From: JNugent on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> considered Sat, 12 Jun 2010
> 01:29:40 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com> considered Fri, 11 Jun 2010
>>> 15:21:42 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>>> "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> considered Thu, 10 Jun 2010
>>>>> 18:35:29 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Hansen wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:35:18 +0100 someone who may be "GT" <a(a)b.c>
>>>>>>> wrote this:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> some motorists do legally park on pavements.
>>>>>>> Whether it is legal or not depends on where one is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know of no law in any part of the UK where the legality depends on
>>>>>>> there being space for people to get past the obstruction.
>>>>> I thought "causing an obstruction" was the law in all parts of the UK?
>>>>> Of course, actually getting the police to do something about it is
>>>>> another matter, unless it's they that are being obstructed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we need to go back to the old system whereby anyone who acts
>>>>> outside the law ceases to be protected by it.
>>>>> Then we could simply ride/climb over illegally/obstructively parked
>>>>> vehicles.
>>>>>>>> However, in
>>>>>>>> my few hundred thousand miles of motoring, I have never seen a car
>>>>>>>> *driving* on a pavement.
>>>>>>> An interesting example of motoring lobby sleight of hand. It is the
>>>>>>> motorist who drives along the pavement, not the car, just as it is
>>>>>>> the cyclist who rides along the pavement, not the bike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you haven't seen a motorist driving along the pavement then I am
>>>>>>> glad you live such a sheltered life.
>>>>>> mounting a pavement to park is not the same as driving along the pavement.
>>>>> It is unless you pushed the car there, or had it craned in.
>>>> No, it isn't.
>>> Then how the hell else did you get it there?
>>> Driving on the footway is illegal, and it's only because some
>>> brainless idiot of a judge at some time in the distant past decided
>>> that the presence of a vehicle on the footway was not evidence that it
>>> had been driven there (apparently the prosecution failed to prove it
>>> hadn't been craned or pushed) that the law is no longer enforced -
>>> except, of course, against bicycles.
>>>> Not unless there is a local law agin it. And there isn't such a law in many
>>>> places.
>>> I don't know which "many places" you are on about, but the local law
>>> in the UK is that you cannot drive a carriage on the footway, except
>>> to access adjacent property (i.e. not just the footway itself, but
>>> something beyond the boundary of the highway).
>>> Other countries (or indeed planets, such as the aforementioned judge
>>> must have been an inhabitant of) may be different.
>>>> That's not to say that it is OK to simply drive along the footway to get
>>>> somewhere else (eg, a street several miles away). That would be as wrong as
>>>> cycling along the footway.
>>>>
>>>>>> I see thousands of cars every day parking and parked on pavements, I never
>>>>>> see cars driving along pavements on a continual basis .
>>>>>> I see many cyclists every day riding along pavements without a care for
>>>>>> pedestrians, often at quite high speed.
>>>>> Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on the
>>>>> pavement by cars and bicycles respectively.
>>>> How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get somewhere
>>>> else) in the manner of bicycles?
>>> Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim
>>> to have arrived there through no fault of their own.
>>>> [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes no
>>>> practical differnce.]
>>> Maybe you should look it up?
>> "The local law in the UK"?
>>
>> Where would one look that up?
>
> In this case, you could try
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1847/cukpga_18470089_en_1
>
> Section 28
>
> Which tells us that:
>
> "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or
> barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand
> longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking
> up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses
> and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place
> appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful
> authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage,
> sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully
> interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in
> any public footpath or other public thoroughfare:"
>
> and
>
> "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws
> or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any
> footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it
> stands across or upon any footway:"
>
> "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard
> scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before
> whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for
> a period not exceeding fourteen days,"

That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means "local
to England and Wales".

Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite?


From: JNugent on
JNugent wrote:

> Phil W Lee wrote:
>> JNugent <JN(a)nonexistentaddress.com>:
>>> Phil W Lee wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>>> Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on
>>>>>> the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively.

>>>>> How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get
>>>>> somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles?

>>>> Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim
>>>> to have arrived there through no fault of their own.

>>>>> [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes
>>>>> no practical differnce.]

>>>> Maybe you should look it up?

>>> "The local law in the UK"?
>>> Where would one look that up?

And how, come to think of it, would looking up a piece of law - whether
"local" or otherwise - tell us how how many pedestrian injuries are caused by
drivers of motor vehicles drivinmg along the footway?

