked cars. However yellow lining it would be rubbish for the residents so I get it.

Conversely there are double yellow lines through town that seem to be there because otherwise the town wouldn't look as pretty. Also they want people to pay for parking in the town's council owned car parks.

The first page of this thread really shows how a little knowledge turns people into complete wallies and how confident people can be when they're totally wrong. Of course you can stop on double yellow and let someone out. You can't wait there and you can't park there. It needs to be double reds for no stopping whatsoever.

I absolutely agree they shouldn’t be on the pavement but they’re going to opposite way to you not the wrong way.

If I was in a taxi taking my kid to school I wouldn't ask for them to stop on the yellow lines. I would ask for them to find a parking / drop off spot close to the school and walk my child to the gates.
Whilst you may be allowed to alight passengers on a double yellow, to do so at a school drop off is inconsiderate and potentially dangerous. If 20 or thirty cars are doing the same thing at the same time it impacts far more on traffic than a solitary vehicle doing so in light traffic.

🙄i would expect the taxi driver to let him do his job, especially in rush hour traffic. I'm sure he's more experienced than you.

In that example either direction is the wrong way.

That's for public transport I'd imagine.

Not commenting on the detail of the OP, not enough details are provided, but for any motoring decision it's not just "is it legal" that you need to consider, the full consideration is "Safe, Convenient And Legal" This should have been mentioned at some point in your training.

Most people broadly understand legal, and it's quite black and white. The other two are almost always overlooked, and are subjective, leading to endless thread like this...

I think you'd be annoyed if you were driving behind a car who stopped suddenly in front of you and potentially without checking if it was safe to do so. The only reason people are thinking the cyclist was unreasonable was because it was a cyclist.

Although he was unreasonable to be sweary and abusive, but not to be annoyed.

Oh sorry, I missed the bit where the OP explained she / her passenger is a blue badge holder. As the OP, or her passenger, is in fact unable to walk in the rain, of course she was perfectly right to stop on double yellows, causing other road users to have to take additional risks.

Please feel free to read my post properly. I didn't say anything is "not allowed". I pointed out that the OP has confused "perfectly legal" with "absolutely and unequivocally the correct thing to do". I am suggesting that maybe life is not quite so binary; and depending on the circumstances, perhaps the OP shouldn't be polishing her halo.

Rain coats are good for walking in the rain

Hmm but it was after she'd been there 30 secs or so letting her son out that the cyclist started shouting at her so I doubt he'd been behind her at the point of her stopping. Most likely he just thought he knew the rules on stopping on yellow lines better than she did.

It's extremely rare I get any sort of lift as most people I know don't drive either and I don't need lifts.

You keep missing the point, which is that giving a teenager lifts to school and dropping them off right by the school is breaking the "Yes, but what if everybody did that?" test.

There are hundreds of teenagers in a typical secondary school, and if it's raining then it's raining on everyone, not just on one person. So, if hundreds of families do the same sort of thing, what's going to happen? That is very different to an adult accepting an occasional random lift in a non-busy situation where there are not going to be hundreds of other people in an identical position (which I probably do about twice a year anyway).

Even "find a street nearby, drive into it, and let him out" is not really that much better (though marginally less stupid than what the OP actually did) because again, if everyone does that, it's still going to cause serious levels of congestion around schools in the morning and madden local residents.

In the country where I live, driving kids to school is mostly banned and it's so much bloody better and solves so many problems.

User1477, that sounds great

Goodness! What a vivid imagination you have. I imagine it's only for stretched limousines dropping teens at prom. But only on Wednesdays between 8 and 10 am.

Don't you think if this rule was only to be used by buses etc., it would say that?

This explains why it's utter carnage on the roads near school on a rainy day (we walk every day).

Do people not own sensible coats and footwear anymore?

You'll have everyone piling on spouting the highway code OP. Technically you're in the wrong but what sort of jumped up busybody would start shouting out of the window. I'd have done the same, I'm sure in the world of mumsnet I should lose my licence for such a heinous crime but I wouldn't give it any further thought.