Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Pavemen parked car damaged by bllind person - degree of liability ?
188 views
Skip to first unread message
steve robinson
Sep 15, 2019, 7:07:24 AM9/15/19
to
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
>my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
>
>Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
>propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
>the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
>do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
>problems gauging the width).
>
>Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
>for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
>were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
>positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
>they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>
>In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
>for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
>who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
>a result of a bag protruding) ?
>
Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
bylaws state otherwise .
I would think as te car is stationary then the wheelchair user or
blind person is still liable for any damage if the cars lawfully
parked . Unfortunately the law hasn't caught up with pavement
parking as an issue for the disabled and the government don't really
want to create a problem for millions of motorists by preventing them
from parking outside their homes or very nearby , big vote loser and
likely to create more congestion in our smaller roads and lead to a
massive up tick of parking spats between neighbors . Bad enough now
in some areas where they implement parking restrictions
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
>my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
>
>Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
>propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
>the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
>do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
>problems gauging the width).
>
>Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
>for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
>were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
>positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
>they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>
>In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
>for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
>who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
>a result of a bag protruding) ?
>
Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
bylaws state otherwise .
I would think as te car is stationary then the wheelchair user or
blind person is still liable for any damage if the cars lawfully
parked . Unfortunately the law hasn't caught up with pavement
parking as an issue for the disabled and the government don't really
want to create a problem for millions of motorists by preventing them
from parking outside their homes or very nearby , big vote loser and
likely to create more congestion in our smaller roads and lead to a
massive up tick of parking spats between neighbors . Bad enough now
in some areas where they implement parking restrictions
Roger Hayter
Sep 15, 2019, 8:02:15 AM9/15/19
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:07:11 +0100, steve robinson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> > <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement
> >>preventing my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting
> >>through.
> >>
> >>Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> >>propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> >>the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> >>do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> >>problems gauging the width).
> >>
> >>Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
> >>for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
> >>were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
> >>positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
> >>they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
> >>
> >>In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
> >>for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
> >>who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe
> >>as a result of a bag protruding) ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> > bylaws state otherwise .
>
> But it is unlawful to obstruct the footpath hence the question.
That does not make damage caused negligently (let alone deliberately!)
acceptable. OTOH, if the person makes an effort to get past without
damage and has no easy or safe alternative route then if they do cause
damage it is not negligence. Just the fact they cause damage does
*not* make them liable to compensate the car owner, there has to be
negligence. They have a right to proceed along the highway and if they
try reasonably hard to do so without damage I don't think any court
would find them negligent.
--
Roger Hayter
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:07:11 +0100, steve robinson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> > <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement
> >>preventing my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting
> >>through.
> >>
> >>Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> >>propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> >>the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> >>do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> >>problems gauging the width).
> >>
> >>Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
> >>for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
> >>were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
> >>positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
> >>they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
> >>
> >>In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
> >>for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
> >>who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe
> >>as a result of a bag protruding) ?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> > bylaws state otherwise .
>
That does not make damage caused negligently (let alone deliberately!)
acceptable. OTOH, if the person makes an effort to get past without
damage and has no easy or safe alternative route then if they do cause
damage it is not negligence. Just the fact they cause damage does
*not* make them liable to compensate the car owner, there has to be
negligence. They have a right to proceed along the highway and if they
try reasonably hard to do so without damage I don't think any court
would find them negligent.
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Sep 15, 2019, 8:36:03 AM9/15/19
to
In message <1ody3zk.1wsyyg61chn4q0N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 13:01:57 on
Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
I was impeded by this over-entitled delivery driver this morning. Not
just blocking the pavement (somebody put those bollards there for a
reason, and yet he's found a gap big enough to park his van), but
blocking the High Street for anything other than extremely thin cars,
with his open door too!
(I've got a closer-up picture, but by then it's directly into the sun).
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/prezzo_delivery.jpg
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 15 Sep 2019, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
just blocking the pavement (somebody put those bollards there for a
reason, and yet he's found a gap big enough to park his van), but
blocking the High Street for anything other than extremely thin cars,
with his open door too!
(I've got a closer-up picture, but by then it's directly into the sun).
http://www.perry.co.uk/images/prezzo_delivery.jpg
--
Roland Perry
Brian Reay
Sep 15, 2019, 11:01:05 AM9/15/19
to
On 15/09/2019 11:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
> my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
>
> Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> problems gauging the width).
>
> Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
> for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
> were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
> positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
> they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>
> In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
> for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
> who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
> a result of a bag protruding) ?
>
>
The question of pavement parking being legal etc often comes up and I'm
> Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
> my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
>
> Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> problems gauging the width).
>
> Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
> for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
> were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
> positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
> they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>
> In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
> for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
> who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
> a result of a bag protruding) ?
>
>
sure it will attract attention here. I've certainly heard of the police
issuing 'tickets' in my area (part of Kent) for even a wheel on a kerb-
a former neighbour was most upset when it happened to him outside his
house. (When we lived on a public road.)
That aside, I'd prefer to address the other aspects.
Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc. Without
wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
Secondly, safety. What was the alternative route? Presumably, you or she
would have needed to direct her wheelchair around the vehicle on the
road. Was it a busy road etc.
Finally, assuming a claim was made against one of you, then I'd look at
your household insurance. You may well find you have legal cover. It
should at least provide legal support, if not help defray any liability.
steve robinson
Sep 15, 2019, 1:00:13 PM9/15/19
to
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 11:27:49 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:07:11 +0100, steve robinson wrote:
>
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:07:11 +0100, steve robinson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement
>>>preventing my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting
>>>through.
>>>
>>>Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
>>>propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
>>>the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
>>>do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
>>>problems gauging the width).
>>>
>>>Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
>>>for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
>>>were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
>>>positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
>>>they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>>>
>>>In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
>>>for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
>>>who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe
>>>as a result of a bag protruding) ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement
>>>preventing my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting
>>>through.
>>>
>>>Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
>>>propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
>>>the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
>>>do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
>>>problems gauging the width).
>>>
>>>Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
>>>for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
>>>were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
>>>positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
>>>they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>>>
>>>In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
>>>for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
>>>who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe
>>>as a result of a bag protruding) ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>But it is unlawful to obstruct the footpath hence the question.
Its the obstruction that's the grey area, if you cannot get past
because of your sight problems that in itself does not render the
vehicle an obstruction
davi...@gmail.com
Sep 15, 2019, 1:05:42 PM9/15/19
to
Harry Bloomfield
Sep 15, 2019, 3:16:20 PM9/15/19
to
Jethro_uk has brought this to us :
a pavement - go figure.
> But it is unlawful to obstruct the footpath hence the question.
Its unlawful to drive on a pavement, it is not unlawful to be parked on
a pavement - go figure.
Roger Hayter
Sep 16, 2019, 2:11:46 AM9/16/19
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> I'm only thinking of situations where the parked car has obstructed the
> footpath - regardless of any other restrictions or not in place ...
> charge". Touch wood I can see OK and was able to navigate. However, what
> is the situation if I were present, but *not* pushing ? AFAIK there's
> still no brothers keeper law in the UK so I would have no responsibility.
> damage to a car that was parked on the pavement such that she was unable
> to pass, but which she initially misjudged as being able to pass, would
> she be expected to shoulder 100% of the liability /
> a van parked near the dropped kerb that made visibility impossible
> without putting your head into the roadspace. Which of course a
> wheelchair user can't do, so it would have been front wheels first, then
> head and assuming you've not been clipped by a car, you look to see if
> it's clear .....
> respectfully (or not so respectfully) fuck off. However if they decided
> to claim against my wife, and got it as far as court, and it was decided
> that they were obstructing the footpath, would it affect any
> determination of court fees (assuming we are talking fast track) ?
>
> FTOAD I am not talking about some wheelchair warrior who has gone out of
> their way to cause damage. I am talking about a wheelchair user who
> inadvertently causes damage as a result of trying to pass a car that has
> obstructed the footpath.
I'm pretty sure that if she took reasonable care any damage that was
caused would not be negligent and she would not be liable for it. And
is quite apart from contibutory negligence by the car parker if it is
*was* found to be negligent damage. As you say elsewhere, the criminal
law is largely irrelevant.
--
Roger Hayter
> footpath - regardless of any other restrictions or not in place ...
>
> >
> > That aside, I'd prefer to address the other aspects.
> >
> > Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
> > Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc.
>
> Immediately you raise an interesting point. I was pushing my wife, so "in
> >
> > That aside, I'd prefer to address the other aspects.
> >
> > Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
> > Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc.
>
> charge". Touch wood I can see OK and was able to navigate. However, what
> is the situation if I were present, but *not* pushing ? AFAIK there's
> still no brothers keeper law in the UK so I would have no responsibility.
>
> > Without
> > wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
> > She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
> > a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
>
> No offence. That was why I mentioned it. TL;DR, but if she were to cause
> > Without
> > wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
> > She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
> > a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
>
> damage to a car that was parked on the pavement such that she was unable
> to pass, but which she initially misjudged as being able to pass, would
> she be expected to shoulder 100% of the liability /
>
> > Secondly, safety. What was the alternative route? Presumably, you or she
> > would have needed to direct her wheelchair around the vehicle on the
> > road. Was it a busy road etc.
