YCMIU Cyclist throws bike at car

[MrCheerful]

http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

[jnugent]

On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

Lone female victim.

Again.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

> Lone female victim.
>
> Again.

http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

>> Lone female victim.
>> Again.

> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144

The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a cyclist
against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an occurrence as it
ought to be).

Your citation seems to be about a traffic accident.

What's the connection (if any)?

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime

Alleged crime

> committed by a

Pedestrian , Crank vs Brooks 1980.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:32:55 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:

> Alleged crime
>
> > committed by a
>
> Pedestrian , Crank vs Brooks 1980.

Indeed - how can a cyclist throw a bicycle at someone whilst sitting on it?

Has to be a pedestrian by definition.

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 9:38:40 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:32:55 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>
> > Alleged crime
> >
> > > committed by a
> >
> > Pedestrian , Crank vs Brooks 1980.
>
> Indeed - how can a cyclist throw a bicycle at someone whilst sitting on it?
>
> Has to be a pedestrian by definition.

This also begs the question of why a paying road user would suddenly decide to throw their bicycle at a passing subsidised road user without provocation?
The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as recommended by the Highway Code.
I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a weapon.

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:38:40 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:32:55 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>
>> Alleged crime
>>
>> > committed by a
>>
>> Pedestrian , Crank vs Brooks 1980.
>
> Indeed - how can a cyclist throw a bicycle at someone whilst sitting on it?
>
> Has to be a pedestrian by definition.

Only if you're a ****ing idiot. If you're pushing a bicycle, you're a cyclist. You may have different road rules to follow while pushing it, but you are still a cyclist, just as I am still a motorist while push starting my car.

--
It said, "Insert disk #3," but only two will fit!

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:57:51 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 9:38:40 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:32:55 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>
>> > Alleged crime
>> >
>> > > committed by a
>> >
>> > Pedestrian , Crank vs Brooks 1980.
>>
>> Indeed - how can a cyclist throw a bicycle at someone whilst sitting on it?
>>
>> Has to be a pedestrian by definition.
>
> This also begs the question of why a paying road user would suddenly decide to throw their bicycle at a passing subsidised road user without provocation?

Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?

> The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as recommended by the Highway Code.
> I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a weapon.

If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.

--
Maybe the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence because that is where the leaky septic tank is buried.

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:23:41 +0100, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen > wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>
>> Lone female victim.
>>
>> Again.
>
> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144

No doubt the cyclist undertook a large lorry with poor vision and steering.

--
The combined weight of all the ants on Earth is about the same as the combined weight of humans.

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:38:40 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 21:32:55 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>
>> Alleged crime
>>
>> > committed by a
>>
>> Pedestrian , Crank vs Brooks 1980.
>
> Indeed - how can a cyclist throw a bicycle at someone whilst sitting on it?

By owning two bicycles.

--
"I'll have the rump steak, rare, please."
He said, "Aren't you worried about the mad cow?"
"Nah, she can order for herself."
And that's when the fight started....

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>

You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 12/04/2016 21:57, Simon Jester wrote:

> This also begs the question of why a paying road user would suddenly decide to throw their bicycle at a passing subsidised road user without provocation?
> The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as recommended by the Highway Code.
> I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a weapon.
>

I can see the court case now. Yes your Honour, I was driving home from
the pub when I noticed a cyclist by the side of the road, so I stopped
to ensure his safety. Where upon the cyclist suddenly accelerated to 70
mph and hurled himself and his bicycle, backwards, at my stationary car.

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:12:30 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>
> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.

Two things wrong with that post.

Firstly, being a cyclist and cycling are not the same thing. The law is against cycling on the pavement, not being a cyclist on a pavement.

Secondly, you are incorrect in assuming that I don't like cyclists on pavements. I would prefer they did, as they would not hold up any cars. When I cycle, I always use the pavement if it's clearer than the road, both to impede less traffic, and to make it easier and safer for myself.

--
If you believe in telepathy, raise my hand.

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>

Which taxes are those?

> > The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as recommended by the Highway Code.
> > I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a weapon.
>
> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>

There was no suggestion of a footway being available.
Even if there was how is attempted murder justified?

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:18:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> Two things wrong with that post.
>
> Firstly, being a cyclist and cycling are not the same thing. The law is against cycling on the pavement, not being a cyclist on a pavement.
>

Please define with citations from the peer reviewed literature to support your claim.

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>
>
> Which taxes are those?

Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.

>> > The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as recommended by the Highway Code.
>> > I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a weapon.
>>
>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>
> There was no suggestion of a footway being available.
> Even if there was how is attempted murder justified?

Hooting a horn is attempted murder?

--
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia - The fear of long words.

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:45:58 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:18:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Two things wrong with that post.
>>
>> Firstly, being a cyclist and cycling are not the same thing. The law is against cycling on the pavement, not being a cyclist on a pavement.
>
> Please define with citations from the peer reviewed literature to support your claim.

It's common knowledge. People have been arrested for cycling on the pavement, but not for walking a bicycle on the pavement.

--
The British government is going to impose a 40% tax on Aspirin.
"Why" you ask?
Well, primarily because it's white and it works.

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:36:54 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> > Which taxes are those?
>
> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.

It is now called Vehicle Tax, bicycles are zero rated as are many cars.
Cyclists have to pay the same when they purchase petrol.

> > There was no suggestion of a footway being available.
> > Even if there was how is attempted murder justified?
>
> Hooting a horn is attempted murder?
>
Where did I claim that?

[Mr Macaw]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:51:35 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:36:54 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:
>
>> > Which taxes are those?
>>
>> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.
>
> It is now called Vehicle Tax, bicycles are zero rated as are many cars.

The name is irrelevant.

> Cyclists have to pay the same when they purchase petrol.

How much petrol does your bicycle use?

>> > There was no suggestion of a footway being available.
>> > Even if there was how is attempted murder justified?
>>
>> Hooting a horn is attempted murder?
>>
> Where did I claim that?

That's all we think she may have done.

--
What the best way to get a guy to stop smoking after sex?
Fill his waterbed with gasoline.

[Simon Jester]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:55:30 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:51:35 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:
>

> > It is now called Vehicle Tax, bicycles are zero rated as are many cars.
>
> The name is irrelevant.

So you agree cyclists pay VED.
Or are you saying those who pay more Vehicle Tax have greater priority on the roads?

>
> > Cyclists have to pay the same when they purchase petrol.
>
> How much petrol does your bicycle use?

A non zero amount, although mainly diesel.
Are you saying that those who use most fuel have higher priority?
My petrol automatic car probably uses more fuel that yours so you need to get out of my way, especially when I am on my bicycle and my taxed car is on private property.


> > Where did I claim that?
>
> That's all we think she may have done.
>

You are bipolar?

[Tom Crispin[_5_]]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:05:45 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> Only if you're a ****ing idiot. If you're pushing a bicycle, you're a cyclist. You may have different road rules to follow while pushing it, but you are still a cyclist, just as I am still a motorist while push starting my car.

Are you a motorist or cyclist if you have a bicycle on the roof of the car you are driving?

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:38:08 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:55:30 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 23:51:35 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:
>>
>
>> > It is now called Vehicle Tax, bicycles are zero rated as are many cars.
>>
>> The name is irrelevant.
>
> So you agree cyclists pay VED.

I didn't say that whatsoever. They only pay it if they have a car, then they are also drivers.

> Or are you saying those who pay more Vehicle Tax have greater priority on the roads?

They should do. They go faster.

>> > Cyclists have to pay the same when they purchase petrol.
>>
>> How much petrol does your bicycle use?
>
> A non zero amount, although mainly diesel.

Funny, my bicycle uses only calories, and I don't drink diesel.

> Are you saying that those who use most fuel have higher priority?

Try arguing with a lorry when you're cycling.

> My petrol automatic car probably uses more fuel that yours so you need to get out of my way, especially when I am on my bicycle and my taxed car is on private property.

When your car is on private property, why would I need to get out of the way of it?

>> > Where did I claim that?
>>
>> That's all we think she may have done.
>
> You are bipolar?

No, and why does that compute from the previous discussion?

--
63% of men have had sex in the shower.
The other 37% have never been to prison.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 00:45:47 +0100, Tom Crispin > wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:05:45 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Only if you're a ****ing idiot. If you're pushing a bicycle, you're a cyclist. You may have different road rules to follow while pushing it, but you are still a cyclist, just as I am still a motorist while push starting my car.
>
> Are you a motorist or cyclist if you have a bicycle on the roof of the car you are driving?

Both. Unless it's your wife's bicycle.

--
The Web brings people together because no matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in "Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire" and the computer will say "Specify type of goat." -- Rich Jeni

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
> > If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
> >
>
> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.

If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:43:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
> > Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
> >
>
> Which taxes are those?

This bloke charges his zero rated VED car from roof solar panels and so pays no taxes at all.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/8216-8217-t-charge-electric-car-council-fenced/story-28185859-detail/story.html

[Bod[_5_]]

On 12/04/2016 23:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>
>>
>> Which taxes are those?
>
> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.
>
>>> > The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as
>>> recommended by the Highway Code.
>>> > I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user
>>> illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a
>>> weapon.
>>>
>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>>
>> There was no suggestion of a footway being available.
>> Even if there was how is attempted murder justified?
>
> Hooting a horn is attempted murder?
>
Cyclist horned to death! :-)

--
Bod

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.

>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.

> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.

What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?

Does anyone ever cross a road with a car or a lorry?

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 00:45, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:05:45 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> Only if you're a ****ing idiot. If you're pushing a bicycle, you're a cyclist. You may have different road rules to follow while pushing it, but you are still a cyclist, just as I am still a motorist while push starting my car.
>
> Are you a motorist or cyclist if you have a bicycle on the roof of the car you are driving?

:-)

Now that is more like the ukrc of old!

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>
>>> Lone female victim. Again.
>
>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144
>
> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a cyclist
> against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an occurrence as it
> ought to be).
>
> Your citation seems to be about a traffic accident.
>
> What's the connection (if any)?

There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:19:11 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 00:45, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:05:45 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> Only if you're a ****ing idiot. If you're pushing a bicycle, you're a cyclist. You may have different road rules to follow while pushing it, but you are still a cyclist, just as I am still a motorist while push starting my car.
>>
>> Are you a motorist or cyclist if you have a bicycle on the roof of the car you are driving?
>
> :-)
>
> Now that is more like the ukrc of old!

This shows the superiority of the car. Try carrying a car on a bicycle.

--
An elderly man was stopped by the police around 2 a.m and was asked where he was going at that time of night.
The man replied, "I'm on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."
The officer then said, "Really? Who's giving that lecture at this time of night?"
The man replied, "That would be my wife."

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:32:18 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>> > If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>> >
>>
>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>
> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.

Why do you believe it's safer to do this? What is wrong with cycling across?

--
An elderly man was stopped by the police around 2 a.m and was asked where he was going at that time of night.
The man replied, "I'm on my way to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body, as well as smoking and staying out late."
The officer then said, "Really? Who's giving that lecture at this time of night?"
The man replied, "That would be my wife."

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:17:31 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>
>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>
>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>
> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?
>
> Does anyone ever cross a road with a car or a lorry?

Yes, at a crossroads :-P

--
I do not think it is necessary to believe that the same god who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use, giving us by some other means the information that we could gain through them -- Galileo Galilei

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:04:13 +0100, Bod > wrote:

> On 12/04/2016 23:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which taxes are those?
>>
>> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.
>>
>>>> > The primary road user was walking facing oncoming traffic as
>>>> recommended by the Highway Code.
>>>> > I suppose there is no possibly that the tertiary road user
>>>> illegally sounded it's horn aggressively and used it's vehicle as a
>>>> weapon.
>>>>
>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>>>
>>> There was no suggestion of a footway being available.
>>> Even if there was how is attempted murder justified?
>>
>> Hooting a horn is attempted murder?
>>
> Cyclist horned to death! :-)

A Rhino horn up the jacksie would sort him out.

--
Peter is listening to "Pogues with Sinead O'Connor - I'm a man you don't meet every day"

[Nick[_4_]]

On 13/04/2016 06:35, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:43:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>
>>
>> Which taxes are those?
>
> This bloke charges his zero rated VED car from roof solar panels and so pays no taxes at all.
>
> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/8216-8217-t-charge-electric-car-council-fenced/story-28185859-detail/story.html
>

The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar panels.