>> In this case, you could try
>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1847/cukpga_18470089_en_1

>> Section 28
>> Which tells us that:

>> "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or
>> barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand
>> longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking
>> up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses
>> and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place
>> appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful
>> authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage,
>> sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully
>> interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in
>> any public footpath or other public thoroughfare:"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws
>> or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any
>> footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it
>> stands across or upon any footway:"
>>
>> "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard
>> scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before
>> whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for
>> a period not exceeding fourteen days,"

> That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means
> "local to England and Wales".
> Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite?

Perhaps I was being a little unkind to you there.

The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is national (and certainly not "local") law,
but it is not law which actually applies anywhere unless a council which
administers a town or borough adopts it, piecemeal. They don't have to have
the whole menu. They can adopt � la carte.

It is because not every council has adopted it - and because not every
council which has adopted some of of it has adopted all of it - that the
legal position is different from place to place.

In order for placing a vehicle on a footway to be illegal, the council has to
have adopted that part of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which relates to
such activities and which creates the "offence" (where none otherwise applies).

So it is national law which may - or may not - apply locally.

You cannot quote it and say "It applies everywhere". And that is because it
simply doesn't.

From: Derek C on
On Jun 12, 6:09 pm, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
> > Phil W Lee wrote:
> >> JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com>:
> >>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>>>> Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on
> >>>>>> the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively.
> >>>>> How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get
> >>>>> somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles?
> >>>> Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim
> >>>> to have arrived there through no fault of their own.
> >>>>> [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes
> >>>>> no practical differnce.]
> >>>> Maybe you should look it up?
> >>> "The local law in the UK"?
> >>> Where would one look that up?
>
> And how, come to think of it, would looking up a piece of law - whether
> "local" or otherwise - tell us how how many pedestrian injuries are caused by
> drivers of motor vehicles drivinmg along the footway?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In this case, you could try
> >>http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1847/cukpga_1847008....
> >> Section 28
> >> Which tells us that:
> >> "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or
> >> barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand
> >> longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking
> >> up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses
> >> and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place
> >> appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful
> >> authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage,
> >> sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully
> >> interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in
> >> any public footpath or other public thoroughfare:"
>
> >> and
>
> >> "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws
> >> or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any
> >> footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it
> >> stands across or upon any footway:"
>
> >> "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard
> >> scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before
> >> whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for
> >> a period not exceeding fourteen days,"
> > That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means
> > "local to England and Wales".
> > Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite?
>
> Perhaps I was being a little unkind to you there.
>
> The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is national (and certainly not "local") law,
> but it is not law which actually applies anywhere unless a council which
> administers a town or borough adopts it, piecemeal. They don't have to have
> the whole menu. They can adopt á la carte.
>
> It is because not every council has adopted it - and because not every
> council which has adopted some of of it has adopted all of it - that the
> legal position is different from place to place.
>
> In order for placing a vehicle on a footway to be illegal, the council has to
> have adopted that part of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which relates to
> such activities and which creates the "offence" (where none otherwise applies).
>
> So it is national law which may - or may not - apply locally.
>
> You cannot quote it and say "It applies everywhere". And that is because it
> simply doesn't.- Hide quoted text -
>

Just looking at the 'offence' itself, in narrow streets it is often
sensible to park your car partly on the footpath so that it doesn't
block the road too much. I always leave enough room on the footpath
for a pram to to pass.

I hate driving in London, because it is very difficult to find
anywhere to park your car without paying a small fortune to NCP, and
the whole place is covered by confusing local byelaws that you don't
know if you don't live there. In some boroughs you can park partly on
the pavement, but in others you can't.

Derek C



From: Nick Finnigan on
Derek C wrote:
>
> Just looking at the 'offence' itself, in narrow streets it is often
> sensible to park your car partly on the footpath so that it doesn't
> block the road too much. I always leave enough room on the footpath
> for a pram to to pass.
>
> I hate driving in London, because it is very difficult to find
> anywhere to park your car without paying a small fortune to NCP, and
> the whole place is covered by confusing local byelaws that you don't
> know if you don't live there. In some boroughs you can park partly on
> the pavement, but in others you can't.

And I expect that where there are signs to park partly on the pavement, a
car parked completely on the carriageway is prima facie an obstruction.
From: The Medway Handyman on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 11 Jun 2010 06:05:16 GMT the
> perfect time to write:

>> Do you really think that pavements are constructed markedly
>> differently at drop kerbs, specifically intended for vehicular
>> access? They're not.
>
> Maybe you should check the construction standards before making
> yourself look foolish.
> There is a CONSIDERABLE difference in the standard required for a
> section of footway with a dropped kerb, as you'd find out if you ever
> had to have one installed (say, for a new driveway).

This, from the fuckwit who thinks I could run my business using a push bike.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.