>
> Just to complicate things, if an alternative route was needed, there was
> > Secondly, safety. What was the alternative route? Presumably, you or she
> > would have needed to direct her wheelchair around the vehicle on the
> > road. Was it a busy road etc.
>
> a van parked near the dropped kerb that made visibility impossible
> without putting your head into the roadspace. Which of course a
> wheelchair user can't do, so it would have been front wheels first, then
> head and assuming you've not been clipped by a car, you look to see if
> it's clear .....
>
> > Finally, assuming a claim was made against one of you, then I'd look at
> > your household insurance. You may well find you have legal cover. It
> > should at least provide legal support, if not help defray any liability.
>
> Well if a claim was made against me, and I wasn't pushing, they can
> > Finally, assuming a claim was made against one of you, then I'd look at
> > your household insurance. You may well find you have legal cover. It
> > should at least provide legal support, if not help defray any liability.
>
> respectfully (or not so respectfully) fuck off. However if they decided
> to claim against my wife, and got it as far as court, and it was decided
> that they were obstructing the footpath, would it affect any
> determination of court fees (assuming we are talking fast track) ?
>
> FTOAD I am not talking about some wheelchair warrior who has gone out of
> their way to cause damage. I am talking about a wheelchair user who
> inadvertently causes damage as a result of trying to pass a car that has
> obstructed the footpath.
I'm pretty sure that if she took reasonable care any damage that was
caused would not be negligent and she would not be liable for it. And
is quite apart from contibutory negligence by the car parker if it is
*was* found to be negligent damage. As you say elsewhere, the criminal
law is largely irrelevant.
--
Roger Hayter
steve robinson
Sep 16, 2019, 4:24:27 AM9/16/19
to
ingram....@gmail.com
Sep 16, 2019, 4:41:05 AM9/16/19
to
On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 12:07:24 PM UTC+1, steve robinson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
> >Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
> >my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
> >
> >Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> >propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> >the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> >do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> >problems gauging the width).
> >
> ...
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
> >Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
> >my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
> >
> >Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> >propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> >the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> >do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> >problems gauging the width).
> >
Anecdote. A few years ago at a Neighbourhood Watch meeting at the local police station, the inspector taking questions was asked what could be done about cars blocking footpaths for pushchairs and old people with shopping trollies. He said that he was surprised that more cars didn't get scratched with people having to push past them.
He didn't quite say go ahead and do it!
Cheers,
nib
Brian Reay
Sep 16, 2019, 4:42:26 AM9/16/19
to
> I'm only thinking of situations where the parked car has obstructed the
> footpath - regardless of any other restrictions or not in place ...
>
>>
> footpath - regardless of any other restrictions or not in place ...
>
>>
>> That aside, I'd prefer to address the other aspects.
>>
>> Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
>> Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc.
>
>>
>> Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
>> Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc.
>
> Immediately you raise an interesting point. I was pushing my wife, so "in
> charge". Touch wood I can see OK and was able to navigate. However, what
> is the situation if I were present, but *not* pushing ? AFAIK there's
> still no brothers keeper law in the UK so I would have no responsibility.
>
> charge". Touch wood I can see OK and was able to navigate. However, what
> is the situation if I were present, but *not* pushing ? AFAIK there's
> still no brothers keeper law in the UK so I would have no responsibility.
>
>> Without
>> wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
>> She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
>> a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
>
>> wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
>> She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
>> a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
>
> No offence. That was why I mentioned it. TL;DR, but if she were to cause
> damage to a car that was parked on the pavement such that she was unable
> to pass, but which she initially misjudged as being able to pass, would
> she be expected to shoulder 100% of the liability /
In my view she shouldn’t be.
> damage to a car that was parked on the pavement such that she was unable
> to pass, but which she initially misjudged as being able to pass, would
> she be expected to shoulder 100% of the liability /
However, I don’t agree with cars parking on pavements exactly because
people like your wife need to navigate then- as do people with prams etc.
Would a Court agree? Hopefully yes and I think you or she could compile a
good case.
>
>> Secondly, safety. What was the alternative route? Presumably, you or she
>> would have needed to direct her wheelchair around the vehicle on the
>> road. Was it a busy road etc.
>
> Just to complicate things, if an alternative route was needed, there was
> a van parked near the dropped kerb that made visibility impossible
> without putting your head into the roadspace. Which of course a
> wheelchair user can't do, so it would have been front wheels first, then
> head and assuming you've not been clipped by a car, you look to see if
> it's clear .....
While adding complication, the initial problem is due to the car on the
> a van parked near the dropped kerb that made visibility impossible
> without putting your head into the roadspace. Which of course a
> wheelchair user can't do, so it would have been front wheels first, then
> head and assuming you've not been clipped by a car, you look to see if
> it's clear .....
pavement. I assume the van was legally parked etc. and therefore doesn’t
detract from the original responsibility of the car being on the pavement.
BTW, my reference to an alternative route was more to cut off a defence by
the driver- you/your wife should not need to divert but, if he argues you
could, was a safe route available.
>
>> Finally, assuming a claim was made against one of you, then I'd look at
>> your household insurance. You may well find you have legal cover. It
>> should at least provide legal support, if not help defray any liability.
>
> Well if a claim was made against me, and I wasn't pushing, they can
> respectfully (or not so respectfully) fuck off. However if they decided
> to claim against my wife, and got it as far as court, and it was decided
> that they were obstructing the footpath, would it affect any
> determination of court fees (assuming we are talking fast track) ?
It isn’t unusual for claims to be reduced etc if it determined the injured
> respectfully (or not so respectfully) fuck off. However if they decided
> to claim against my wife, and got it as far as court, and it was decided
> that they were obstructing the footpath, would it affect any
> determination of court fees (assuming we are talking fast track) ?
party (in this case the car owner if he won) had contributed to the
incident.
For example, in one of the high profile cyclist vs pedestrian cases, it was
applied quite recently.
>
> FTOAD I am not talking about some wheelchair warrior who has gone out of
> their way to cause damage. I am talking about a wheelchair user who
> inadvertently causes damage as a result of trying to pass a car that has
> obstructed the footpath.
>
sympathy from me, especially if they inconvenience anyone who is disabled
etc.
steve robinson
Sep 16, 2019, 4:42:45 AM9/16/19
to
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 15:25:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
sighted person get through , could a sighted person in a wheelchair
get through and extent of damage w the visually impaired person in
the wheelchair caused , if its just a cracked lens small scratch
then its hard to say that's been done deliberately or with any
negligence , however if the car has scratches and dings the full
length of the vehicle then that would indicate a certain amount of
negligence because they would have been aware of the vehicle .
>I'm only thinking of situations where the parked car has obstructed the
>footpath - regardless of any other restrictions or not in place ...
>
>>
>footpath - regardless of any other restrictions or not in place ...
>
>>
>> That aside, I'd prefer to address the other aspects.
>>
>> Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
>> Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc.
>
>>
>> Firstly, did you, or your wife take reasonable care would be a question.
>> Factors here would be, could you, or she, judge the gap etc.
>
>Immediately you raise an interesting point. I was pushing my wife, so "in
>charge". Touch wood I can see OK and was able to navigate. However, what
>is the situation if I were present, but *not* pushing ? AFAIK there's
>still no brothers keeper law in the UK so I would have no responsibility.
>
>charge". Touch wood I can see OK and was able to navigate. However, what
>is the situation if I were present, but *not* pushing ? AFAIK there's
>still no brothers keeper law in the UK so I would have no responsibility.
>
>> Without
>> wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
>> She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
>> a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
>
>> wishing to offend, your wife's visual problem would be a factor here.
>> She couldn't be reasonably be expected to make an assessment as well as
>> a normally sighted person (please don't be offended by my terminology).
>
>No offence. That was why I mentioned it. TL;DR, but if she were to cause
>damage to a car that was parked on the pavement such that she was unable
>to pass, but which she initially misjudged as being able to pass, would
>she be expected to shoulder 100% of the liability /
>
>damage to a car that was parked on the pavement such that she was unable
>to pass, but which she initially misjudged as being able to pass, would
>she be expected to shoulder 100% of the liability /
>
>> Secondly, safety. What was the alternative route? Presumably, you or she
>> would have needed to direct her wheelchair around the vehicle on the
>> road. Was it a busy road etc.
>
>> would have needed to direct her wheelchair around the vehicle on the
>> road. Was it a busy road etc.
>
>Just to complicate things, if an alternative route was needed, there was
>a van parked near the dropped kerb that made visibility impossible
>without putting your head into the roadspace. Which of course a
>wheelchair user can't do, so it would have been front wheels first, then
>head and assuming you've not been clipped by a car, you look to see if
>it's clear .....
>
>a van parked near the dropped kerb that made visibility impossible
>without putting your head into the roadspace. Which of course a
>wheelchair user can't do, so it would have been front wheels first, then
>head and assuming you've not been clipped by a car, you look to see if
>it's clear .....
>
>> Finally, assuming a claim was made against one of you, then I'd look at
>> your household insurance. You may well find you have legal cover. It
>> should at least provide legal support, if not help defray any liability.
>
>> your household insurance. You may well find you have legal cover. It
>> should at least provide legal support, if not help defray any liability.