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

>>>> Lone female victim. Again.

>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144

>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a cyclist
>> against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an occurrence as it
>> ought to be).
>> Your citation seems to be about a traffic accident.
>> What's the connection (if any)?

> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.

<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>

QUOTE:

[Section] 170 - Duties in case of accident:

170 Duty of driver to stop, report *accident* and give information or
documents.

(1) This section applies in a case where, owing to the presence of a
[mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road [or other public place], an
*accident* occurs by which —

(a) personal injury is caused to a person other than the driver of that
[mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(b) damage is caused—

(i) to a vehicle other than that [mechanically propelled vehicle] or a
trailer drawn by that [mechanically propelled vehicle], or

(ii) to an animal other than an animal in or on that [mechanically
propelled vehicle] or a trailer drawn by that [mechanically propelled
vehicle], or

(iii) to any other property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or
otherwise forming part of the land on which the road [or place] in
question is situated or land adjacent to such land.

(2) The driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle] must stop and, if
required to do so by any person having reasonable grounds for so
requiring, give his name and address and also the name and address of
the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.

(3) If for any reason the driver of the [mechanically propelled vehicle]
does not give his name and address under subsection (2) above, he must
report the *accident*.

(4) A person who fails to comply with subsection (2) or (3) above is
guilty of an offence.

(5) If, in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection
(1)(a) above, the driver of [a motor vehicle] does not at the time of
the *accident* produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or
other evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act—

(a) to a constable, or

(b) to some person who, having reasonable grounds for so doing, has
required him to produce it,

the driver must report the*accident*and produce such a certificate or
other evidence.

This subsection does not apply to the driver of an invalid carriage.

(6) To comply with a duty under this section to report an *accident* or
to produce such a certificate of insurance or security, or other
evidence, as is mentioned in section 165(2)(a) of this Act, the driver —

(a) must do so at a police station or to a constable, and

(b) must do so as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case,
within twenty-four hours of the occurrence of the *accident*.

(7) A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (5) above
is guilty of an offence, but he shall not be convicted by reason only of
a failure to produce a certificate or other evidence if, within [seven]
days after the occurrence of the *accident*, the certificate or other
evidence is produced at a police station that was specified by him at
the time when the *accident* was reported.

(8) In this section “animal� means horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig,
goat or dog.
ENDQUOTE

Section 181 of the same Act is subtitled: "General provisions as to
*accident* inquiries" and provides:

QUOTE:
(1)Where an *accident* arises out of the presence of a [mechanically
propelled vehicle] on a road, the Secretary of State may direct inquiry
to be made into the cause of the accident.

(2) Where any *accident* arising out of the presence of a [mechanically
propelled vehicle] on a road has occurred, a person authorised by the
Secretary of State in that behalf may, on production if so required of
his authority, inspect any vehicle in connection with which the
*accident* arose, and for that purpose may enter at any reasonable time
any premises where the vehicle is. [ ... ]
ENDQUOTE

Section 182 of the same Act:

QUOTE:
182 Special provisions as to *accident* inquiries in Greater London.

(1)Where, owing to the presence of a vehicle on a road, an *accident*
occurs within Greater London and it appears to the Secretary of State
that the sole or a contributory cause of the *accident* was —
(a) the nature or character of the road or of the road surface, or
(b) a defect in the design or construction of the vehicle or in the
materials used in the construction of the road or vehicle, he may, if he
thinks fit, cause an inquiry to be held into the cause of the *accident*.
ENDQUOTE

HTH.

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 12:06, Nick wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 06:35, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:43:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>
>>> Which taxes are those?
>
>> This bloke charges his zero rated VED car from roof solar panels and
>> so pays no taxes at all.

....other than the VAT on domestic fuel (unless that isn't charged in 'Ull).

>> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/8216-8217-t-charge-electric-car-council-fenced/story-28185859-detail/story.html

> The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar panels.

Quite right too.

Does he - or anyone - really believe that it is acceptable to trail an
electrical flex across the footway where it could endanger any passing
cyclist?

If he wants to charge an electric vehicle up, fair enough - but he'll
have to have an off-street garaging space with an electricity supply.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 13/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote:

>> The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar
>> panels.
>
> Quite right too.
>
> Does he - or anyone - really believe that it is acceptable to trail an
> electrical flex across the footway where it could endanger any passing
> cyclist?
>
> If he wants to charge an electric vehicle up, fair enough - but he'll
> have to have an off-street garaging space with an electricity supply.

+1. I had hoped it was so obvious not to need saying but some people
have such a sense of self entitlement it probably is worth saying.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:21:10 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 12:06, Nick wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2016 06:35, Alycidon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:43:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>
>>>> Which taxes are those?
>>
>>> This bloke charges his zero rated VED car from roof solar panels and
>>> so pays no taxes at all.
>
> ...other than the VAT on domestic fuel (unless that isn't charged in 'Ull).
>
>>> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/8216-8217-t-charge-electric-car-council-fenced/story-28185859-detail/story.html
>
>> The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar panels.
>
> Quite right too.
>
> Does he - or anyone - really believe that it is acceptable to trail an
> electrical flex across the footway where it could endanger any passing
> cyclist?
>
> If he wants to charge an electric vehicle up, fair enough - but he'll
> have to have an off-street garaging space with an electricity supply.

Don't be stupid. There's someone near here who has a campervan permanently connected to the mains. He placed a flex across the pavement and put one of those anti trip things over it.

Of course civilised people have a driveway so you don't even need to do that.

--
Hiroshima '45 Chernobyl '86 Windows '95

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:24:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote:
>
>>> The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar
>>> panels.
>>
>> Quite right too.
>>
>> Does he - or anyone - really believe that it is acceptable to trail an
>> electrical flex across the footway where it could endanger any passing
>> cyclist?
>>
>> If he wants to charge an electric vehicle up, fair enough - but he'll
>> have to have an off-street garaging space with an electricity supply.
>
> +1. I had hoped it was so obvious not to need saying but some people
> have such a sense of self entitlement it probably is worth saying.

You own the pavement and road outside your home and can do whatever you like on it within reason.

--
When you own Llamas... spit happens

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>> had every right to get annoyed.

>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.

>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount
>> and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a
>> cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.

> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?

It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.

I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill one a
week, if not more.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.

>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144

>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a cyclist
>>> against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an occurrence as it
>>> ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a traffic accident.
>>> What's the connection (if any)?

>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.
>
> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>

I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but not
when I do.

Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition. It stands to reason,
however, that an 'accident' is invariably the result of someone's stupidity
or selfishness (or, as is the case with the murders we have seen of late in
London and its environs, malice).

I can concede that there is a tiny minority of cases where (as an example)
the steering shears on a car, causing a collision. But the majority of
that tiny minority of cases could have been avoided if the selfish **** who
owns the vehicle had reached into his pocket and had it properly
maintained.

There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 12/04/2016 23:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>
>>
>> Which taxes are those?
>
> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.

Currently, the latter's only about 300%.

Luxury...

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 13:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>
>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>
>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount
>>> and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a
>>> cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>
>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?
>
> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>
> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill one a
> week, if not more.

"If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra".

Cycling along the footways?

Go on... defend it... you know you are dying to...

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:05:48 +0100, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen > wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>
>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>
>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount
>>> and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a
>>> cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>
>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?
>
> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>
> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill one a
> week, if not more.

The cyclist is clearly just moving his bike in a different manner to get around a law. He's still a cyclist. Do you think I should be able to push my car through a red light and call myself a pedestrian? I'm not driving my car.....

--
"The man who invented cats eyes got the idea when he saw a cat facing him in the middle of the road. If the cat had been facing the other way, he would have invented the pencil sharpener." - Ken Dodd.
/
"The main difference between men and women is that men are lunatics and women are idiots." -- Dame Rebecca West

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:10:39 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 12/04/2016 23:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which taxes are those?
>>
>> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.
>
> Currently, the latter's only about 300%.
>
> Luxury...

Last I heard it was 80p tax per litre. At £1 a litre, that's exactly 400%.

--
1 in 6 men in Iowa have had sex with a chicken -- The Kinsey Report

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 13:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>>
>>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>>
>>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount
>>>> and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a
>>>> cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>>
>>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?
>>
>> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>
>> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill one a
>> week, if not more.
>
> "If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra".
>
> Cycling along the footways?
>
> Go on... defend it... you know you are dying to...

No, I'm not. And I never have.

Am I wrong? Have I actually ever written in this or any other newsgroup
that cycling on the 'footway' is OK?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:15:25 +0100, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen > wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 13:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>>>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>>>
>>>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>>>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>>>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>>>
>>>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount
>>>>> and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a
>>>>> cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>>>
>>>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?
>>>
>>> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill one a
>>> week, if not more.
>>
>> "If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra".
>>
>> Cycling along the footways?
>>
>> Go on... defend it... you know you are dying to...
>
> No, I'm not. And I never have.
>
> Am I wrong? Have I actually ever written in this or any other newsgroup
> that cycling on the 'footway' is OK?

Clearly Mr Nugent assumed you were implying it, as you crossed the road on a zebra. That's why he put that sentence in quotes. Why is it all the cyclists in here have trouble interpreting plain English?

--
Viagra Lite
For people who only want to masturbate

Viagrallium
A mix of Viagra and Vallium: if you don't get to ****, then you don't give a ****.

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 13:09, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>
>>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.
>
>>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144
>
>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a cyclist
>>>> against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an occurrence as it
>>>> ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a traffic accident.
>>>> What's the connection (if any)?
>
>>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.
>
>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>
>
> I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but not
> when I do.
>
> Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition.

Oh.

It seemed to be the Statutory definition.

But if you say it isn't, it can't be.

> It stands to reason,
> however, that an 'accident' is invariably the result of someone's stupidity
> or selfishness (or, as is the case with the murders we have seen of late in
> London and its environs, malice).

So an accident is "invariably the result of" [something or other] even
though "there is no such thing as an accident"?

> I can concede that there is a tiny minority of cases where (as an example)
> the steering shears on a car, causing a collision. But the majority of
> that tiny minority of cases could have been avoided if the selfish **** who
> owns the vehicle had reached into his pocket and had it properly
> maintained.

But it never happens, does it, because there is no such thing as an
accident?

Or perhaps you reckon that the Sections of that Act which refer to
accidents don't (because they can't) apply to traffic collisions?

> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.

Write to the House of Commons to tell then that they've got it all wrong
and that only you are capable of putting them right. Use green ink for
best effect.

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 13:15, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 13:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she
>>>>>>> had every right to get annoyed.
>>>
>>>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>>>>>> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>>>>>> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>>>
>>>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount
>>>>> and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a
>>>>> cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>>>
>>>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the road"?
>>>
>>> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill one a
>>> week, if not more.
>>
>> "If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra".
>>
>> Cycling along the footways?
>>
>> Go on... defend it... you know you are dying to...
>
> No, I'm not. And I never have.
>
> Am I wrong? Have I actually ever written in this or any other newsgroup
> that cycling on the 'footway' is OK?

We're starting to get somewhere.

Do you unequivocably condemn cycling along footways and in other
pedestrian areas (without trying to trivialise the offence by making
some gratuitous remark about what other classes of road-users sometimes do)?

That really needs to be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".

And do you accept that cyclists nevertheless doing so are in the wrong
and should be punished?

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 13:14, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:10:39 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2016 23:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which taxes are those?
>>>
>>> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.
>>
>> Currently, the latter's only about 300%.
>>
>> Luxury...
>
> Last I heard it was 80p tax per litre. At £1 a litre, that's exactly 400%.

The duty has never been as high as 80p a litre. The VAT is a sixth of
the retail price (of course).

A typical 106p for a litre, divided by 6 = VAT of 18p (rounded).

So 106p - 18p = 88p = price before VAT added, but including duty.

The duty is a tiny bit under 58p per litre, meaning that the factor
price is 30p rounded.

76p (the rest of the price, being the duty plus the VAT) is just over
253% of 30p. So the tax is about 253% of the factor price at the moment,
with a typical petrol price being 106p for a litre.

The proportion of tax in the price has, though, been higher. Freezing
the duty for some years has helped.

