Man fined after driving into his own driveway
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: The horrors of biofuels.
Next: Start/Stop "ECO" cars
From: Derek Geldard on 28 Apr 2010 09:12 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:53:03 +0100, "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: >"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:83qle8Fm8uU9(a)mid.individual.net... >> "Mr. Benn" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: >> >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7640563/Man- >> fined-for-reversing-into-his-own-driveway.html >>> >>> Maxwell Cannon was issued with a �60 fixed penalty notice and informed >>> that he was committing a traffic offence for waiting on the zigzag >>> markings of a pedestrian crossing outside his home in Harrington, near >>> Workington in Cumbria. >> >> So he wasn't fined for "reversing into his driveway". He was fined for >> waiting on pedestrian crossing markings. > >Given that there may be a good reason for him *reversing* into the driveway >(eg so he doesn't have to reverse out into busy traffic) I wonder what he >should have done differently? Find somewhere else to park his car. >Not tried to park in his driveway at a time That's a good answer. IOW park somewhere safe. >when there was heavy traffic which prevented him completing the manoeuvre >without having to wait? Sounds like the case fails a "reasonableness" test. He should have thought about parking his car when he bought the house. That's not unreasonable. Derek
From: loopy livernose on 28 Apr 2010 09:31 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:83qoo4Fm8uU16(a)mid.individual.net... > PhilO <goo18731(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >> They told him he was committing an offence because he was stationary on >> the zigzag markings of the crossing and told him to move on. But when >> they returned after driving a mile up the road he was still there, >> waiting for his chance to reverse into the house" > > He was warned. > He ignored the warning. > He got nicked. > > Any sympathy just evaporated. as far as I agree with your sentiment, would it not have made more sense for the plod to have helped make a gap in the traffic?? rather than "book another one".. spose he was lucky he didn't get hit with obstruction too, because he must have been holding up quite a queue by this time..
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 28 Apr 2010 09:33 On 28 Apr 2010 11:45:12 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >So he wasn't fined for "reversing into his driveway". He was fined for >waiting on pedestrian crossing markings. "Mr Cannon was told by the police officer that he could have driven forward into the driveway but he argued that reversing out onto a main road was against the Highway Code and would have put himself and others in danger" "The judge, Recorder Ahmed Nadim, said: �We accept that he has intended to conduct his driving in a manner designed to mitigate the inconvenience to other traffic but that does not afford him an exemption under the regulations.� so if he drove in forwards, how does he get out? -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 28 Apr 2010 09:34 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:12:57 +0100, Derek Geldard <dgg(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >He should have thought about parking his car when he bought the house. >That's not unreasonable. were the lines there then? Probably not or if not that would be the case for thousands of houses. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 28 Apr 2010 09:35
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:49:39 -0700 (PDT), "Nkosi (ama-ecosse)" <minankosi(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >Police state just a tad OTT -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine. |