>
>Well if a claim was made against me, and I wasn't pushing, they can
>respectfully (or not so respectfully) fuck off. However if they decided
>to claim against my wife, and got it as far as court, and it was decided
>that they were obstructing the footpath, would it affect any
>determination of court fees (assuming we are talking fast track) ?
>
>respectfully (or not so respectfully) fuck off. However if they decided
>to claim against my wife, and got it as far as court, and it was decided
>that they were obstructing the footpath, would it affect any
>determination of court fees (assuming we are talking fast track) ?
>
>FTOAD I am not talking about some wheelchair warrior who has gone out of
>their way to cause damage. I am talking about a wheelchair user who
>inadvertently causes damage as a result of trying to pass a car that has
>obstructed the footpath.
Think its going to come down to a few basic facts , could a
>their way to cause damage. I am talking about a wheelchair user who
>inadvertently causes damage as a result of trying to pass a car that has
>obstructed the footpath.
sighted person get through , could a sighted person in a wheelchair
get through and extent of damage w the visually impaired person in
the wheelchair caused , if its just a cracked lens small scratch
then its hard to say that's been done deliberately or with any
negligence , however if the car has scratches and dings the full
length of the vehicle then that would indicate a certain amount of
negligence because they would have been aware of the vehicle .
The Todal
Sep 16, 2019, 4:54:27 AM9/16/19
to
On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
>> Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
>> my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
>>
>> Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
>> propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
>> the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
>> do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
>> problems gauging the width).
>>
>> Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
>> for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
>> were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
>> positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
>> they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>>
>> In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
>> for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
>> who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
>> a result of a bag protruding) ?
>>
>
>
> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> bylaws state otherwise .
With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>
>> Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
>> my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
>>
>> Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
>> propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
>> the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
>> do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
>> problems gauging the width).
>>
>> Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
>> for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
>> were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
>> positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
>> they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
>>
>> In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
>> for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
>> who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
>> a result of a bag protruding) ?
>>
>
>
> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> bylaws state otherwise .
proposition?
It would mean that motorists would never know whether or not they are
allowed to park on pavements. Who visits a city and looks up the byelaws
about parking?
To park on the pavement is to obstruct it contrary to s.137 of the
Highways Act 1980.
I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
carriageway to pass the parked car.
If you scratch a parked car deliberately you will be guilty of criminal
damage. If you do it accidentally you will have no liability criminal or
civil. If you do it negligently (which might be difficult to prove) you
might be liable for damages in a civil court. I think the claimant would
usually have an impossible task to prove that you were negligent unless
he had video footage.
davi...@gmail.com
Sep 16, 2019, 5:34:04 AM9/16/19
to
On Monday, 16 September 2019 09:54:27 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> > <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
> >> my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
> >>
> >> Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> >> propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> >> the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> >> do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> >> problems gauging the width).
> >>
> >> Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
> >> for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
> >> were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
> >> positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
> >> they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
> >>
> >> In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
> >> for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
> >> who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
> >> a result of a bag protruding) ?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> > bylaws state otherwise .
>
> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> proposition?
See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the legislation):
> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
> > <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Once again, had to circumnavigate a car parked on the pavement preventing
> >> my wifes manual wheelchair (pushed by me) from getting through.
> >>
> >> Set me wondering what the situation might have been, had I not been
> >> propelling, and my wife was propelling herself and caused some damage to
> >> the car as a result of trying to pass before realising she was unable to
> >> do so ? (My wife is registered as partially sighted so could have had
> >> problems gauging the width).
> >>
> >> Obviously the question of liability lies with my wife, who could be sued
> >> for the damage (in the event she suggested she wouldn't pay). If a case
> >> were to be progressed to legal arbitration, would the initial, unlawful
> >> positioning of the car affect the quantum of damages ? And in the event
> >> they did, would the party bringing the action lose the court fee ?
> >>
> >> In this instance it would be a wheelchair that caused the damage. Just
> >> for hypotheticals, what if the damage were caused by a blind pedestrian
> >> who was squeezing through the gap, and happened to cause damage (maybe as
> >> a result of a bag protruding) ?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> > bylaws state otherwise .
>
> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> proposition?
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2019, 6:17:46 AM9/16/19
to
In message <gu90th...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:54:09 on Mon, 16
Sep 2019, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Sep 2019, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless
>>local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>proposition?
>
>It would mean that motorists would never know whether or not they are
>allowed to park on pavements. Who visits a city and looks up the
>byelaws about parking?
Exactly the same jeopardy applies to parking alongside dropped kerbs.
>>local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>proposition?
>
>It would mean that motorists would never know whether or not they are
>allowed to park on pavements. Who visits a city and looks up the
>byelaws about parking?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2019, 6:18:22 AM9/16/19
to
In message <gu90th...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:54:09 on Mon, 16
Sep 2019, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
Sep 2019, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com> remarked:
>I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
>their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
>allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
>helpful if they free up some of the carriageway.
Depends on the region. It varies a lot. In some places people park with
>their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
>allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
>helpful if they free up some of the carriageway.
two wheels on the pavement even if it's not necessary to keep the
roadway clear - it's like a reflex action.
Then there's the people who park entirely on the pavement because they
think it's a loophole in the double yellow lines (it isn't).
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Sep 16, 2019, 6:52:07 AM9/16/19
to
On 1
6/09/2019 10:33, davi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 16 September 2019 09:54:27 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
<snip>>>>
Note the Highway Code's language:
"You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and
should not do so elsewhere ..."
"Should not" conveys no specific law against it.
Then, second, look at the legislation referenced. It only applies in
Greater London.
Third, councils wouldn't be asking for a change in the law if they could
ban it already. See eg
<https://www.thesun.co.uk>/motors/3197569/illegal-park-pavement-fine-rules-different-london/>
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
6/09/2019 10:33, davi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 16 September 2019 09:54:27 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>
>> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>> proposition?
>
> See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the legislation):
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
>
...which will simply tend to confirm The Todal's view (with which I agree).
>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>
>> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>> proposition?
>
> See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the legislation):
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
>
Note the Highway Code's language:
"You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and
should not do so elsewhere ..."
"Should not" conveys no specific law against it.
Then, second, look at the legislation referenced. It only applies in
Greater London.
Third, councils wouldn't be asking for a change in the law if they could
ban it already. See eg
<https://www.thesun.co.uk>/motors/3197569/illegal-park-pavement-fine-rules-different-london/>
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
davi...@gmail.com
Sep 16, 2019, 6:58:50 AM9/16/19
to
On Monday, 16 September 2019 11:52:07 UTC+1, Robin wrote:
> On 1
>
> 6/09/2019 10:33, davi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 September 2019 09:54:27 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> <snip>>>>
> >>>
> >>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> >>> bylaws state otherwise .
> >>
> >> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> >> proposition?
> >
> > See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the legislation):
> >
> > https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
> >
>
> ...which will simply tend to confirm The Todal's view (with which I agree).
>
> Note the Highway Code's language:
>
> "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and
> should not do so elsewhere ..."
>
> "Should not" conveys no specific law against it.
Yes, the default position is that in London it's illegal (unless signage indicates otherwise), and the reverse applies elsewhere.
> On 1
>
> 6/09/2019 10:33, davi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, 16 September 2019 09:54:27 UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
> <snip>>>>
> >>>
> >>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> >>> bylaws state otherwise .
> >>
> >> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> >> proposition?
> >
> > See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the legislation):
> >
> > https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
> >
>
> ...which will simply tend to confirm The Todal's view (with which I agree).
>
> Note the Highway Code's language:
>
> "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and
> should not do so elsewhere ..."
>
> "Should not" conveys no specific law against it.
> Third, councils wouldn't be asking for a change in the law if they could
> ban it already.
Mark Goodge
Sep 16, 2019, 7:39:56 AM9/16/19
to
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 09:54:09 +0100, The Todal <the_...@icloud.com>
wrote:
>On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote
>>
of an offence by pointing to legislation. However, it is a reasonably
well-known quirk of the law, and is referenced by several reliablke
sources. For example:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-the-pavement/
https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q387.htm
>It would mean that motorists would never know whether or not they are
>allowed to park on pavements. Who visits a city and looks up the byelaws
>about parking?
If pavement parking is prohibited by a local TRO, then that has to be
displayed on signage.
>To park on the pavement is to obstruct it contrary to s.137 of the
>Highways Act 1980.
Not necessarily. Whether something is an obstruction is a question of
fact, and and it isn't obstructed if it is still passable. After all,
parking anywhere on the highway (including at the side of the
carriageway) will partially obstruct the highway. But it's only
unlawful if it makes the highway impassable.
>I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
>their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
>allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
>helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
>pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
>be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
>able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
>carriageway to pass the parked car.
People typically have this kind of scenario in mind:
https://cml.sad.ukrd.com/image/457025-400x522.jpg
Pavement parking isn't always bad. There are many cases where it's
possible to park partially on the pavement and still leave plenty of
space for pedestrians and wheeled footway users to pass safely. But it
has to be done thoughtfully and with due consideration for footway
users. The fact that it often isn't, is one of the reasons why the
government is considering extending the current London-only blanket
prohibition to have national effect.
<arl
wrote:
>On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote
>>
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>proposition?