<https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/fuel-duty>

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:41:14 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 13:14, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 13:10:39 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2016 23:36, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 22:43:29 +0100, Simon Jester >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are you calling a cyclist a paying road user when they pay
>>>>>> nothing? Why are you calling a driver of a car a subsidised user
>>>>>> when they pay two taxes cyclists don't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which taxes are those?
>>>>
>>>> Car tax (VED) and 400% tax on petrol.
>>>
>>> Currently, the latter's only about 300%.
>>>
>>> Luxury...
>>
>> Last I heard it was 80p tax per litre. At £1 a litre, that's exactly 400%.
>
> The duty has never been as high as 80p a litre. The VAT is a sixth of
> the retail price (of course).
>
> A typical 106p for a litre, divided by 6 = VAT of 18p (rounded).
>
> So 106p - 18p = 88p = price before VAT added, but including duty.
>
> The duty is a tiny bit under 58p per litre, meaning that the factor
> price is 30p rounded.
>
> 76p (the rest of the price, being the duty plus the VAT) is just over
> 253% of 30p. So the tax is about 253% of the factor price at the moment,
> with a typical petrol price being 106p for a litre.
>
> The proportion of tax in the price has, though, been higher. Freezing
> the duty for some years has helped.
>
> <https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping/fuel-duty>

Ah, I probably remembered 60p as 80p.

Pretty daft that they charge VAT and fuel duty instead of simply combining them. The HMRC loves to make things complicated, presumably to keep more of their staff in a job (not that most of them understand their own system - have you ever tried speaking to one on the phone?)

--
It is bad luck to be superstitious.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 11:43:28 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:32:18 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >>
> >> > If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
> >> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
> >> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
> >
> > If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>
> Why do you believe it's safer to do this? What is wrong with cycling across?

If it was a Toucan crossing - nothing at all.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:06:41 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 11:43:28 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:32:18 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement, she had every right to get annoyed.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a cyclist.
>> >> Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the pavement.
>> >> This means you think cyclists should ride on the pavement.
>> >
>> > If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a pedestrian.
>>
>> Why do you believe it's safer to do this? What is wrong with cycling across?
>
> If it was a Toucan crossing - nothing at all.

Why would that be required? Cycling over a zebra or pelican is just as safe. So is riding on a pavement. Cyclists can surely avoid each other and pedestrians just like pedestrians avoid each other? Are you saying cyclists are not in control of their bike's steering? Is this why they demand a car width for a vehicle a fraction of that width?

--
A Jewish woman is sitting at a bar. A man approaches her.
"Hi, honey," he says. "Want a little company?"
"Why?" asks the woman. "Do you have one to sell?"

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:17:22 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:


>Are you saying cyclists are not in control of their bike's steering? Is this why the> demand a car width for a vehicle a fraction of that width?

Can you work out why there is a yellow line here?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf7q1HiWQAAMjr0.jpg

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:24:11 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:17:22 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>
>> Are you saying cyclists are not in control of their bike's steering? Is this why the> demand a car width for a vehicle a fraction of that width?
>
> Can you work out why there is a yellow line here?
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf7q1HiWQAAMjr0.jpg

So you don't get pushed into the moving train by a large crowd. Or so kids jumping around don't fall off. I have stood past that line many times and not got blown away. I have cycled along with a car passing me correctly at a foot or so and not got pushed over. You're confusing cars with jumbo jets. If you wobble with a mild draught, you need to get a more stable vehicle, like a tricycle or a car. Or maybe fit stabilisers.

--
I learnt so much from my mistakes I think I'll make another.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:29:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> > He has garage access around the back, but is too lazy to use it.
>
> How is dropping the kerb magically making the pavement safer? And plenty people don't pay to drop their kerb, they simply put a plank of wood next to the kerb to make the car go up easier, or don't bother. I guess my council isn't a bunch of arseholes like yours.

Not my council, thank god.
I would not give them a penny of my money for them to waste.
Their nickname is Wheeltappers and Shunters Club circe 1974.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:40:20 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:29:46 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> > He has garage access around the back, but is too lazy to use it.
>>
>> How is dropping the kerb magically making the pavement safer? And plenty people don't pay to drop their kerb, they simply put a plank of wood next to the kerb to make the car go up easier, or don't bother. I guess my council isn't a bunch of arseholes like yours.
>
> Not my council, thank god.
> I would not give them a penny of my money for them to waste.
> Their nickname is Wheeltappers and Shunters Club circe 1974.

You were on the council's side a moment ago. Do you think it is more dangerous to drive your car into your driveway if your kerb is not lowered? By dangerous I mean for pedestrians, not wearing out your tyres.

--
What do lawyers and sperm have in common?
1 in 50 million has a chance of becoming a human being.

[jnugent]

On 12/04/2016 21:32, Simon Jester wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime
>
> Alleged crime

Oh yes, cyclists accidentally throw bicycles at cars all the time, don't
they?

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:51:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> You were on the council's side a moment ago. Do you think it is more dangerous to drive your car into your driveway if your kerb is not lowered? By dangerous I mean for pedestrians, not wearing out your tyres.
>

Here is another one who got blocked - they can't just drive anywhere they want to roughshod.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/load-bollards-Family-shocked-council-blocks/story-28158535-detail/story.html

Look at the sheer vandalism to grass verges caused by these scum.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/State-grass-verges-depressing-8211-backing/story-28793013-detail/story.html

Park properly FFS.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:44:26 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 16:51:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> You were on the council's side a moment ago. Do you think it is more dangerous to drive your car into your driveway if your kerb is not lowered? By dangerous I mean for pedestrians, not wearing out your tyres.
>>
>
> Here is another one who got blocked - they can't just drive anywhere they want to roughshod.
>
> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/load-bollards-Family-shocked-council-blocks/story-28158535-detail/story.html

If they did that to me I'd take them to court for theft of my car, which is basically what the council did in your link. In Scotland at least, preventing access to someone's car (the most common way is by wheel clamping) is considered the same as stealing the car, as you have prevented the owner from using it.

> Look at the sheer vandalism to grass verges caused by these scum.
>
> http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/State-grass-verges-depressing-8211-backing/story-28793013-detail/story.html
>
> Park properly FFS.

How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own house?

--
Thought for the Day:
The Bible teaches us to love your neighbour, and the Kama Sutra explains how.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own house?

I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb without getting permission from the council to do so.

https://goo.gl/maps/D1ivj2JLCV42

Matey with the solar panels cannot just decide to park in his front garden without getting permission which he applied for, but got turned down.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 13:09, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

>>>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

>>>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.

>>>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144

>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a
>>>>> cyclist against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an
>>>>> occurrence as it ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a
>>>>> traffic accident. What's the connection (if any)?

>>>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.

>>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>

>> I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but
>> not when I do.
>>
>> Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition.

> Oh.
>
> It seemed to be the Statutory definition.

Funny how statutory definitions are OK when _you_ quote them, but not when
I do.

> But if you say it isn't, it can't be.

See above.

Follow along, for heaven's sake. It can't be _that_ hard.

>> It stands to reason, however, that an 'accident' is invariably the
>> result of someone's stupidity or selfishness (or, as is the case with
>> the murders we have seen of late in London and its environs, malice).

> So an accident is "invariably the result of" [something or other] even
> though "there is no such thing as an accident"?

Now you're being deliberately obtu.... no, wait! You're not! You are
actually this thick!


--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own house?
>
> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb without getting permission from the council to do so.

I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer for the pedestrians?

And if I drive along a random street around here, I'll see a non-dropped kerb driveway about 1 in every 10 houses. You can buy little ramps to stop tyre damage, or just use a plank of wood or make a concrete curve up to the kerb. If they were illegal, the police would be having a field day here, but they aren't, so you're utterly wrong aswell as stupid.

> https://goo.gl/maps/D1ivj2JLCV42
>
> Matey with the solar panels cannot just decide to park in his front garden without getting permission which he applied for, but got turned down.

Of course he can, as do millions of other people all the time. You don't need permission to drive onto your OWN LAND. And everybody with a driveway (that's 50% of houses in the UK I'd say) drives over the pavement to get to their drive. IT would be no different for him.

P.S. you could get a car through those bollards easily, they're too wide apart.

P.P.S. if they put bollards up while his car is in the driveway, they are stealing his car and could be taken to court.

--
Complete with obligatory low frequency bass, electrically recorded on a four track in two hours. This has enough power to destroy the most expensive washing machine.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:15:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> Of course he can, as do millions of other people all the time. You don't need permission to drive onto your OWN LAND.

You do if it involves ILLEGALLY driving over council owned footways and verges WITHOUT their permission - it will be on his title deeds.

QUOTE:

"A council spokeswoman said it was the authority's legal duty to keep pedestrians safe and that Mr Storey had been told on numerous occasions to apply for planning permission for his electric charger.

She said: "Hull City Council has received numerous complaints from residents about Mr Storey driving along the footway, around bollards and across the verge to access his property, causing a danger to pedestrians.

"The council has a legal duty to ensure the public highway is safe for people to use, therefore a pedestrian barrier was installed on the pavement outside of his property to prevent vehicle access.

"We have spoken with Mr Storey on a number of occasions. However it is not council policy to give verbal permission and it must be applied for through a formal application, where it will be considered."

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:23:17 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:15:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course he can, as do millions of other people all the time. You don't need permission to drive onto your OWN LAND.
>
> You do if it involves ILLEGALLY driving over council owned footways and verges WITHOUT their permission - it will be on his title deeds.
>
> QUOTE:
>
> "A council spokeswoman said it was the authority's legal duty to keep pedestrians safe and that Mr Storey had been told on numerous occasions to apply for planning permission for his electric charger.
>
> She said: "Hull City Council has received numerous complaints from residents about Mr Storey driving along the footway, around bollards and across the verge to access his property, causing a danger to pedestrians.
>
> "The council has a legal duty to ensure the public highway is safe for people to use, therefore a pedestrian barrier was installed on the pavement outside of his property to prevent vehicle access.
>
> "We have spoken with Mr Storey on a number of occasions. However it is not council policy to give verbal permission and it must be applied for through a formal application, where it will be considered."

FOR THE FOURTH TIME, why is it more dangerous to drive over Mr solar panel's pavement than over your or my pavement? Can't you answer the question Simon?

--
Barry bit Ben's bum before Betty bumfingered big Bertha's buttocks beside Brian's burning bonfire. -- Ronnie Tompkins, circa 2014.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:29:49 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:23:17 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:15:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Of course he can, as do millions of other people all the time. You don't need permission to drive onto your OWN LAND.
> >
> > You do if it involves ILLEGALLY driving over council owned footways and verges WITHOUT their permission - it will be on his title deeds.
> >
> > QUOTE:
> >
> > "A council spokeswoman said it was the authority's legal duty to keep pedestrians safe and that Mr Storey had been told on numerous occasions to apply for planning permission for his electric charger.
> >
> > She said: "Hull City Council has received numerous complaints from residents about Mr Storey driving along the footway, around bollards and across the verge to access his property, causing a danger to pedestrians.
> >
> > "The council has a legal duty to ensure the public highway is safe for people to use, therefore a pedestrian barrier was installed on the pavement outside of his property to prevent vehicle access.
> >
> > "We have spoken with Mr Storey on a number of occasions. However it is not council policy to give verbal permission and it must be applied for through a formal application, where it will be considered."
>
> FOR THE FOURTH TIME, why is it more dangerous to drive over Mr solar panel's pavement than over your or my pavement? Can't you answer the question Simon?

BECAUSE IT IS NOT A DRIVEWAY AND SO YOUR AVERAGE PUNTER WILL NOT BE EXPECTING SOME MORON TO DRIVE AT THEM THROUGH BOLLARDS, OVER THE GRASS VERGE AND ALONG THE FOOTWAY.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:38:35 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:29:49 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:23:17 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 20:15:15 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Of course he can, as do millions of other people all the time. You don't need permission to drive onto your OWN LAND.
>> >
>> > You do if it involves ILLEGALLY driving over council owned footways and verges WITHOUT their permission - it will be on his title deeds.
>> >
>> > QUOTE:
>> >
>> > "A council spokeswoman said it was the authority's legal duty to keep pedestrians safe and that Mr Storey had been told on numerous occasions to apply for planning permission for his electric charger.
>> >
>> > She said: "Hull City Council has received numerous complaints from residents about Mr Storey driving along the footway, around bollards and across the verge to access his property, causing a danger to pedestrians.
>> >
>> > "The council has a legal duty to ensure the public highway is safe for people to use, therefore a pedestrian barrier was installed on the pavement outside of his property to prevent vehicle access.
>> >
>> > "We have spoken with Mr Storey on a number of occasions. However it is not council policy to give verbal permission and it must be applied for through a formal application, where it will be considered."
>>
>> FOR THE FOURTH TIME, why is it more dangerous to drive over Mr solar panel's pavement than over your or my pavement? Can't you answer the question Simon?
>
> BECAUSE IT IS NOT A DRIVEWAY AND SO YOUR AVERAGE PUNTER WILL NOT BE EXPECTING SOME MORON TO DRIVE AT THEM THROUGH BOLLARDS, OVER THE GRASS VERGE AND ALONG THE FOOTWAY.

A lowered kerb does not make it look more like a driveway. It looks like a driveway because of the large space in the garden made for a car.

Anyway, lowered kerb or not, the pedestrian on the pavement takes priority.

Why don't you come up here and send in 1000 reports to the local police about people "breaking the law" here by using non-raised kerbs? I'd love to watch them tell you to **** off.

Here's 4 examples I found very easily:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j37epexf87v5fz8/drive1.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykbmnndhbptt2j1/drive2.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5q9is7ej7gjovw/drive3.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1d38xx4jfnmfldy/drive4.jpg?dl=0

--
"Inflation is creeping up," a young man said to his friend,
"Yesterday I ordered a $25.00 steak in a restaurant and told them
to put it on my American Express card -- and it fit."

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 8:53:58 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> A lowered kerb does not make it look more like a driveway. It looks like a driveway because of the large space in the garden made for a car.
>
> Anyway, lowered kerb or not, the pedestrian on the pavement takes priority.
>
> Why don't you come up here and send in 1000 reports to the local police about people "breaking the law" here by using non-raised kerbs? I'd love to watch them tell you to **** off.

I believe you are right that it is not illegal to drive over a kerb to access property.
However unless you have a legitimate right of way for a motor vehicle then you cannot stop anyone blocking it.
If I have the right permit from the council I can have a skip placed in front of your 'driveway'.

>
> Here's 4 examples I found very easily:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/j37epexf87v5fz8/drive1.jpg?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykbmnndhbptt2j1/drive2.jpg?dl=0

2 counts of littering, possible obstruction.
Think of the partially sited pedestrian who is forced to walk in the road due to a 'law abiding' driver parking on the footway.

> https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5q9is7ej7gjovw/drive3.jpg?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/1d38xx4jfnmfldy/drive4.jpg?dl=0
>
Zero content.

[Mr Macaw]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:47:21 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:40:56 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:24:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar
>>>>> panels.
>>>>
>>>> Quite right too.
>>>>
>>>> Does he - or anyone - really believe that it is acceptable to trail an
>>>> electrical flex across the footway where it could endanger any passing
>>>> cyclist?
>>>>
>>>> If he wants to charge an electric vehicle up, fair enough - but he'll
>>>> have to have an off-street garaging space with an electricity supply.
>>>
>>> +1. I had hoped it was so obvious not to need saying but some people
>>> have such a sense of self entitlement it probably is worth saying.
>>
>> You own the pavement and road outside your home and can do whatever you like on it within reason.
>
> Wrong of course.
> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
> without reason.

I can.

> However, you clearly don't

I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.

> and your only right on the highway
> (including footway and carriageway) outside your house is to pass and
> re-pass along it.

And park on it. And work on my car on it. And recharge my electric car on it. And park my motorhome there and plug it in.

> Anything else, including any use of a motor vehicle
> on it requires permission.

No.

> The permission to use a motor vehicle is
> generally granted in the form of a driving license.

Irrelevant, you already have that.

> Just compare the meaning of license and permit - they are synonyms.

Why are you turning this into an English lesson? This is not relevant at all.

> Even with the general permit (or license) there are strict rules on
> how and where you may use a motor vehicle on a public highway, and if
> you don't comply with them, your permit will be withdrawn.

**** all to do with the bit of road outside my house. Licenses are withdrawn for dangerous driving.

> All this is irrespective of how much you pay towards the cost to
> society of your use of a motor vehicle.

Who mentioned cost?

> Even if you pay every tax and duty on a motor vehicle at the highest
> rate, you still only cover less than half of the cost.
> The balance comes from general taxation, i.e. a subsidy.

Absolute bull****.

> So you take a subsidy from the taxpayer,

Vehicle owners are taxpayers, therefore they subsidise themselves.

> while pushing those same
> taxpayers (who make a net contribution) out of your way to such an
> extent that they are now having to demand protected infrastructure.

Who said anything about pushing?

> Of course, you will deny all of this, at the same time as confirming
> it in your other posts and offering nothing to refute it.

Try talking normally instead of in silly OCD riddles and we can have an intelligent conversation. Try speaking to a doctor to see if he can untangle your brain.

> Such are the delusions of the psychopaths that even when it's spelled
> (and costed) out for them they deny it.

See my previous sentence.

--
He was a very clumsy lover. So the girl had to put him in her place.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:02:09 +0100, Simon Jester > wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 8:53:58 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> A lowered kerb does not make it look more like a driveway. It looks like a driveway because of the large space in the garden made for a car.
>>
>> Anyway, lowered kerb or not, the pedestrian on the pavement takes priority.
>>
>> Why don't you come up here and send in 1000 reports to the local police about people "breaking the law" here by using non-raised kerbs? I'd love to watch them tell you to **** off.
>
> I believe you are right that it is not illegal to drive over a kerb to access property.

Precisely why Hull Council was clearly in the wrong. In fact they should have been done for theft of the car they blocked in.

> However unless you have a legitimate right of way for a motor vehicle then you cannot stop anyone blocking it.

I have the right of way to move my car in and out of my own drive. If a car is parked in front of my drive and I inform the police, they will impound it and charge the owner £160 to get it back.

> If I have the right permit from the council I can have a skip placed in front of your 'driveway'.

No you can't. You may not block anyone's property.

>> Here's 4 examples I found very easily:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/j37epexf87v5fz8/drive1.jpg?dl=0
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykbmnndhbptt2j1/drive2.jpg?dl=0
>
> 2 counts of littering, possible obstruction.

Nope. Littering is a waste product which blows around and causes a menace to animals, and/or an unsightly mess. The above are just cheap forms of kerb lowering. If they were illegal, they are in full view for a passing policeman to do something about. Guess why they don't?

> Think of the partially sited pedestrian who is forced to walk in the road due to a 'law abiding' driver parking on the footway.

That's what guide dogs are for.

>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5q9is7ej7gjovw/drive3.jpg?dl=0
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/1d38xx4jfnmfldy/drive4.jpg?dl=0
>>
> Zero content.

The first one has opening gates and two cars are often parked in there.
The second one clearly has a car parked in a driveway with no lowered kerb.
Are you partially sighted?

--
"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting." - Ronald Reagan

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've
>>> seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over
>>> the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You
>>> might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above
>>> and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own
>>> house?
>>
>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just
>> decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb
>> without getting permission from the council to do so.
>
> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
> for the pedestrians?

The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location as a
route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the route of
the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.

There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
with pedestrians.

[jnugent]

On 13/04/2016 19:39, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 13:09, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>
>>>>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.
>
>>>>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144
>
>>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a
>>>>>> cyclist against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an
>>>>>> occurrence as it ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a
>>>>>> traffic accident. What's the connection (if any)?
>
>>>>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.
>
>>>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>
>
>>> I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but
>>> not when I do.
>>>
>>> Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition.
>
>> Oh.
>>
>> It seemed to be the Statutory definition.
>
> Funny how statutory definitions are OK when _you_ quote them, but not when
> I do.
>
>> But if you say it isn't, it can't be.
>
> See above.
>
> Follow along, for heaven's sake. It can't be _that_ hard.
>
>>> It stands to reason, however, that an 'accident' is invariably the
>>> result of someone's stupidity or selfishness (or, as is the case with
>>> the murders we have seen of late in London and its environs, malice).
>
>> So an accident is "invariably the result of" [something or other] even
>> though "there is no such thing as an accident"?
>
> Now you're being deliberately obtu.... no, wait! You're not! You are
> actually this thick!

Is there such a thing as an accident (you said, loudly, that there
isn't), or not?

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:38:03 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've
>>>> seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over
>>>> the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You
>>>> might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above
>>>> and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own
>>>> house?
>>>
>>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just
>>> decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb
>>> without getting permission from the council to do so.
>>
>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>> for the pedestrians?
>
> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location as a
> route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the route of
> the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>
> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
> with pedestrians.

Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.

There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb. There is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where there is no dropped kerb. If either of those were laws, I could literally report about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.

--
Peter is now listening to "Guo Yi & Guo Yue - Mongolian Horse"

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 01:11, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:38:03 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've
>>>>> seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over
>>>>> the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You
>>>>> might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above
>>>>> and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own
>>>>> house?
>>>>
>>>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just
>>>> decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb
>>>> without getting permission from the council to do so.
>>>
>>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>>> for the pedestrians?
>>
>> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location as a
>> route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the route of
>> the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>>
>> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
>> with pedestrians.
>
> Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware
> of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to
> them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're
> going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a
> driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.

Well, that's your view.

> There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb.

That is correct.

> There
> is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where there is no
> dropped kerb...

....where "putting your car onto a pavement" means crossing a footway in
order to gain access to private land.

> If either of those were laws, I could literally report
> about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.

Nevertheless, the situation is different from the way that you describe
it in the circumstance that the land between the highway and the
property is owned by an entity which does not choose to allow its use
for access.

Ever heard of a "ransom strip"?

I know of a house built in such a position that it may not be occupied
without trespassing on a narrow strip of land between it and the
highway. The owner of the ransom strip was willing to sell it, but only
at a price which the adjoining land's owner was not prepared to pay.

The house might still exist, but it had been unused for some years when
I first heard of th case, and that was over twenty years ago. There's a
good chance it's now been demolished - it was already looking rough.

I tell you this merely to illustrate the (perhaps unexpectedly robust)
rights of landowners. Councils are landowners and they often own highway
land (including grass verges).

Heavens forfend that any council would seek to punish a RTBer by denying
him right of way across a grassed verge, but stranger things have happened.

[Bod[_5_]]

On 14/04/2016 01:11, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:38:03 +0100, JNugent >
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've
>>>>> seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over
>>>>> the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You
>>>>> might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above
>>>>> and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own
>>>>> house?
>>>>
>>>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just
>>>> decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb
>>>> without getting permission from the council to do so.
>>>
>>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>>> for the pedestrians?
>>
>> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location as a
>> route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the route of
>> the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>>
>> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
>> with pedestrians.
>
> Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware
> of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to
> them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're
> going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a
> driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.
>
> There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb. There
> is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where there is no
> dropped kerb. If either of those were laws, I could literally report
> about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.
>
"Do I need a dropped kerb?
If you intend to drive a vehicle over the footway into your driveway off
a highway, then you will need a dropped kerb. If you do not have dropped
kerbs, you must not drive over the footway. If you do so, you are
breaking the law and enforcement action could be taken to prevent such
practice. Furthermore, you may become liable for any damage to the
surface or sub-formation of the footway or any utility services damaged
as a result of this action"

http://www.tameside.gov.uk/kerbdropping#need

--
Bod

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:59:14 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

> >
> "Do I need a dropped kerb?
> If you intend to drive a vehicle over the footway into your driveway off
> a highway, then you will need a dropped kerb. If you do not have dropped
> kerbs, you must not drive over the footway. If you do so, you are
> breaking the law and enforcement action could be taken to prevent such
> practice. Furthermore, you may become liable for any damage to the
> surface or sub-formation of the footway or any utility services damaged
> as a result of this action"
>
> http://www.tameside.gov.uk/kerbdropping#need

Spot on.
QUOTE:
Highway offences

We police unlawful activities that affect the legitimate use of the public highway, such as -

obstructions caused by overgrown vegetation, skips, building materials and scaffolding
leaving and storing caravans and trailers on the public highway
parking vehicles on grass verges
****driving over the footpath to gain access to private property where no footpath crossing exists****

http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,72971&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

MrCheerful > wrote:

> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

With all the talk about dropped kerbs and stopping distance inside an ASL,
we're getting away from the important issue - which, of course, is what the
psychopaths want.

We are being asked to believe that a driver is making her way calmly along
the road, obeying all relevant road laws, when a cyclist, completely
unprovoked, picks up his bicycle and throws it as her windscreen.