There's no definitive source, as you can't (easily) prove the absence
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>proposition?
of an offence by pointing to legislation. However, it is a reasonably
well-known quirk of the law, and is referenced by several reliablke
sources. For example:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-the-pavement/
https://www.askthe.police.uk/Content/Q387.htm
>It would mean that motorists would never know whether or not they are
>allowed to park on pavements. Who visits a city and looks up the byelaws
>about parking?
displayed on signage.
>To park on the pavement is to obstruct it contrary to s.137 of the
>Highways Act 1980.
fact, and and it isn't obstructed if it is still passable. After all,
parking anywhere on the highway (including at the side of the
carriageway) will partially obstruct the highway. But it's only
unlawful if it makes the highway impassable.
>I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
>their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
>allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
>helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
>pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
>be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
>able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
>carriageway to pass the parked car.
https://cml.sad.ukrd.com/image/457025-400x522.jpg
Pavement parking isn't always bad. There are many cases where it's
possible to park partially on the pavement and still leave plenty of
space for pedestrians and wheeled footway users to pass safely. But it
has to be done thoughtfully and with due consideration for footway
users. The fact that it often isn't, is one of the reasons why the
government is considering extending the current London-only blanket
prohibition to have national effect.
<arl
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2019, 7:54:15 AM9/16/19
to
In message <7asunepvkm45qckoi...@4ax.com>, at 12:39:54 on
Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
> Whether something is an obstruction is a question of
>fact, and and it isn't obstructed if it is still passable. After all,
>parking anywhere on the highway (including at the side of the
>carriageway) will partially obstruct the highway. But it's only
>unlawful if it makes the highway impassable.
>
>>I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
>>their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
>>allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
>>helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
>>pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
>>be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
>>able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
>>carriageway to pass the parked car.
>
>People typically have this kind of scenario in mind:
>
>https://cml.sad.ukrd.com/image/457025-400x522.jpg
You'd have trouble getting one of those past here, even *with* the
nearside (middle of the road) door closed:
Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
> Whether something is an obstruction is a question of
>fact, and and it isn't obstructed if it is still passable. After all,
>parking anywhere on the highway (including at the side of the
>carriageway) will partially obstruct the highway. But it's only
>unlawful if it makes the highway impassable.
>
>>I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
>>their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
>>allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
>>helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
>>pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
>>be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
>>able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
>>carriageway to pass the parked car.
>
>People typically have this kind of scenario in mind:
>
>https://cml.sad.ukrd.com/image/457025-400x522.jpg
nearside (middle of the road) door closed:
Clive Page
Sep 16, 2019, 1:11:30 PM9/16/19
to
On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> bylaws state otherwise .
But it is unlawful to drive on the pavement - so the only way to get a car there lawfully is to drop it in vertically, e.g. by crane. Somehow I don't think most of the cars that I see parked on the pavement have been dropped in place.
> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
> bylaws state otherwise .
--
Clive Page
Mark Goodge
Sep 16, 2019, 1:25:16 PM9/16/19
to
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:11:15 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu>
wrote:
It could, theoretically, have been pushed there. But the real barrier
to prosecuting this offence is that it's not one to which keeper
liability applies. So if the police don't know who the driver was,
they have no power to force the keeper to incriminate them. Which, in
practice, means that driving on the footway is an offence which can
only be prosecuted[1] if actually witnessed by a constable, or if
there is sufficient other evidence as to the identity of the driver.
[1] In reality, it's more likely to lead to an FPN than a prosecution.
Mark
wrote:
to prosecuting this offence is that it's not one to which keeper
liability applies. So if the police don't know who the driver was,
they have no power to force the keeper to incriminate them. Which, in
practice, means that driving on the footway is an offence which can
only be prosecuted[1] if actually witnessed by a constable, or if
there is sufficient other evidence as to the identity of the driver.
[1] In reality, it's more likely to lead to an FPN than a prosecution.
Mark
Martin Brown
Sep 16, 2019, 1:48:56 PM9/16/19
to
On 16/09/2019 09:54, The Todal wrote:
> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> proposition?
I have a feeling that a parking warden cannot deal with parking on the
> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
> proposition?
pavement but that a policeman can. Here is what the RAC have to say:
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/parking-on-the-pavement/
There are lots of city pavements intended to be parked on too! And most
of them are *NOT* properly signed so it will be a money making scheme
for local councils if they do outlaw pavement parking outside London.
> It would mean that motorists would never know whether or not they are
> allowed to park on pavements. Who visits a city and looks up the byelaws
> about parking?
>
> To park on the pavement is to obstruct it contrary to s.137 of the
> Highways Act 1980.
previously wide pavements have been deliberately converted to be parked
on with chamfered 45 degree kerbs installed and tarmac under the cars.
(in part accepting a de facto situation of parking on the green verge)
Plenty of these roads would be impassable without such measures. It is
possible that the pavement to road boundary has been redefined but who
apart from a legal expert on road planning is ever going to know?
There are no signs at all indicating the purpose of the tarmacked areas.
Random sample from Newcastle where by turning through 90 degrees you can
see both "before" and "after" examples of this road parking improvement.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.0038661,-1.6535399,19z
Put the little man on the junction of Drayton Road (improved to cope
with street parking at a nearby school) and Maywood Close (as built).
And if you go round the corner onto the A191 you can see yet another
parking on pavement scheme in red brick that didn't kill all the trees.
>
> I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
> their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
> allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
> helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
> pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
> be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
> able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
> carriageway to pass the parked car.
>
> If you scratch a parked car deliberately you will be guilty of criminal
> damage. If you do it accidentally you will have no liability criminal or
> civil. If you do it negligently (which might be difficult to prove) you
> might be liable for damages in a civil court. I think the claimant would
> usually have an impossible task to prove that you were negligent unless
> he had video footage.
Some dashcams when in standby will trigger for 10s video capture on a
> I think most people who park on the pavement (or rather, with part of
> their car on the pavement) are worried that the road is too narrow to
> allow two cars to pass each other and they believe that they are being
> helpful if they free up some of the carriageway. They don't park on the
> pavement merely to cause inconvenience to pedestrians - but they might
> be thoughtless about how wheelchair users or the users of prams will be
> able to pass without having to take the risk of going into the
> carriageway to pass the parked car.
>
> If you scratch a parked car deliberately you will be guilty of criminal
> damage. If you do it accidentally you will have no liability criminal or
> civil. If you do it negligently (which might be difficult to prove) you
> might be liable for damages in a civil court. I think the claimant would
> usually have an impossible task to prove that you were negligent unless
> he had video footage.
vibration or impact - mine does.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Roland Perry
Sep 16, 2019, 1:59:12 PM9/16/19
to
In message <gu9u1j...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 16
Sep 2019, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:
accidentally on purpose blocked in. And they called the police to try to
get released. "Why", the copper might ask; "So I can drive home". "On
the pavement, surely not..."
--
Roland Perry
Sep 2019, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:
>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>But it is unlawful to drive on the pavement - so the only way to get a car
>there lawfully is to drop it in vertically, e.g. by crane. Somehow I don't
>think most of the cars that I see parked on the pavement have been dropped
>in place.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if a pavement-parked car got
>> bylaws state otherwise .
>
>But it is unlawful to drive on the pavement - so the only way to get a car
>there lawfully is to drop it in vertically, e.g. by crane. Somehow I don't
>think most of the cars that I see parked on the pavement have been dropped
>in place.
accidentally on purpose blocked in. And they called the police to try to
get released. "Why", the copper might ask; "So I can drive home". "On
the pavement, surely not..."
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Sep 16, 2019, 3:46:35 PM9/16/19
to
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:16:25 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16/09/2019 09:54, The Todal wrote:
>> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>
>> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>> proposition?
>
>I have a feeling that a parking warden cannot deal with parking on the
>pavement but that a policeman can.
One of the disadvantages of Local Authority Parking Enforcement (LAPE)
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 16/09/2019 09:54, The Todal wrote:
>> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>
>> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>> proposition?
>
>I have a feeling that a parking warden cannot deal with parking on the
>pavement but that a policeman can.
is that the local authority staff (correctly titled Civil Enforcement
Officers, but ubiquitously referred to as parking wardens) can only
deal with parking restrictions that are themselves imposed by the
highway authority - that is, contraventions of road markings (eg,
yellow lines, zigzags) and other TRO-regulated restrictions (such as
parking in a pedestrian zone). Unlike the police, and unlike the
traffic wardens of old, they can't deal with anything that isn't
related to parking, or with parking that is unlawful due to being an
obstruction rather than a contravention of a local restriction. They
can't deal with moving traffic offences, and they can't deal with
infractions of non-parking restrictions (eg, "no motor vehicles" or
"access only").
London is a special case in that powers to prosecute pavement parking
are explicitly granted to the GLA by primary legislation[1]. Any
extension to the rest of the country is likely to take the form of a
similar Act granting equivalent powers to other local authorities.
[1] The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as amended.
Mark
Roland Perry
Sep 17, 2019, 2:18:03 AM9/17/19
to
In message <2tovnelo0mhb62uc7...@4ax.com>, at 20:46:32 on
Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
job title of "Car Park Warden". Although he only does the
civil-enforcement car parks, the streets never having been LAPEd. The
City Council (a parish council in disguise) has recently employed a
"Ranger", who may have some powers of enforcement off the highway.