Really?

Assuming that the cyclist has not succumbed to a mental breakdown, then one
of two things happened.

1. The driver knocked a cyclist off and attempted to do a runner, and
another cyclist saw no other option than to throw his bike at the car to
stop her.

2. There was an altercation, the details of which the driver has
conveniently neglected to furnish, and the cyclist responded by throwing
his bicycle at the car.

One thing is sure, and that is that no one throws a bicycle at someone
without reason - subject to the 'mental breakdown' caveat above. The
driver is almost certainly lying about the circumstances surrounding the
incident.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

> Lone female victim.
>
> Again.

Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Nick[_4_]]

On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:

>> Wrong of course.
>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>> without reason.
>
> I can.
>
>> However, you clearly don't
>
> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>

I don't think that is normal, though.

I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions, which are
probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 13:15, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 13:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>>>>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement,
>>>>>>>> she had every right to get annoyed.

>>>>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a
>>>>>>> cyclist. Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the
>>>>>>> pavement. This means you think cyclists should ride on the
>>>>>>> pavement.

>>>>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will
>>>>>> dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was
>>>>>> still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a
>>>>>> pedestrian.

>>>>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the
>>>>> road"?

>>>> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill
>>>> one a week, if not more.

>>> "If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra".
>>>
>>> Cycling along the footways?
>>>
>>> Go on... defend it... you know you are dying to...

>> No, I'm not. And I never have.
>>
>> Am I wrong? Have I actually ever written in this or any other newsgroup
>> that cycling on the 'footway' is OK?

> We're starting to get somewhere.

No, we're simply getting to another bit where you (mistakenly) think you
can score points.

> Do you unequivocably condemn cycling along footways and in other
> pedestrian areas (without trying to trivialise the offence by making some
> gratuitous remark about what other classes of road-users sometimes do)?

What an idiot you really are.

How can one 'unequivocably condemn' anything?

Even killing can sometimes be justified in cases where - for example - self
defence is invoked, or where people consistently refuse to cease their
trolling.

> That really needs to be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".

No it doesn't. It needs to be answered with a qualified 'yes' or 'no'.

Where adequate infrastructure exists, then I believe that cyclists should
not be on the pavement.

But let's take the example of the 21-year-old girl who has no experience of
the roads, and who yet needs to cycle along a busy A-road where there is no
cycle lane, and where the police openly state that they 'don't have the
resources' to control speeding. Four cyclists killed on that stretch of
road in the past eighteen months, and the only way she can get to her
destination without being scared witless (which is probably the 'least bad'
thing that could happen) is by cycling on the footway.

> And do you accept that cyclists nevertheless doing so are in the wrong
> and should be punished?

See above.

In your motorcentric country where people like you believe that 'road tax'
actually exists and that it confers some sort of 'right' to use the public
highway - a right which is greater in some way than those who 'don't pay
road tax', then cycling campaigners are always going to have an uphill
structure getting the purse strings opened for better cycling
infrastructure.

Dimbulbs like you actually do believe that a cyclist on the footway should
incur the same sanction as the driver on the footway.

As soon as you express a view like that, you're basically getting the word
'R E T A R D' tattooed across your forehead, as surely as if you had said,
'New Labour are socialist'.

Personally, I don't agree with segregated cycle lanes, any more than I
would have 'agreed' with the Warsaw Ghetto. The way to make cycling safer
isn't to remove the victim from his killer's reach. If you want cycling
(and walking) to be safer, then you impose sanctions on the group of people
who are the real danger on British roads: the drivers. These sanctions
have to include permanent loss of licence for what are currently considered
relatively minor offences, and sentences up to a minimum tarif of
twenty-five years custodial for those who kill.

Otherwise, all the clothes-tearing and the chest-beating about 'road
carnage' is just posturing.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:43:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:59:14 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
>
>> >
>> "Do I need a dropped kerb?
>> If you intend to drive a vehicle over the footway into your driveway off
>> a highway, then you will need a dropped kerb. If you do not have dropped
>> kerbs, you must not drive over the footway. If you do so, you are
>> breaking the law and enforcement action could be taken to prevent such
>> practice. Furthermore, you may become liable for any damage to the
>> surface or sub-formation of the footway or any utility services damaged
>> as a result of this action"
>>
>> http://www.tameside.gov.uk/kerbdropping#need
>
> Spot on.
> QUOTE:
> Highway offences
>
> We police unlawful activities that affect the legitimate use of the public highway, such as -
>
> obstructions caused by overgrown vegetation, skips, building materials and scaffolding
> leaving and storing caravans and trailers on the public highway
> parking vehicles on grass verges
> ****driving over the footpath to gain access to private property where no footpath crossing exists****
>
> http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,72971&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

The dropped kerb serves no purpose but to protect the car (and you can add bits to prevent that as in the photos I showed). Anyone can easily see there's a drive there and not park in front of it. Why on earth would you look at a little kerb instead of a huge drive when you're parking? The drive is 40 times bigger! It's certainly not illegal here as everyone does it. If it's illegal in England then your law is wrong.

AGAIN, what advantage is it to have a dropped kerb? A pedestrian or someone about to park in front of your drive is 40 times more likely to notice the drive than the kerb, as it's 40 times bigger! The dropped kerb is for ONE THING ONLY - to protect the bumper of your car from scrapes, which is why people add bits like in the above photo.

Oh look, Manchester, in ENGLAND. People sensibly parking on the pavement to keep the road clear for through traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/9XVFdJm4TdT2

And Manchester again: The house on the left dropped the kerb, the house on the right didn't. No problem, both work equally well: https://goo.gl/maps/7yWDDJzk3Vm

Hull Council are a bunch of ****ing loonies and need to think before they act.

--
Streakers beware: Your end is in sight!

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>> Wrong of course.
>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>> without reason.
>>
>> I can.
>>
>>> However, you clearly don't
>>
>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>
> I don't think that is normal, though.

It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it, and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.

> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions

The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.

> which are
> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.

My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's classed as a right of way.

--
A man and his wife are ****ing.
Fifteen minutes has passed, 30 minutes, then 45 minutes.
Sweat is pouring off both of them.
The wife finally looks up and says, "What's the matter darling, can't you think of anyone else either?"

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:06:09 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 01:11, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:38:03 +0100, JNugent >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've
>>>>>> seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over
>>>>>> the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You
>>>>>> might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above
>>>>>> and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own
>>>>>> house?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just
>>>>> decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb
>>>>> without getting permission from the council to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>>>> for the pedestrians?
>>>
>>> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location as a
>>> route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the route of
>>> the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>>>
>>> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
>>> with pedestrians.
>>
>> Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware
>> of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to
>> them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're
>> going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a
>> driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.
>
> Well, that's your view.

No, it's simple logic. A person sees a large object more easily than a small one. I've never heard of anyone walking along a pavement, noticing a dropped kerb, THEN looking for possible cars crossing. You notice the driveway out of the corner of your eye and look out. Or more likely rely on hearing the car, or that the car will stop for you as you have priority over it.

>> There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb.
>
> That is correct.
>
>> There
>> is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where there is no
>> dropped kerb...
>
> ...where "putting your car onto a pavement" means crossing a footway in
> order to gain access to private land.

Which is precisely what you are doing.

>> If either of those were laws, I could literally report
>> about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.
>
> Nevertheless, the situation is different from the way that you describe
> it in the circumstance that the land between the highway and the
> property is owned by an entity which does not choose to allow its use
> for access.

YOU own the land right across the pavement into the road. But you have to allow the council to maintain it as they see fit.

> Ever heard of a "ransom strip"?
>
> I know of a house built in such a position that it may not be occupied
> without trespassing on a narrow strip of land between it and the
> highway. The owner of the ransom strip was willing to sell it, but only
> at a price which the adjoining land's owner was not prepared to pay.
>
> The house might still exist, but it had been unused for some years when
> I first heard of th case, and that was over twenty years ago. There's a
> good chance it's now been demolished - it was already looking rough.
>
> I tell you this merely to illustrate the (perhaps unexpectedly robust)
> rights of landowners. Councils are landowners and they often own highway
> land (including grass verges).
>
> Heavens forfend that any council would seek to punish a RTBer by denying
> him right of way across a grassed verge, but stranger things have happened.

A pavement is hardly the same as a larger piece of privately owned land. And as I said above, the council don't own the land the pavement is on.

--
I once got the stuffing beat out of me fighting for a girl's honour.
She wanted to keep it.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 19:39, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 13:09, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>>
>>>>>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.
>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144
>>
>>>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a
>>>>>>> cyclist against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an
>>>>>>> occurrence as it ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a
>>>>>>> traffic accident. What's the connection (if any)?
>>
>>>>>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.
>>
>>>>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>
>>
>>>> I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but
>>>> not when I do.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition.
>>
>>> Oh.
>>>
>>> It seemed to be the Statutory definition.
>>
>> Funny how statutory definitions are OK when _you_ quote them, but not when
>> I do.
>>
>>> But if you say it isn't, it can't be.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> Follow along, for heaven's sake. It can't be _that_ hard.
>>
>>>> It stands to reason, however, that an 'accident' is invariably the
>>>> result of someone's stupidity or selfishness (or, as is the case with
>>>> the murders we have seen of late in London and its environs, malice).
>>
>>> So an accident is "invariably the result of" [something or other] even
>>> though "there is no such thing as an accident"?
>>
>> Now you're being deliberately obtu.... no, wait! You're not! You are
>> actually this thick!
>
> Is there such a thing as an accident (you said, loudly, that there
> isn't), or not?

No, there isn't. I told you. Are you stupid as well as ugly?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 21:32, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime

>> Alleged crime

> Oh yes, cyclists accidentally throw bicycles at cars all the time, don't
> they?

Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
the suspect being sought is a psychopath....
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Nick[_4_]]

On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>> without reason.
>>>
>>> I can.
>>>
>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>
>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>
>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>
> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>
>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>
> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>
>> which are
>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>
> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
> classed as a right of way.
>

OK that is interesting.

I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
designated right of way area.

i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
outside your house?

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>> without reason.
>>>>
>>>> I can.
>>>>
>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>
>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>
>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>
>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>
>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>
>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>
>>> which are
>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>
>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>> classed as a right of way.
>>
>
> OK that is interesting.
>
> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
> designated right of way area.
>
> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
> outside your house?

I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!

--
If you are going to try cross-country skiing, start with a small country.

[Nick[_4_]]

On 14/04/2016 12:35, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>
>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>
>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>
>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>
>>>> which are
>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>
>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>
>>
>> OK that is interesting.
>>
>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>> designated right of way area.
>>
>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>> outside your house?
>
> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive).
> And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One
> goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted
> for blocking yourself!
>

The drive way has enough width for two normal cars so even if I parked
there I wouldn't prevent my neighbours passing in their normal cars.
However it might block a Hummer or such like and hence I assume I'm not
allowed to park on it. Similarly might not your parking on the pavement
prevent exceptionally "wide" people or their accompanying stuff passing
on the pavement? Which I believe was the case with the solar panel
re-charger in HUll.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:43:07 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 12:35, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>
>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>
>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>
>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>
>>>>> which are
>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>
>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>
>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>> designated right of way area.
>>>
>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>> outside your house?
>>
>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive).
>> And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One
>> goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted
>> for blocking yourself!
>
> The drive way has enough width for two normal cars so even if I parked
> there I wouldn't prevent my neighbours passing in their normal cars.
> However it might block a Hummer or such like and hence I assume I'm not
> allowed to park on it.

I don't know what your drives look like, but mine and my next door neighbour's are parallel to each other, and right up against each other (we haven't put a fence or wall up). They're perpendicular to the street. Each drive is 1 car wide. If I parked in front of my half, I'm not blocking their half, so no problem.

> Similarly might not your parking on the pavement
> prevent exceptionally "wide" people or their accompanying stuff passing
> on the pavement? Which I believe was the case with the solar panel
> re-charger in HUll.

Everybody parks on the pavement round here if the streets are narrow. It allows bin lorries and buses and delivery vehicles past. Wide people can walk round the car. Most people don't have a problem with half the pavement width gone.

--
A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

[Nick[_4_]]

On 14/04/2016 12:50, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:43:07 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2016 12:35, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I
>>>>> never
>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council
>>>>> owned it,
>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>
>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>>
>>>>>> which are
>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to
>>>>>> know if
>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>
>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow
>>>>> passage to
>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>
>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of
>>>> the
>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>
>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>> outside your house?
>>>
>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive).
>>> And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One
>>> goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted
>>> for blocking yourself!
>>
>> The drive way has enough width for two normal cars so even if I parked
>> there I wouldn't prevent my neighbours passing in their normal cars.
>> However it might block a Hummer or such like and hence I assume I'm not
>> allowed to park on it.
>
> I don't know what your drives look like, but mine and my next door
> neighbour's are parallel to each other, and right up against each other
> (we haven't put a fence or wall up). They're perpendicular to the
> street. Each drive is 1 car wide. If I parked in front of my half, I'm
> not blocking their half, so no problem.
>

This isn't my drive, my drive is totally separate. It is just a right of
way across my front garden. I never drive on it as it only goes to my
neighbour's house.


>> Similarly might not your parking on the pavement
>> prevent exceptionally "wide" people or their accompanying stuff passing
>> on the pavement? Which I believe was the case with the solar panel
>> re-charger in HUll.
>
> Everybody parks on the pavement round here if the streets are narrow.
> It allows bin lorries and buses and delivery vehicles past. Wide people
> can walk round the car. Most people don't have a problem with half the
> pavement width gone.
>

Yes but what happens in practice and the law are two separate things. In
the past the rights of cars and car owners were considered paramount but
now in places like London, where many people do not have cars, we are
seeing pedestrian rights being asserted more forcefully. I suspect that
what you describe as normal behaviour is not legal and in the future may
be stopped.

[skate]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:35:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can.
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>
>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>
>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>
>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>
>>>> which are
>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>
>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>
>>
>> OK that is interesting.
>>
>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>> designated right of way area.
>>
>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>> outside your house?
>
>I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I
>often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the
> drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!

Unless, that is, you have a dropped kerb leading to your drive and
your council has decided that you can be prosecuted for blocking
yourself.

"From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic
Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to
introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that
park on dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide
specific traffic signs or road markings. These Regulations do not
apply to Scotland regulations." So says DIRECTGOV...

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 10:45, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:

>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390

>> Lone female victim.
>> Again.

> Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.

Lone female victim.

As usual.

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 11:32, Mr Macaw wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 14/04/2016 01:11, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>>>>> for the pedestrians?
>
>>>> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location
>>>> as a route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the
>>>> route of the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>>>> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
>>>> with pedestrians.
>
>>> Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware
>>> of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to
>>> them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're
>>> going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a
>>> driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.
>
>> Well, that's your view.
>
> No, it's simple logic. A person sees a large object more easily than a
> small one. I've never heard of anyone walking along a pavement,
> noticing a dropped kerb, THEN looking for possible cars crossing. You
> notice the driveway out of the corner of your eye and look out. Or more
> likely rely on hearing the car, or that the car will stop for you as you
> have priority over it.

You seem confused.

Is it your view or isn't it?

>>> There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb.
>
>> That is correct.
>
>>> There is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where
>>> there is no dropped kerb...
>
>> ...where "putting your car onto a pavement" means crossing a footway in
>> order to gain access to private land.
>
> Which is precisely what you are doing.

I do apologise. I did type "a footway", but I meant to type "private land".

Please disregard the remark for that reason.

>>> If either of those were laws, I could literally report
>>> about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.
>
>> Nevertheless, the situation is different from the way that you describe
>> it in the circumstance that the land between the highway and the
>> property is owned by an entity which does not choose to allow its use
>> for access.
>
> YOU own the land right across the pavement into the road. But you have
> to allow the council to maintain it as they see fit.

You are thinking of the situation on estate-developed areas. It is not
true in all cases. It may not even be true in most cases.

It has been true in respect of some houses I have owned previously, but
it definitely does not apply here, in a house built adjoining a road
which has been here since Saxon times.

The road was here before the house and it is not feasible that the
person who built the original house on the land bought half the road's
width from whichever Rural District Council was then in operation.

>> Ever heard of a "ransom strip"?
>> I know of a house built in such a position that it may not be occupied
>> without trespassing on a narrow strip of land between it and the
>> highway. The owner of the ransom strip was willing to sell it, but only
>> at a price which the adjoining land's owner was not prepared to pay.
>> The house might still exist, but it had been unused for some years when
>> I first heard of th case, and that was over twenty years ago. There's a
>> good chance it's now been demolished - it was already looking rough.
>> I tell you this merely to illustrate the (perhaps unexpectedly robust)
>> rights of landowners. Councils are landowners and they often own highway
>> land (including grass verges).
>> Heavens forfend that any council would seek to punish a RTBer by denying
>> him right of way across a grassed verge, but stranger things have
>> happened.

> A pavement is hardly the same as a larger piece of privately owned
> land.

It is exactly the same thing. The distinction between private and public
ownership is not a valid one.

> And as I said above, the council don't own the land the pavement
> is on.

On a Hull council estate, you are not likely to be correct.

It isn't impossible for the council to convey a RTB council house to the
purchasing occupant complete with half the width of the highway
including footways and verges, just vanishingly unlikely. It is not the
usual practice with RTB transactions.

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 11:32, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 19:39, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 13:09, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144
>>>
>>>>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a
>>>>>>>> cyclist against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an
>>>>>>>> occurrence as it ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a
>>>>>>>> traffic accident. What's the connection (if any)?
>>>
>>>>>>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.
>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>
>>>
>>>>> I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but
>>>>> not when I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition.
>>>
>>>> Oh.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed to be the Statutory definition.
>>>
>>> Funny how statutory definitions are OK when _you_ quote them, but not when
>>> I do.
>>>
>>>> But if you say it isn't, it can't be.
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>> Follow along, for heaven's sake. It can't be _that_ hard.
>>>
>>>>> It stands to reason, however, that an 'accident' is invariably the
>>>>> result of someone's stupidity or selfishness (or, as is the case with
>>>>> the murders we have seen of late in London and its environs, malice).
>>>
>>>> So an accident is "invariably the result of" [something or other] even
>>>> though "there is no such thing as an accident"?
>>>
>>> Now you're being deliberately obtu.... no, wait! You're not! You are
>>> actually this thick!
>>
>> Is there such a thing as an accident (you said, loudly, that there
>> isn't), or not?
>
> No, there isn't. I told you. Are you stupid as well as ugly?

So you "think" that the Act of Parliament I cited (which contains many
instances of the word "accident") is... what?

A fabrication?

Invalid?

What?
>

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 11:33, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 21:32, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime

>>> Alleged crime

>> Oh yes, cyclists accidentally throw bicycles at cars all the time, don't
>> they?

> Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
> the suspect being sought is a psychopath....

So it is likely (let alone logically possible) that a bicycle can be
accidentally thrown (by a person) at a motor vehicle?

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 11:32, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 13/04/2016 19:39, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2016 13:09, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/04/2016 11:38, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 13:23, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lone female victim. Again.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.london24.com/news/cyclist_hit_by_lorry_at_bank_1_4121144
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime committed by a
>>>>>>>>> cyclist against a lone female (unfortunately, not as rare an
>>>>>>>>> occurrence as it ought to be). Your citation seems to be about a
>>>>>>>>> traffic accident. What's the connection (if any)?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as 'an accident', you thick, tory troll.
>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170>
>>>>
>>>>>> I see. Funny how Acts of Parliament are OK when _you_ quote them, but
>>>>>> not when I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, the above is the motorcentric definition.
>>>>
>>>>> Oh.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seemed to be the Statutory definition.
>>>>
>>>> Funny how statutory definitions are OK when _you_ quote them, but not when
>>>> I do.
>>>>
>>>>> But if you say it isn't, it can't be.
>>>>
>>>> See above.
>>>>
>>>> Follow along, for heaven's sake. It can't be _that_ hard.
>>>>
>>>>>> It stands to reason, however, that an 'accident' is invariably the
>>>>>> result of someone's stupidity or selfishness (or, as is the case with
>>>>>> the murders we have seen of late in London and its environs, malice).
>>>>
>>>>> So an accident is "invariably the result of" [something or other] even
>>>>> though "there is no such thing as an accident"?
>>>>
>>>> Now you're being deliberately obtu.... no, wait! You're not! You are
>>>> actually this thick!
>>>
>>> Is there such a thing as an accident (you said, loudly, that there
>>> isn't), or not?
>>
>> No, there isn't. I told you. Are you stupid as well as ugly?
>
> So you "think" that the Act of Parliament I cited (which contains many
> instances of the word "accident") is... what?
>
> A fabrication?
>
> Invalid?
>
> What?

I've already told you, thicko troll.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 11:33, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2016 21:32, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime
>
>>>> Alleged crime
>
>>> Oh yes, cyclists accidentally throw bicycles at cars all the time, don't
>>> they?
>
>> Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
>> the suspect being sought is a psychopath....
>
> So it is likely (let alone logically possible) that a bicycle can be
> accidentally thrown (by a person) at a motor vehicle?

Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
the suspect being sought is a psychopath....

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 10:45, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>
>>> Lone female victim.
>>> Again.
>
>> Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.
>
> Lone female victim.
>
> As usual.

Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 15:01, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 14/04/2016 11:33, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 21:32, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime
>>
>>>>> Alleged crime
>>
>>>> Oh yes, cyclists accidentally throw bicycles at cars all the time, don't
>>>> they?
>>
>>> Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
>>> the suspect being sought is a psychopath....
>>
>> So it is likely (let alone logically possible) that a bicycle can be
>> accidentally thrown (by a person) at a motor vehicle?
>
> Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
> the suspect being sought is a psychopath....

....especially when he is being accused of lifting a motor car in his
hands and throwing it at someone.

You can't do that with a car, can you?

But is it possible to do it with a bicycle and not even realise you're
doing it?

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 15:01, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2016 11:33, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2016 21:32, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 1:31:57 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The story in the OP was about a deliberate crime
>>>
>>>>>> Alleged crime
>>>
>>>>> Oh yes, cyclists accidentally throw bicycles at cars all the time, don't
>>>>> they?
>>>
>>>> Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
>>>> the suspect being sought is a psychopath....
>>>
>>> So it is likely (let alone logically possible) that a bicycle can be
>>> accidentally thrown (by a person) at a motor vehicle?
>>
>> Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
>> the suspect being sought is a psychopath....
>
> ...especially when he is being accused of lifting a motor car in his
> hands and throwing it at someone.
>
> You can't do that with a car, can you?

What a waste of resources.

> But is it possible to do it with a bicycle and not even realise you're
> doing it?

Funny how you're so keen to remind us all that the crime is 'alleged' when
the suspect being sought is a psychopath....
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 15:06, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 14/04/2016 10:45, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>
>>>> Lone female victim.
>>>> Again.
>
>>> Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.
>
>> Lone female victim.
>
>> As usual.
>
> Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.

A cyclist attacks a lone female victim, again, as so often.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 14/04/2016 15:06, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2016 10:45, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 12/04/2016 11:14, MrCheerful wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.dissexpress.co.uk/news/latest-news/appeal-as-cyclist-throws-bike-into-vehicle-travelling-towards-attleborough-1-7324390
>>
>>>>> Lone female victim.
>>>>> Again.
>>
>>>> Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.
>>
>>> Lone female victim.
>>
>>> As usual.
>>
>> Surrounded by a ton and a half of metal and glass.
>
> A cyclist attacks a lone female victim, again, as so often.

Get back on your meds.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:47:21 +0100, Phil W Lee >
wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:40:56 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
[]
>> You own the pavement and road outside your home and can do whatever you
>> like on it within reason.
>
> Wrong of course.
> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
> without reason.
> However, you clearly don't and your only right on the highway
> (including footway and carriageway) outside your house is to pass and
> re-pass along it. Anything else, including any use of a motor vehicle
> on it requires permission. The permission to use a motor vehicle is
> generally granted in the form of a driving license.
> Just compare the meaning of license and permit - they are synonyms.
> Even with the general permit (or license) there are strict rules on
> how and where you may use a motor vehicle on a public highway, and if
> you don't comply with them, your permit will be withdrawn.
>
> All this is irrespective of how much you pay towards the cost to
> society of your use of a motor vehicle.
> Even if you pay every tax and duty on a motor vehicle at the highest
> rate, you still only cover less than half of the cost.
> The balance comes from general taxation, i.e. a subsidy.
> So you take a subsidy from the taxpayer, while pushing those same
> taxpayers (who make a net contribution) out of your way to such an
> extent that they are now having to demand protected infrastructure.
>
> Of course, you will deny all of this, at the same time as confirming
> it in your other posts and offering nothing to refute it.
>
> Such are the delusions of the psychopaths that even when it's spelled
> (and costed) out for them they deny it.