>can only
>deal with parking restrictions that are themselves imposed by the
>highway authority - that is, contraventions of road markings (eg,
>yellow lines, zigzags) and other TRO-regulated restrictions (such as
>parking in a pedestrian zone). Unlike the police, and unlike the
>traffic wardens of old, they can't deal with anything that isn't
>related to parking, or with parking that is unlawful due to being an
>obstruction rather than a contravention of a local restriction. They
>can't deal with moving traffic offences, and they can't deal with
>infractions of non-parking restrictions (eg, "no motor vehicles" or
>"access only").
We could do with more enforcement of "No Entry" signs. here's one in
particular that delivery drivers routinely think is OK to go backwards
through (and to keep on topic, then park on the pavement of that bit of
road).
>London is a special case in that powers to prosecute pavement parking
>are explicitly granted to the GLA by primary legislation[1]. Any
>extension to the rest of the country is likely to take the form of a
>similar Act granting equivalent powers to other local authorities.
>
>[1] The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as amended.
>
>Mark
--
Roland Perry
Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:16:25 +0100, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 16/09/2019 09:54, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>>>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>>
>>> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>>> proposition?
>>
>>I have a feeling that a parking warden cannot deal with parking on the
>>pavement but that a policeman can.
>
>One of the disadvantages of Local Authority Parking Enforcement (LAPE)
>is that the local authority staff (correctly titled Civil Enforcement
>Officers, but ubiquitously referred to as parking wardens)
And in East Cambs the chap who does that for the council has an official
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 16/09/2019 09:54, The Todal wrote:
>>> On 15/09/2019 12:07, steve robinson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 10:45:38 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
>>>> <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>>
>>> With respect, I doubt if that is true. Is there a URL to support that
>>> proposition?
>>
>>I have a feeling that a parking warden cannot deal with parking on the
>>pavement but that a policeman can.
>
>One of the disadvantages of Local Authority Parking Enforcement (LAPE)
>is that the local authority staff (correctly titled Civil Enforcement
>Officers, but ubiquitously referred to as parking wardens)
job title of "Car Park Warden". Although he only does the
civil-enforcement car parks, the streets never having been LAPEd. The
City Council (a parish council in disguise) has recently employed a
"Ranger", who may have some powers of enforcement off the highway.
>can only
>deal with parking restrictions that are themselves imposed by the
>highway authority - that is, contraventions of road markings (eg,
>yellow lines, zigzags) and other TRO-regulated restrictions (such as
>parking in a pedestrian zone). Unlike the police, and unlike the
>traffic wardens of old, they can't deal with anything that isn't
>related to parking, or with parking that is unlawful due to being an
>obstruction rather than a contravention of a local restriction. They
>can't deal with moving traffic offences, and they can't deal with
>infractions of non-parking restrictions (eg, "no motor vehicles" or
>"access only").
particular that delivery drivers routinely think is OK to go backwards
through (and to keep on topic, then park on the pavement of that bit of
road).
>London is a special case in that powers to prosecute pavement parking
>are explicitly granted to the GLA by primary legislation[1]. Any
>extension to the rest of the country is likely to take the form of a
>similar Act granting equivalent powers to other local authorities.
>
>[1] The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, as amended.
>
>Mark
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2019, 4:52:48 AM9/17/19
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:06:38 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
But I presume you mean here:
https://goo.gl/maps/iMCMsF2PXLcERRwB6
That's an interesting one, though, because the other end of that
pedestrianised street has an exemption for permit holders and loading:
https://goo.gl/maps/DuowSsKfn7kP8Moz7
However, on a market day - neatly illustrated, in fact, by the first
Streetview link, above - access for loading (and permit holders) is
physically blocked by market stalls. SO I presume that delivery
drivers are justifying it by saying to themselves "I am allowed to be
here, but the route I am supposed to take to get here is blocked, so
that justifies me using a route I am not supposed to take".
I think they're wrong, in law. But I also think that the higway
authority hasn't thought carefully enough about the ramifications of
their signage.
Mark
wrote:
>
>We could do with more enforcement of "No Entry" signs. here's one in
>particular that delivery drivers routinely think is OK to go backwards
>through (and to keep on topic, then park on the pavement of that bit of
>road).
Error: Missing or invalid reference to 'here'.
>We could do with more enforcement of "No Entry" signs. here's one in
>particular that delivery drivers routinely think is OK to go backwards
>through (and to keep on topic, then park on the pavement of that bit of
>road).
But I presume you mean here:
https://goo.gl/maps/iMCMsF2PXLcERRwB6
That's an interesting one, though, because the other end of that
pedestrianised street has an exemption for permit holders and loading:
https://goo.gl/maps/DuowSsKfn7kP8Moz7
However, on a market day - neatly illustrated, in fact, by the first
Streetview link, above - access for loading (and permit holders) is
physically blocked by market stalls. SO I presume that delivery
drivers are justifying it by saying to themselves "I am allowed to be
here, but the route I am supposed to take to get here is blocked, so
that justifies me using a route I am not supposed to take".
I think they're wrong, in law. But I also think that the higway
authority hasn't thought carefully enough about the ramifications of
their signage.
Mark
Clive Page
Sep 17, 2019, 5:09:40 AM9/17/19
to
On 16/09/2019 18:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
> It could, theoretically, have been pushed there. But the real barrier
> to prosecuting this offence is that it's not one to which keeper
> liability applies. So if the police don't know who the driver was,
> they have no power to force the keeper to incriminate them. Which, in
> practice, means that driving on the footway is an offence which can
> only be prosecuted[1] if actually witnessed by a constable, or if
> there is sufficient other evidence as to the identity of the driver.
Does that mean that if I take a video recording of someone driving a short way along the pavement in order to park, and send it to the police, that they would prosecute? I somehow doubt that.
> It could, theoretically, have been pushed there. But the real barrier
> to prosecuting this offence is that it's not one to which keeper
> liability applies. So if the police don't know who the driver was,
> they have no power to force the keeper to incriminate them. Which, in
> practice, means that driving on the footway is an offence which can
> only be prosecuted[1] if actually witnessed by a constable, or if
> there is sufficient other evidence as to the identity of the driver.
--
Clive Page
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2019, 5:28:57 AM9/17/19
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:09:26 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu>
wrote:
They might, if the video was of sufficient quality and reliability,
and you were willing to back it up with a witness statement. It would
depend on the circumstances.
Mark
wrote:
and you were willing to back it up with a witness statement. It would
depend on the circumstances.
Mark
steve robinson
Sep 17, 2019, 6:50:45 AM9/17/19
to
is an offence under local bylaw (bylaw stated ) to drive or park
vehicles (states where)
>To park on the pavement is to obstruct it contrary to s.137 of the
>Highways Act 1980.
pavement
Roland Perry
Sep 17, 2019, 6:53:16 AM9/17/19
to
In message <ff51oe1stgfejr75j...@4ax.com>, at 09:52:45 on
Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Yes, and the bit that gets parked on is the pavement from the doorway to
the corner of the Thos Cook shop (the whole building is the former Post
Office).
https://goo.gl/maps/Qnw6tXz64ubaYqpT8
or https://goo.gl/maps/tUZCHFDDNicixnp3A
But if that's all occupied they'll double park.
>That's an interesting one, though, because the other end of that
>pedestrianised street has an exemption for permit holders and loading:
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/DuowSsKfn7kP8Moz7
The permits in question being linked to Blue Badges - and intending to
facilitate the dropping off of disabled persons. It's nothing to do with
(eg) have a permit as market trader or a shop-keeper.
And why is "loading" suddenly OK when parked on the pavement bit of the
pedestrianised area?
>However, on a market day - neatly illustrated, in fact, by the first
>Streetview link, above - access for loading (and permit holders) is
>physically blocked by market stalls.
That's tough luck, although depending on how busy the market is the
Dolphin Lane approach might be navigable
https://goo.gl/maps/XNRTSXiHGKVA2NGL6 (Oh look, another van on the
pavement).
And of course, is the right turn from Dolphin Lane to the Market Square
allowed? Typically people will. I saw someone exiting here, only
yesterday: https://goo.gl/maps/s4h5p8gPrKPHRuDn6
>SO I presume that delivery
>drivers are justifying it by saying to themselves "I am allowed to be
>here, but the route I am supposed to take to get here is blocked, so
>that justifies me using a route I am not supposed to take".
I think going *backwards* down a pedestrianised street (esp on Market
Day) should be deprecated, let alone the No-Entry signage.
>I think they're wrong, in law. But I also think that the higway
>authority hasn't thought carefully enough about the ramifications of
>their signage.
The other short-cut that's taken from time to time is through this
no-entry, and then immediately right onto the Market Square:
https://goo.gl/maps/Yds8tajeQ5uZhcxe9
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:06:38 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>>We could do with more enforcement of "No Entry" signs. here's one in
>>particular that delivery drivers routinely think is OK to go backwards
>>through (and to keep on topic, then park on the pavement of that bit of
>>road).
>
>Error: Missing or invalid reference to 'here'.
It was a lost "T".
>wrote:
>>
>>We could do with more enforcement of "No Entry" signs. here's one in
>>particular that delivery drivers routinely think is OK to go backwards
>>through (and to keep on topic, then park on the pavement of that bit of
>>road).
>
>Error: Missing or invalid reference to 'here'.
Yes, and the bit that gets parked on is the pavement from the doorway to
the corner of the Thos Cook shop (the whole building is the former Post
Office).
https://goo.gl/maps/Qnw6tXz64ubaYqpT8
or https://goo.gl/maps/tUZCHFDDNicixnp3A
But if that's all occupied they'll double park.
>That's an interesting one, though, because the other end of that
>pedestrianised street has an exemption for permit holders and loading:
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/DuowSsKfn7kP8Moz7
facilitate the dropping off of disabled persons. It's nothing to do with
(eg) have a permit as market trader or a shop-keeper.
And why is "loading" suddenly OK when parked on the pavement bit of the
pedestrianised area?
>However, on a market day - neatly illustrated, in fact, by the first
>Streetview link, above - access for loading (and permit holders) is
>physically blocked by market stalls.
Dolphin Lane approach might be navigable
https://goo.gl/maps/XNRTSXiHGKVA2NGL6 (Oh look, another van on the
pavement).
And of course, is the right turn from Dolphin Lane to the Market Square
allowed? Typically people will. I saw someone exiting here, only
yesterday: https://goo.gl/maps/s4h5p8gPrKPHRuDn6
>SO I presume that delivery
>drivers are justifying it by saying to themselves "I am allowed to be
>here, but the route I am supposed to take to get here is blocked, so
>that justifies me using a route I am not supposed to take".
Day) should be deprecated, let alone the No-Entry signage.
>I think they're wrong, in law. But I also think that the higway
>authority hasn't thought carefully enough about the ramifications of
>their signage.
no-entry, and then immediately right onto the Market Square:
https://goo.gl/maps/Yds8tajeQ5uZhcxe9
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Sep 17, 2019, 7:16:36 AM9/17/19
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 10:09:26 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu>
wrote:
It depends if the video is time and dated stamped , is of high
quality plus they may have a legit reason for driving on the pavement
such as accessing a driveway and need to open a gate , move an
obstacle on the driveway .
Your video would need to show the whole event including the
vehicle being left unattended in its entirety . Standing their with
a video camera filming the driver probably wouldn't be the most
sensible thing to do if you want a quiet life
wrote:
quality plus they may have a legit reason for driving on the pavement
such as accessing a driveway and need to open a gate , move an
obstacle on the driveway .
Your video would need to show the whole event including the
vehicle being left unattended in its entirety . Standing their with
a video camera filming the driver probably wouldn't be the most
sensible thing to do if you want a quiet life
steve robinson
Sep 17, 2019, 7:30:29 AM9/17/19
to
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:50:27 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
The police just ask the drivers of the other cars to move , if as
happened to me plonker blocked my driveway stopping my wife getting
her car out all day and she had to use the bus with two young children
under 3)plus the fact he was ranting and raving by now as i had
trapped him for an hour) the plod gave him a ticket.at the time we
were all having problems with muppets blocking driveways , parking up
all day police were out at least twice a day and were by now
getting really pead off with these inconsiderate bone brains .
wrote:
happened to me plonker blocked my driveway stopping my wife getting
her car out all day and she had to use the bus with two young children
under 3)plus the fact he was ranting and raving by now as i had
trapped him for an hour) the plod gave him a ticket.at the time we
were all having problems with muppets blocking driveways , parking up
all day police were out at least twice a day and were by now
getting really pead off with these inconsiderate bone brains .
Martin Brown
Sep 17, 2019, 8:08:43 AM9/17/19
to
On 17/09/2019 12:08, steve robinson wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:50:27 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <gu9u1j...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 16
>> Sep 2019, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>>
>>> But it is unlawful to drive on the pavement - so the only way to get a car
>>> there lawfully is to drop it in vertically, e.g. by crane. Somehow I don't
>>> think most of the cars that I see parked on the pavement have been dropped
>>> in place.
>>
>> I sometimes wonder what would happen if a pavement-parked car got
>> accidentally on purpose blocked in. And they called the police to try to
>> get released. "Why", the copper might ask; "So I can drive home". "On
>> the pavement, surely not..."
>
> The police just ask the drivers of the other cars to move , if as
> happened to me plonker blocked my driveway stopping my wife getting
> her car out all day and she had to use the bus with two young children
> under 3)plus the fact he was ranting and raving by now as i had
> trapped him for an hour) the plod gave him a ticket.at the time we
They did the same to someone who parked opposite another vehicle totally
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 18:50:27 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <gu9u1j...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:11:15 on Mon, 16
>> Sep 2019, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:
>>>> Its not unlawful to park on pavements outside of London unless local
>>>> bylaws state otherwise .
>>>
>>> But it is unlawful to drive on the pavement - so the only way to get a car
>>> there lawfully is to drop it in vertically, e.g. by crane. Somehow I don't
>>> think most of the cars that I see parked on the pavement have been dropped
>>> in place.
>>
>> I sometimes wonder what would happen if a pavement-parked car got
>> accidentally on purpose blocked in. And they called the police to try to
>> get released. "Why", the copper might ask; "So I can drive home". "On
>> the pavement, surely not..."
>
> The police just ask the drivers of the other cars to move , if as
> happened to me plonker blocked my driveway stopping my wife getting
> her car out all day and she had to use the bus with two young children
> under 3)plus the fact he was ranting and raving by now as i had
> trapped him for an hour) the plod gave him a ticket.at the time we
blocking off a cul-de-sac so that no-one else could get in or out. Used
ANPR and a lookup to find the address of the registered owner and then
dragged them out onto the street to get it shifted. The owner was quite
put out and unrepentant which is probably why they got a ticket.
> were all having problems with muppets blocking driveways , parking up
> all day police were out at least twice a day and were by now
> getting really pead off with these inconsiderate bone brains .
your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
I once saw them do a coordinated swoop on a long no parking zone in
central Brussels full of illegally parked cars. It was quite impressive!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2019, 9:42:37 AM9/17/19
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:44:31 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <ff51oe1stgfejr75j...@4ax.com>, at 09:52:45 on
>Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
least a hint that you're not supposed to do it.
But that's part of what's wrong with the signage of the whole area.
There are three entrances to the pedestrianised area: the Market
Street end (Boots end), the Market Place end (What I still call Tesco
end, but I suppose people living there now would call M&Co end), and
the High Street end of Dolphin Lane. But only one of those has an
exceptions plate. So, if someone pedantically obeys the signs, their
only route in is from the eastern (Market Place) access. But then the
road surface is laid out in such a way as to discourage them from
turning left into Dolphin Lane; the presumption appears to be that
people will come in from Dolphin lane where appropriate even though
there is no signage permitting them to do so.
Meanwhile, although there is a No Entry sign at the Market Street end,
neither Dolphin Lane nor the section past the Market Place are
one-way. Looking at it on satellite view with labels turned off, it's
clear that the main vehicle route through the pedestrianised area is
intended to be through Dolphin Lane and out onto Market Street:
https://goo.gl/maps/tERp2QgpsFAbwo2Y7
But that access to the area has no exception plate:
https://goo.gl/maps/4nZPGW9G75qwsyAt9
So unless you already know you are allowed in there under certain
conditions, you won't go in that way.
>The other short-cut that's taken from time to time is through this
>no-entry, and then immediately right onto the Market Square:
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/Yds8tajeQ5uZhcxe9
That's just plain wrong, there's no way to justify that even from a
liberal reading of the signs.
Mark
wrote:
>In message <ff51oe1stgfejr75j...@4ax.com>, at 09:52:45 on
>Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>However, on a market day - neatly illustrated, in fact, by the first
>>Streetview link, above - access for loading (and permit holders) is
>>physically blocked by market stalls.
>
>That's tough luck, although depending on how busy the market is the
>Dolphin Lane approach might be navigable
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/XNRTSXiHGKVA2NGL6 (Oh look, another van on the
>pavement).
>
>And of course, is the right turn from Dolphin Lane to the Market Square
>allowed? Typically people will. I saw someone exiting here, only
>yesterday: https://goo.gl/maps/s4h5p8gPrKPHRuDn6
It's not disallowed by any signs, although the road surface is at
>>Streetview link, above - access for loading (and permit holders) is
>>physically blocked by market stalls.
>
>That's tough luck, although depending on how busy the market is the
>Dolphin Lane approach might be navigable
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/XNRTSXiHGKVA2NGL6 (Oh look, another van on the
>pavement).
>
>And of course, is the right turn from Dolphin Lane to the Market Square
>allowed? Typically people will. I saw someone exiting here, only
>yesterday: https://goo.gl/maps/s4h5p8gPrKPHRuDn6
least a hint that you're not supposed to do it.
But that's part of what's wrong with the signage of the whole area.
There are three entrances to the pedestrianised area: the Market
Street end (Boots end), the Market Place end (What I still call Tesco
end, but I suppose people living there now would call M&Co end), and
the High Street end of Dolphin Lane. But only one of those has an
exceptions plate. So, if someone pedantically obeys the signs, their
only route in is from the eastern (Market Place) access. But then the
road surface is laid out in such a way as to discourage them from
turning left into Dolphin Lane; the presumption appears to be that
people will come in from Dolphin lane where appropriate even though
there is no signage permitting them to do so.