Superbly put.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[jnugent]

On 14/04/2016 17:46, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:47:21 +0100, Phil W Lee >
> wrote:
>
>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:40:56 +0100
>> the perfect time to write:
>>
> []
>>> You own the pavement and road outside your home and can do whatever
>>> you like on it within reason.
>>
>> Wrong of course.
>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>> without reason.
>> However, you clearly don't and your only right on the highway
>> (including footway and carriageway) outside your house is to pass and
>> re-pass along it. Anything else, including any use of a motor vehicle
>> on it requires permission. The permission to use a motor vehicle is
>> generally granted in the form of a driving license.
>> Just compare the meaning of license and permit - they are synonyms.
>> Even with the general permit (or license) there are strict rules on
>> how and where you may use a motor vehicle on a public highway, and if
>> you don't comply with them, your permit will be withdrawn.
>>
>> All this is irrespective of how much you pay towards the cost to
>> society of your use of a motor vehicle.
>> Even if you pay every tax and duty on a motor vehicle at the highest
>> rate, you still only cover less than half of the cost.
>> The balance comes from general taxation, i.e. a subsidy.
>> So you take a subsidy from the taxpayer, while pushing those same
>> taxpayers (who make a net contribution) out of your way to such an
>> extent that they are now having to demand protected infrastructure.
>>
>> Of course, you will deny all of this, at the same time as confirming
>> it in your other posts and offering nothing to refute it.
>>
>> Such are the delusions of the psychopaths that even when it's spelled
>> (and costed) out for them they deny it.
>
> Superbly put.

Dos it only apply to Mr Macaw (or to anyone else with whom you have
disagreements) or does it apply to every single person (effectively) in
the civilised world?
>

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:06:35 +0100, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen > wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 13/04/2016 13:15, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 13/04/2016 13:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/04/2016 06:32, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 12 April 2016 22:12:31 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 10:06:56 PM UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> If the cyclist was walking on the road instead of the pavement,
>>>>>>>>> she had every right to get annoyed.
>
>>>>>>>> You just said that if you are pushing a bicycle then you are a
>>>>>>>> cyclist. Then you said someone pushing a bicycle should be on the
>>>>>>>> pavement. This means you think cyclists should ride on the
>>>>>>>> pavement.
>
>>>>>>> If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra, I will
>>>>>>> dismount and cross as a pedestrian carrying hand luggage. If I was
>>>>>>> still a cyclist, I would be breaking the law, ergo I am now a
>>>>>>> pedestrian.
>
>>>>>> What is this strange concept of a road-going vehicle "crossing the
>>>>>> road"?
>
>>>>> It isn't. It's a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure you've heard of that concept. Why, you probably try to kill
>>>>> one a week, if not more.
>
>>>> "If I am cycling and want to cross the road on a zebra".
>>>>
>>>> Cycling along the footways?
>>>>
>>>> Go on... defend it... you know you are dying to...
>
>>> No, I'm not. And I never have.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong? Have I actually ever written in this or any other newsgroup
>>> that cycling on the 'footway' is OK?
>
>> We're starting to get somewhere.
>
> No, we're simply getting to another bit where you (mistakenly) think you
> can score points.
>
>> Do you unequivocably condemn cycling along footways and in other
>> pedestrian areas (without trying to trivialise the offence by making some
>> gratuitous remark about what other classes of road-users sometimes do)?
>
> What an idiot you really are.
>
> How can one 'unequivocably condemn' anything?
>
> Even killing can sometimes be justified in cases where - for example - self
> defence is invoked, or where people consistently refuse to cease their
> trolling.
>
>> That really needs to be answered with either a "Yes" or a "No".
>
> No it doesn't. It needs to be answered with a qualified 'yes' or 'no'.
>
> Where adequate infrastructure exists, then I believe that cyclists should
> not be on the pavement.
>
> But let's take the example of the 21-year-old girl who has no experience of
> the roads, and who yet needs to cycle along a busy A-road where there is no
> cycle lane, and where the police openly state that they 'don't have the
> resources' to control speeding.

4% of road deaths are caused by speeding. FOUR.

> Four cyclists killed on that stretch of
> road in the past eighteen months,

Maybe the cyclists should pay more attention to where they're going?

> and the only way she can get to her
> destination without being scared witless (which is probably the 'least bad'
> thing that could happen) is by cycling on the footway.

Cut the feminist bull****.

>> And do you accept that cyclists nevertheless doing so are in the wrong
>> and should be punished?
>
> See above.
>
> In your motorcentric country where people like you believe that 'road tax'
> actually exists

If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it. So it's road tax. Everyone except a few weirdo cyclists in this group call it road tax, because that's what it is.

> and that it confers some sort of 'right' to use the public
> highway

Try using the road without it, then you'll realise it was a right.

> - a right which is greater in some way than those who 'don't pay
> road tax', then cycling campaigners are always going to have an uphill
> structure getting the purse strings opened for better cycling
> infrastructure.

Yip, cyclists want cycle paths without paying for them! Why don't you all pay money into a fund to buy the cycle paths? You could put a little disk on your bike....

> Dimbulbs like you actually do believe that a cyclist on the footway should
> incur the same sanction as the driver on the footway.

I think cyclists should ONLY go on the footpath, out of the way of cars. It's safer for them, and less obstructive for the drivers.

And I cycle aswell as drive.

> As soon as you express a view like that, you're basically getting the word
> 'R E T A R D' tattooed across your forehead, as surely as if you had said,
> 'New Labour are socialist'.
>
> Personally, I don't agree with segregated cycle lanes, any more than I
> would have 'agreed' with the Warsaw Ghetto. The way to make cycling safer
> isn't to remove the victim from his killer's reach. If you want cycling
> (and walking) to be safer, then you impose sanctions on the group of people
> who are the real danger on British roads: the drivers. These sanctions
> have to include permanent loss of licence for what are currently considered
> relatively minor offences, and sentences up to a minimum tarif of
> twenty-five years custodial for those who kill.

If you cause no harm, there should be no punishment, e.g. speeding.

--
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Uncle Bob. Not screaming in terror like his passengers...

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

>
> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.

Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:32:06 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>
>> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.
>
> Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.

He is subsidised by the global warming morons in government. I could get solar panels and have my house electricity for free in the same manner.

--
My wife was hinting about what she wanted for our upcoming anniversary. She said, 'I want something shiny that goes from 0 to 150 in about 3 seconds.'
So I bought her a set of scales.
And then the fight started...

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:32:06 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.
>
> Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.

As can cyclists. So basically you're getting upset about him because he's doing the same as you.

--
If you think people aren't creative, watch them try to re-fold a roadmap.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:36:44 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:32:06 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.
> >
> > Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.
>
> As can cyclists. So basically you're getting upset about him because he's doing the same as you.

Good luck to the fella - except the bit where he drives over the footpath illegally.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:40:05 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:36:44 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:32:06 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >
>> >> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.
>> >
>> > Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.
>>
>> As can cyclists. So basically you're getting upset about him because he's doing the same as you.
>
> Good luck to the fella - except the bit where he drives over the footpath illegally.

You still don't get it do you? He's not endangering the pedestrians any more than you are when you drive into your drive, or me when I drive into mine.

--
Women claim that they never pursue a man. Well, by the same token, a mousetrap never pursues a mouse, but the end result is
the same.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:51:00 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:40:05 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:36:44 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:32:06 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.
> >> >
> >> > Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.
> >>
> >> As can cyclists. So basically you're getting upset about him because he's doing the same as you.
> >
> > Good luck to the fella - except the bit where he drives over the footpath illegally.
>
> You still don't get it do you? He's not endangering the pedestrians any more than you are when you drive into your drive, or me when I drive into mine.

QUOTE:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:59:44 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:51:00 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:40:05 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>> > On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:36:44 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:32:06 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:27:34 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> If I have no car, I don't pay the road tax. The tax is only charged for owning, (and then via fuel) using it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Matey boy with the solar panels and electric car pays zero VED and zero fuel tax and yet can drive on the roads.
>> >>
>> >> As can cyclists. So basically you're getting upset about him because he's doing the same as you.
>> >
>> > Good luck to the fella - except the bit where he drives over the footpath illegally.
>>
>> You still don't get it do you? He's not endangering the pedestrians any more than you are when you drive into your drive, or me when I drive into mine.
>
> QUOTE:
>
> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510

So the problem is the council having fitted the wrong pavement in the first place, then trying to charge the owner of the house to correct their own mistake. It's **** all to do with safety as you keep trying to insist, but to do with the cost of repairs. And oddly enough, I've never seen a pavement break up like in the photo, despite this area having hundreds of "illegal" driveways, I suspect they made that up by taking a photo of the effects of a sledge hammer.

--
My wife doesn't surf the net, she paddles.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:03:26 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:

> >
> > QUOTE:
> >
> > http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510
>
> So the problem is the council having fitted the wrong pavement in the first place, then trying to charge the owner of the house to correct their own mistake.

What mistake? The pavement is not designed to take the abuse of constant kerb mounting and excess weight on utilities.

It is for PEDESTRIANS walking on it.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:08:57 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:03:26 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> >
>> > QUOTE:
>> >
>> > http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510
>>
>> So the problem is the council having fitted the wrong pavement in the first place, then trying to charge the owner of the house to correct their own mistake.
>
> What mistake? The pavement is not designed to take the abuse of constant kerb mounting and excess weight on utilities.
>
> It is for PEDESTRIANS walking on it.

We're discussing driving into your drive. Everyone with a drive and a lowered kerb drives over their pavement legally and doesn't break the pavement, so they can clearly take the weight of a car crossing them a few times a day at 10mph. The only thing you MIGHT damage on a non-lowered one is the kerb, but only if you ram it too hard, in which case they wheels of your car would get more damage.

--
On a Continental Flight with a very "senior" flight attendant crew, the pilot said,
"Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached cruising altitude and will be turning down the cabin lights.
This is for your comfort, and to enhance the appearance of your flight attendants."

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:08:57 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:

> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:03:26 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> >
>> > QUOTE:
>> >
>> > http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510
>>
>> So the problem is the council having fitted the wrong pavement in the first place, then trying to charge the owner of the house to correct their own mistake.
>
> What mistake?

Not fitting a lowered kerb in front of a house. Parking on the street is for pikeys.

--
Interesting fact number 476:
80% of millionaires drive used cars.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:40:32 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:50:57 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:43:07 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 12:35, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>
> I very much doubt if it is even accurate, never mind normal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>
> So not the public highway at all, but a verge alongside it.
> Unless the public highways on your planet have shrubs growing on them,
> carefully tended by the local council.

All the way to the middle of the road actually. Including tarmacked pavement and road.

> I mean, I know there is a problem with potholes. but using them as
> planters is pretty ridiculous, and straining the bounds of
> credibility.

There is no problem with potholes, as potholes are smaller than speedbumps. Why fix the holes then create larger obstacles? Just don't do anything and get free speeddips.

>>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>
> And owned by them in nearly all cases.
> Otherwise, they'd require you to keep it in good order, as farmers are
> required to do so for public rights of way which cross their land.

No. It's easier apparently for land to be owned by the nearest house, but the maintenance done by the council. Less legal paperwork or something.

>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>>> outside your house?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive).
>>>> And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One
>>>> goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted
>>>> for blocking yourself!
>>>
>>> The drive way has enough width for two normal cars so even if I parked
>>> there I wouldn't prevent my neighbours passing in their normal cars.
>>> However it might block a Hummer or such like and hence I assume I'm not
>>> allowed to park on it.
>>
>> I don't know what your drives look like, but mine and my next door neighbour's are parallel to each other, and right up against each other (we haven't put a fence or wall up). They're perpendicular to the street. Each drive is 1 car wide. If I parked in front of my half, I'm not blocking their half, so no problem.
>
> And if you keep a motor vehicle there without VED or insurance, no
> problem either.
> Move it onto the public highway and it's a big problem though, at
> least for you.

You just contradicted yourself. "There" means in front of my drive, on the public road. Rewrite your nonsense to allow further discussion.