Meanwhile, although there is a No Entry sign at the Market Street end,
neither Dolphin Lane nor the section past the Market Place are
one-way. Looking at it on satellite view with labels turned off, it's
clear that the main vehicle route through the pedestrianised area is
intended to be through Dolphin Lane and out onto Market Street:
https://goo.gl/maps/tERp2QgpsFAbwo2Y7
But that access to the area has no exception plate:
https://goo.gl/maps/4nZPGW9G75qwsyAt9
So unless you already know you are allowed in there under certain
conditions, you won't go in that way.
>The other short-cut that's taken from time to time is through this
>no-entry, and then immediately right onto the Market Square:
>
>https://goo.gl/maps/Yds8tajeQ5uZhcxe9
liberal reading of the signs.
Mark
Brian Reay
Sep 17, 2019, 10:04:42 AM9/17/19
to
morning. We couldn’t find who it was so my wife, who needed to get to work,
called the police. They arrived surprising quickly, somehow moved the car,
just as the driver returned- he’d gone to some shops a few hundred yards
away. They gave him a ticket. He wasn’t best pleased. Why he didn’t simply
park at the shops- which have parking spaces- is a mystery.
Roland Perry
Sep 17, 2019, 10:38:49 AM9/17/19
to
In message <qmn1oe92g31a4qg1e...@4ax.com>, at 14:42:33 on
ought to move the no-entry signs back so that drivers aren't seen so
regularly to be flaunting the rule.
On the other hand, there's no signage onto the Market Square saying
beware low flying motorcycles (even from the correct direction).
I'm going to assume the lack of yellow lines or kerb stripes here, to
complement the "no waiting/no loading" signage, is a nod towards the
conservation area. But without them, the plates are presumably nugatory.
https://goo.gl/maps/JovPNrHFRG3esXmM6
These vans aren't waiting, nor loading, perhaps, being just the far side
of the bollards (discuss) https://goo.gl/maps/oB4vjzDPzVU4R3kz9
This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
--
Roland Perry
>>The other short-cut that's taken from time to time is through this
>>no-entry, and then immediately right onto the Market Square:
>>
>>https://goo.gl/maps/Yds8tajeQ5uZhcxe9
>
>That's just plain wrong, there's no way to justify that even from a
>liberal reading of the signs.
I agree, and as a matter of enforceability and public policy they really
>>no-entry, and then immediately right onto the Market Square:
>>
>>https://goo.gl/maps/Yds8tajeQ5uZhcxe9
>
>That's just plain wrong, there's no way to justify that even from a
>liberal reading of the signs.
ought to move the no-entry signs back so that drivers aren't seen so
regularly to be flaunting the rule.
On the other hand, there's no signage onto the Market Square saying
beware low flying motorcycles (even from the correct direction).
I'm going to assume the lack of yellow lines or kerb stripes here, to
complement the "no waiting/no loading" signage, is a nod towards the
conservation area. But without them, the plates are presumably nugatory.
https://goo.gl/maps/JovPNrHFRG3esXmM6
These vans aren't waiting, nor loading, perhaps, being just the far side
of the bollards (discuss) https://goo.gl/maps/oB4vjzDPzVU4R3kz9
This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2019, 3:05:01 PM9/17/19
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:15:01 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>These vans aren't waiting, nor loading, perhaps, being just the far side
>of the bollards (discuss) https://goo.gl/maps/oB4vjzDPzVU4R3kz9
If they belong to market traders then they may be permitted to be
there; it's not uncommon for traders to keep a van behind the stall
from which to replenish stock as it gets sold. That's between them and
the market operators, rather than being a police/parking issue.
More generally, when a market (or other event) is taking place on what
is otherwise a highway[1] the area it uses is closed to highway use,
and has highway regulations suspended, for the duration of the event.
So the organisation hiring the square (which may, of course, be the
same public authority that manages it, just a different department)
can do what they like with it, including permitting vehicles onto it,
during their hire period.
>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking. Because legally, the
van isn't doing anything wrong. Loading is permitted on double yellow
lines.
[1] Historically, most public square market places, like this one, are
highways even if they are, these days, pedestrianised.
Mark
wrote:
>These vans aren't waiting, nor loading, perhaps, being just the far side
>of the bollards (discuss) https://goo.gl/maps/oB4vjzDPzVU4R3kz9
there; it's not uncommon for traders to keep a van behind the stall
from which to replenish stock as it gets sold. That's between them and
the market operators, rather than being a police/parking issue.
More generally, when a market (or other event) is taking place on what
is otherwise a highway[1] the area it uses is closed to highway use,
and has highway regulations suspended, for the duration of the event.
So the organisation hiring the square (which may, of course, be the
same public authority that manages it, just a different department)
can do what they like with it, including permitting vehicles onto it,
during their hire period.
>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking. Because legally, the
van isn't doing anything wrong. Loading is permitted on double yellow
lines.
[1] Historically, most public square market places, like this one, are
highways even if they are, these days, pedestrianised.
Mark
steve robinson
Sep 17, 2019, 3:05:34 PM9/17/19
to
wifes car on the drive , my van on the drive yet they still would
block it always the same , sorry mate i never noticed. One car ended
up getting rammed when we needed to get out urgently in the early
hours
Roland Perry
Sep 17, 2019, 3:33:09 PM9/17/19
to
In message <mv22oedsmerjdci15...@4ax.com>, at 17:49:38 on
safe.
>More generally, when a market (or other event) is taking place on what
>is otherwise a highway[1] the area it uses is closed to highway use,
>and has highway regulations suspended, for the duration of the event.
Presumably not including highway regs like not backing past a no-entry
sign?
>>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
>
>But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
>"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking.
Do you mean "no loading" because "waiting" and "parking" are synonymous
as far as double yellow lines are concerned.
And isn't there a separate offence for parking that close to a junction?
--
Roland Perry
>On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 15:15:01 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>These vans aren't waiting, nor loading, perhaps, being just the far side
>>of the bollards (discuss) https://goo.gl/maps/oB4vjzDPzVU4R3kz9
>
>If they belong to market traders then they may be permitted to be
>there; it's not uncommon for traders to keep a van behind the stall
>from which to replenish stock as it gets sold. That's between them and
>the market operators, rather than being a police/parking issue.
I think they are just far enough the other side of the bollards to be
>wrote:
>
>>These vans aren't waiting, nor loading, perhaps, being just the far side
>>of the bollards (discuss) https://goo.gl/maps/oB4vjzDPzVU4R3kz9
>
>If they belong to market traders then they may be permitted to be
>there; it's not uncommon for traders to keep a van behind the stall
>from which to replenish stock as it gets sold. That's between them and
>the market operators, rather than being a police/parking issue.
safe.
>More generally, when a market (or other event) is taking place on what
>is otherwise a highway[1] the area it uses is closed to highway use,
>and has highway regulations suspended, for the duration of the event.
sign?
>>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
>
>But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
>"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking.
as far as double yellow lines are concerned.
And isn't there a separate offence for parking that close to a junction?
--
Roland Perry
Robin
Sep 17, 2019, 3:46:37 PM9/17/19
to
On 17/09/2019 13:04, Martin Brown wrote:
<smip>
screwdrivers. I would not count on the same being true in all parts of
the UK - not even the parts where people have driveways.
<smip>
> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>
I can only assume Belgium has a very low incidence of bored kids with
> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>
screwdrivers. I would not count on the same being true in all parts of
the UK - not even the parts where people have driveways.
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2019, 4:07:35 PM9/17/19
to
>This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2019, 4:39:57 PM9/17/19
to
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:20:04 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <mv22oedsmerjdci15...@4ax.com>, at 17:49:38 on
>Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
yes, that too can be ignored. But in the specific case I presume you
are referring to, I don't believe that that end of the street is a
part of the market.
>>>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>>>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>>>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>>>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>>>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
>>
>>But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
>>"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking.
>
>Do you mean "no loading" because "waiting" and "parking" are synonymous
>as far as double yellow lines are concerned.
Yes, sorry, no loading.
>And isn't there a separate offence for parking that close to a junction?
No, unless it's causing an obstruction. In the Highway Code, it's a
"DO NOT", not a "MUST NOT".
Mark
wrote:
>In message <mv22oedsmerjdci15...@4ax.com>, at 17:49:38 on
>Tue, 17 Sep 2019, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>More generally, when a market (or other event) is taking place on what
>>is otherwise a highway[1] the area it uses is closed to highway use,
>>and has highway regulations suspended, for the duration of the event.
>
>Presumably not including highway regs like not backing past a no-entry
>sign?
If it's a part of the highway that's being hired for the event, then
>>is otherwise a highway[1] the area it uses is closed to highway use,
>>and has highway regulations suspended, for the duration of the event.
>
>Presumably not including highway regs like not backing past a no-entry
>sign?
yes, that too can be ignored. But in the specific case I presume you
are referring to, I don't believe that that end of the street is a
part of the market.
>>>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>>>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>>>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>>>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>>>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
>>
>>But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
>>"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking.
>
>Do you mean "no loading" because "waiting" and "parking" are synonymous
>as far as double yellow lines are concerned.
>And isn't there a separate offence for parking that close to a junction?
"DO NOT", not a "MUST NOT".
Mark
Roland Perry
Sep 18, 2019, 3:21:32 AM9/18/19
to
In message <72e2oe17kk9ub7du8...@4ax.com>, at 20:52:29 on
road. That's exactly what those extra signs mounted on the bollards
said.
--
Roland Perry
>>>>This van, however, is simply taking the piss (the labels on the
>>>>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>>>>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>>>>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>>>>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
>>>
>>>But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
>>>"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking.
>>
>>Do you mean "no loading" because "waiting" and "parking" are synonymous
>>as far as double yellow lines are concerned.
>
>Yes, sorry, no loading.
>
>>And isn't there a separate offence for parking that close to a junction?
>
>No, unless it's causing an obstruction. In the Highway Code, it's a
>"DO NOT", not a "MUST NOT".
The police think that parking there obstructs pedestrians crossing the
>>>>bollards, one of which is alongside the van) were from the police,
>>>>saying "look, you stupid people, don't stop here, you are obstructing
>>>>the junction and making it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road".
>>>>https://goo.gl/maps/ZJtLGaWQJ3E2XxLD7
>>>
>>>But then you have to ask why the highway authority hasn't made it a
>>>"no waiting" zone as well as prohibiting parking.
>>
>>Do you mean "no loading" because "waiting" and "parking" are synonymous
>>as far as double yellow lines are concerned.
>
>Yes, sorry, no loading.
>
>>And isn't there a separate offence for parking that close to a junction?
>
>No, unless it's causing an obstruction. In the Highway Code, it's a
>"DO NOT", not a "MUST NOT".
road. That's exactly what those extra signs mounted on the bollards
said.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Brown
Sep 18, 2019, 5:35:11 AM9/18/19
to
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
Sep 18, 2019, 5:37:59 AM9/18/19
to
I am not in favour of cowboy clampers or tow away - I think in Belgium
they were regulated somehow. But if you put one of the private no
parking tow away notices in front of your property there then any car
not listed would be fairly promptly removed (or if you found one in your
way a quick phone call would get the nearest tow away truck round).
It is a problem that in some cities people park obstructing gateways
without a second thought - too many cars chasing too few spaces.
My disabled brother in law's access gets this parking across it problem
very frequently. I'd like to see something done about it.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Harry Bloomfield
Sep 18, 2019, 6:02:22 AM9/18/19
to
davi...@gmail.com brought next idea :
> See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the
> legislation):
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
Says - 'Before using a hand-held device to help you to park, you MUST
make sure it is safe to do so. Then, you should move the vehicle into
the parking space in the safest way, and by the shortest route
possible.
When you use a hand-held device to help you to park, you MUST remain in
control of the vehicle at all times. Do not use the hand-held device
for anything else while you are using it to help you park, and do not
put anyone in danger. Use the hand-held device according to the
manufacturer’s instructions.'
What hand-held device is that?
> See Rule 244 of the Highway Code (which includes a reference to the
> legislation):
>
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/waiting-and-parking-238-to-252
Says - 'Before using a hand-held device to help you to park, you MUST
make sure it is safe to do so. Then, you should move the vehicle into
the parking space in the safest way, and by the shortest route
possible.
When you use a hand-held device to help you to park, you MUST remain in
control of the vehicle at all times. Do not use the hand-held device
for anything else while you are using it to help you park, and do not
put anyone in danger. Use the hand-held device according to the
manufacturer’s instructions.'
What hand-held device is that?
steve robinson
Sep 18, 2019, 8:23:45 AM9/18/19
to
steve robinson
Sep 18, 2019, 8:32:14 AM9/18/19
to
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:37:42 +0100, Martin Brown
One of the issues though is you do not own the road so legally if
your driveways empty they can park across it
I remember my dad having a driveway cut in because he got fed up of
a family nearby who had several cars hogging all the parking and
he often ended up parking a couple of hundred yards away . Once dad
had the driveway cut in all the other neighbors did to , that was
40 years ago, but even today it solves the problem, when I visit my
brother who lives in the house now always a space available
your driveways empty they can park across it
I remember my dad having a driveway cut in because he got fed up of
a family nearby who had several cars hogging all the parking and
he often ended up parking a couple of hundred yards away . Once dad
had the driveway cut in all the other neighbors did to , that was
40 years ago, but even today it solves the problem, when I visit my
brother who lives in the house now always a space available
Mark Goodge
Sep 18, 2019, 8:48:11 AM9/18/19
to
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:32:02 +0100, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:37:42 +0100, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>It is a problem that in some cities people park obstructing gateways
>>without a second thought - too many cars chasing too few spaces.
>>
>>My disabled brother in law's access gets this parking across it problem
>>very frequently. I'd like to see something done about it.
>
>
>One of the issues though is you do not own the road so legally if
>your driveways empty they can park across it
Not so. It's an obstruction either way, and can be ticketed whether
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:37:42 +0100, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>It is a problem that in some cities people park obstructing gateways
>>without a second thought - too many cars chasing too few spaces.
>>
>>My disabled brother in law's access gets this parking across it problem
>>very frequently. I'd like to see something done about it.
>
>
>One of the issues though is you do not own the road so legally if
>your driveways empty they can park across it
there's a car on the drive or not. Assuming, of course, that it's a
driveway with legitimate access to the street (eg, via a permitted
dropped kerb). There's no right to access property via an unapproved
access point.
In practice, the police (or local authority) will generally only
respond if a car is being blocked in, rather than out. But they can
take action at any time.
Mark
Adam Funk
Sep 18, 2019, 9:00:18 AM9/18/19
to
On 2019-09-18, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:04:07 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>>> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>>> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>>> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>>> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>>
>> That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>> now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
>
> The law could be changed.
But it shouldn't be. Private profit isn't generally compatible with
> On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:04:07 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>>> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>>> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>>> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>>> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>>
>> That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>> now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
>
> The law could be changed.
fair law enforcement.
Harry Bloomfield
Sep 18, 2019, 9:35:51 AM9/18/19
to
Robin formulated the question :
> Note the Highway Code's language:
>
> "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should
> not do so elsewhere ..."
>
> "Should not" conveys no specific law against it.
>
> Then, second, look at the legislation referenced. It only applies in Greater
> London.
145. Rule 145 states: “You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement,
footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in
the case of an emergency.”
> Note the Highway Code's language:
>
> "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should
> not do so elsewhere ..."
>
> "Should not" conveys no specific law against it.
>
> Then, second, look at the legislation referenced. It only applies in Greater
> London.
145. Rule 145 states: “You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement,
footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in
the case of an emergency.”
Mark Goodge
Sep 18, 2019, 10:45:49 AM9/18/19
to
vehicle is not being driven. And, while it is a reasonable presumption
that a stationary vehicle must have been driven to get to where it is
now stationary, the presence of the vehicle itself is insufficient
indicator of who was driving it.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Sep 18, 2019, 10:49:13 AM9/18/19
to
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:56:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>On 2019-09-18, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:04:07 +0100, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>>>> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>>>> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>>>> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>>>> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>>> now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
>>
>> The law could be changed.
>
>But it shouldn't be. Private profit isn't generally compatible with
>fair law enforcement.
It probably makes more sense to view it as private enforcement of
property rights, where the right in question is the right to access
one's property from the highway.
It would need to be carefully regulated, though, to be acceptable.
Mark
wrote:
>On 2019-09-18, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:04:07 +0100, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>>>> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>>>> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>>>> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>>>> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>>> now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
>>
>> The law could be changed.
>
>But it shouldn't be. Private profit isn't generally compatible with
>fair law enforcement.
property rights, where the right in question is the right to access
one's property from the highway.
It would need to be carefully regulated, though, to be acceptable.
Mark
TMS320
Sep 22, 2019, 11:28:56 AM9/22/19
to
On 17/09/2019 13:04, Martin Brown wrote:
> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>
> I once saw them do a coordinated swoop on a long no parking zone in
> central Brussels full of illegally parked cars. It was quite impressive!
The 'states also have a good scheme in places. Every so often they go
> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>
> I once saw them do a coordinated swoop on a long no parking zone in
> central Brussels full of illegally parked cars. It was quite impressive!
round and do street cleaning. Instead of going round a parked car, as we
do, it is removed. It must keep people on their toes.
TMS320
Sep 22, 2019, 11:31:10 AM9/22/19
to
On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
TMS320
Sep 22, 2019, 11:37:21 AM9/22/19
to
On 18/09/2019 13:56, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2019-09-18, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:04:07 +0100, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>>>> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>>>> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>>>> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>>>> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>>> now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
>>
>> The law could be changed.
>
> But it shouldn't be. Private profit isn't generally compatible with
> fair law enforcement.
Traffic regulations don't need to be "fair". So long as people know what
> On 2019-09-18, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 17/09/2019 21:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:04:07 +0100, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is one where Belgium has it right. You display your numberplate at
>>>> your driveway gate and any other car that parks across it will be towed
>>>> away by freelance tow-away trucks that hunt around for prey. It greatly
>>>> improves parking discipline if badly parked cars vanish and have to be
>>>> recovered from some distant car pound on the outskirts of the city.
>>>
>>> That wouldn't be legal in the UK. Impounding, along with clamping, can
>>> now only be carried out by the police or a highway authority.
>>
>> The law could be changed.
>
> But it shouldn't be. Private profit isn't generally compatible with
> fair law enforcement.
they can and can't do.
0 new messages