>>> Similarly might not your parking on the pavement
>>> prevent exceptionally "wide" people or their accompanying stuff passing
>>> on the pavement? Which I believe was the case with the solar panel
>>> re-charger in HUll.
>>
>> Everybody parks on the pavement round here if the streets are narrow. It allows bin lorries and buses and delivery vehicles past. Wide people can walk round the car. Most people don't have a problem with half the pavement width gone.
>
> I'll drag the side of my wheelchair all along the side of your car in
> order to exercise my right of way.

That makes you an arsehole. If I saw you doing that to anybody's car, I'd knock you off your silly little contraption. Being disabled does not give you the right to damage property.

> If I damage my wheelchair or smash
> my knuckles on your car while doing so, I'll be hammering on your door
> requiring your motor insurance details so that I can claim from your
> insurers.

Good luck to you in claiming for damages when you were in motion and they weren't.

Why are you using a wheelchair AND a bicycle anyway? Are you lying about your disability? Should I tell the benefits people about this?

> It would be an offence for you to refuse to give them.

Utter ****e. I never ask for details when someone crashes into my car, I just take their reg number. Why don't you do the same?

> Good luck claiming for the damage you caused by impeding that right of
> way - the damage would have been caused "owing to the presence of your
> vehicle on the public highway" so the legal minimum insurance is
> required to cover any damages to me. I have every right to attempt to
> get past.

You go past on the road like any sensible person. If something is in your way, you go round it. Are you physically disabled or mentally disabled? If the latter, you should be in a white coat out of the way of normal people.

--
Sweet dreams are made of cheese, who am I to diss a Brie? I cheddar the world and the feta cheese, everybody's looking for Stilton.

[Bod[_5_]]

On 14/04/2016 20:52, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:08:57 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:03:26 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> > QUOTE:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510
>>>
>>>
>>> So the problem is the council having fitted the wrong pavement in the
>>> first place, then trying to charge the owner of the house to correct
>>> their own mistake.
>>
>> What mistake? The pavement is not designed to take the abuse of
>> constant kerb mounting and excess weight on utilities.
>>
>> It is for PEDESTRIANS walking on it.
>
> We're discussing driving into your drive. Everyone with a drive and a
> lowered kerb drives over their pavement legally and doesn't break the
> pavement, so they can clearly take the weight of a car crossing them a
> few times a day at 10mph. The only thing you MIGHT damage on a
> non-lowered one is the kerb, but only if you ram it too hard, in which
> case they wheels of your car would get more damage.
>
There's a lot more involved with putting in a dropped kerb than just
lowering the kerb.
The pathway has to be sloped and strengthened with concrete.

--
Bod

[Alycidon]

On Friday, 15 April 2016 08:06:49 UTC+1, Bod wrote:

> There's a lot more involved with putting in a dropped kerb than just
> lowering the kerb.
> The pathway has to be sloped and strengthened with concrete.

Down our lane, there are more ornate arrangements than mere dropped kerbs.

https://goo.gl/maps/pCd6hReATbQ2

[Bod[_5_]]

On 15/04/2016 08:35, Alycidon wrote:
> On Friday, 15 April 2016 08:06:49 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
>
>> There's a lot more involved with putting in a dropped kerb than just
>> lowering the kerb.
>> The pathway has to be sloped and strengthened with concrete.
>
> Down our lane, there are more ornate arrangements than mere dropped kerbs.
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/pCd6hReATbQ2
>
>
Nice looking entrance.

--
Bod

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 08:06:47 +0100, Bod > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 20:52, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:08:57 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 20:03:26 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > QUOTE:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/residents-face-bills-thousands-drive-10729510
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the problem is the council having fitted the wrong pavement in the
>>>> first place, then trying to charge the owner of the house to correct
>>>> their own mistake.
>>>
>>> What mistake? The pavement is not designed to take the abuse of
>>> constant kerb mounting and excess weight on utilities.
>>>
>>> It is for PEDESTRIANS walking on it.
>>
>> We're discussing driving into your drive. Everyone with a drive and a
>> lowered kerb drives over their pavement legally and doesn't break the
>> pavement, so they can clearly take the weight of a car crossing them a
>> few times a day at 10mph. The only thing you MIGHT damage on a
>> non-lowered one is the kerb, but only if you ram it too hard, in which
>> case they wheels of your car would get more damage.
>>
> There's a lot more involved with putting in a dropped kerb than just
> lowering the kerb.
> The pathway has to be sloped and strengthened with concrete.

Absolute bull****. A pavement is perfectly capable of withstanding a family car driven over it slowly a few times a day. How much hardcore do you think people have on their drives? A hell of a lot less than a pavement. I've seen under pavements.

--
Mike Hallett discussing missed snooker shots on Sky Sports: "Stephen Hendry jumps on Steve Davis's misses every chance he gets."

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:09:15 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:22:46 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:43:56 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2016 09:59:14 UTC+1, Bod wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> "Do I need a dropped kerb?
>>>> If you intend to drive a vehicle over the footway into your driveway off
>>>> a highway, then you will need a dropped kerb. If you do not have dropped
>>>> kerbs, you must not drive over the footway. If you do so, you are
>>>> breaking the law and enforcement action could be taken to prevent such
>>>> practice. Furthermore, you may become liable for any damage to the
>>>> surface or sub-formation of the footway or any utility services damaged
>>>> as a result of this action"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tameside.gov.uk/kerbdropping#need
>>>
>>> Spot on.
>>> QUOTE:
>>> Highway offences
>>>
>>> We police unlawful activities that affect the legitimate use of the public highway, such as -
>>>
>>> obstructions caused by overgrown vegetation, skips, building materials and scaffolding
>>> leaving and storing caravans and trailers on the public highway
>>> parking vehicles on grass verges
>>> ****driving over the footpath to gain access to private property where no footpath crossing exists****
>>>
>>> http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,72971&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
>>
>> The dropped kerb serves no purpose but to protect the car (and you can add bits to prevent that as in the photos I showed). Anyone can easily see there's a drive there and not park in front of it. Why on earth would you look at a little kerb instead of a huge drive when you're parking? The drive is 40 times bigger! It's certainly not illegal here as everyone does it. If it's illegal in England then your law is wrong.
>
> I'm sure if you ask an adult, they will arrange for you to visit a
> construction site where roads and footways are being laid.
> Even you will then be able to see clearly the difference in
> construction between the road, which is designed to be strong enough
> to cope with the weight of motor vehicles, and the footway, which
> isn't.
> If you ask nicely at school (or get your parents to send a note),
> maybe they'll arrange a trip and you can all write projects about it
> afterwards.

I'm sure if you ask an adult, they'll explain to you the difference between 1 or 2 cars going over a surface twice a day and thousands of cars trucks lorries and buses.

>> AGAIN, what advantage is it to have a dropped kerb? A pedestrian or someone about to park in front of your drive is 40 times more likely to notice the drive than the kerb, as it's 40 times bigger! The dropped kerb is for ONE THING ONLY - to protect the bumper of your car from scrapes, which is why people add bits like in the above photo.
>>
>> Oh look, Manchester, in ENGLAND. People sensibly parking on the pavement to keep the road clear for through traffic: https://goo.gl/maps/9XVFdJm4TdT2
>>
>> And Manchester again: The house on the left dropped the kerb, the house on the right didn't. No problem, both work equally well: https://goo.gl/maps/7yWDDJzk3Vm
>>
>> Manchester Council are a bunch of ****ing loonies and need to think before they act.
>IFTFY

No, Manchester Council leave things be. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

--
An elderly British gentleman of 83 arrived in Paris by plane. At the French
customs desk he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry-on
bag. 'You have been to France before, Monsieur?' the customs officer asked
sarcastically.
The elderly gentleman admitted he had been to France previously.
'Then you should know enough to 'ave your passport ready,' the customs
officer said. The elderly gentleman replied, 'The last time I was here, I
didn't have to show it.'
'Impossible! The British always have to show their passports on arrival in
France !'
The Man gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained;
'Well, when I came ashore on the Beach on D-Day in 1944, I couldn't find any
****ing Frenchmen to show it to...!!

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 01:03:56 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Thu, 14 Apr 2016 01:11:51 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:38:03 +0100, JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've
>>>>>> seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over
>>>>>> the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You
>>>>>> might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above
>>>>>> and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own
>>>>>> house?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just
>>>>> decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb
>>>>> without getting permission from the council to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>>>> for the pedestrians?
>>>
>>> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location as a
>>> route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the route of
>>> the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>>>
>>> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
>>> with pedestrians.
>>
>> Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.
>>
>> There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb. There is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where there is no dropped kerb. If either of those were laws, I could literally report about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.
>
> What would be the point of reporting them to you?
> You claim it's legal to drive on the footway.

Stop misunderstanding English for comic effect.

--
Rescuers in Pakistan today reported rescuing a man from the rubble.
They became aware when they heard a faint voice saying "we're still open".

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:57:50 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Wed, 13 Apr 2016 20:15:11 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:05:09 +0100, Alycidon > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 13 April 2016 17:52:25 UTC+1, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How do you access your drive? You park your car on your drive, I've seen a photo of it! Why are you scoffing the law and driving over the pavement outside your home? You have no right to do this! You might run over a pedestrian! Why do you think the two examples above and the previous one with the charger are any different to your own house?
>>>
>>> I have a proper driveway and a dropped kerb - these idiots have just decided to take down their front fences and drive over the kerb without getting permission from the council to do so.
>>
>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer for the pedestrians?
>
> It isn't the dropping of the kerb so much as the reinforcing (or at
> least surveying to find out if it is needed) of the footway.
> The clue is in the name FOOTway.

Which is nothing to do with pedestrian safety. Safety was the claim with Mr Solar. Nosy neighbours had complained about him driving over a pavement, just as they do every day with their dropped kerb, which magically repels pedestrians.

>> And if I drive along a random street around here, I'll see a non-dropped kerb driveway about 1 in every 10 houses. You can buy little ramps to stop tyre damage, or just use a plank of wood or make a concrete curve up to the kerb. If they were illegal, the police would be having a field day here, but they aren't, so you're utterly wrong aswell as stupid.
>>
> You mean you live in such a ******** that the police are far too busy
> to enforce all the laws that they should be, and your council is so
> clueless that they allow wanton destruction of their property to go
> unchecked.

No, the Scottish Police are quite reasonable, think of Welsh police in reverse. They don't go after you if you're not a danger to someone. I've got let off with 95 on a motorway for example.

>>> https://goo.gl/maps/D1ivj2JLCV42
>>>
>>> Matey with the solar panels cannot just decide to park in his front garden without getting permission which he applied for, but got turned down.
>>
>> Of course he can, as do millions of other people all the time. You don't need permission to drive onto your OWN LAND.
>
> But you do need permission to create a vehicular access onto your
> land.

Don't be so ****ing petty. Get a life.

>> And everybody with a driveway (that's 50% of houses in the UK I'd say) drives over the pavement to get to their drive. IT would be no different for him.
>
> Except that he could be prosecuted for driving on the footway, as it
> has not been surveyed and, if necessary, strengthened to cope with the
> additional load imposed by driving across it. He could, additionally,
> be liable for breach of planning conditions and criminal damage to the
> footway.

When the house was built, the footway should have provisions for a car to enter the house.

>> P.S. you could get a car through those bollards easily, they're too wide apart.
>>
>> P.P.S. if they put bollards up while his car is in the driveway, they are stealing his car and could be taken to court.
>
> Not if it shouldn't be there in the first place.

Totally and utterly irrelevant. Two jobs ago, they tried to clamp cars which parked on their carpark without paying the annual fee. They were very quickly stopped from doing so, as it was classed as theft of the cars. They were preventing the owner from using it.

> Besides, drivers are always claiming that their cars got parked on the
> footway without them having been driven there - this would appear to
> be a first class opportunity to prove it, by removing it the same way
> as it allegedly got there in the first place.
> Crane or piece by piece would seem to be perfectly reasonable means.

Would you prefer they were wholly on the road, making congestion? You're a ****ing prize idiot.

--
Rescuers in Pakistan today reported rescuing a man from the rubble.
They became aware when they heard a faint voice saying "we're still open".

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 23:21:21 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:51:35 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:40:32 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:
>>
>>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:50:57 +0100
>>> the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:43:07 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 12:35, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>
>>> I very much doubt if it is even accurate, never mind normal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>
>>> So not the public highway at all, but a verge alongside it.
>>> Unless the public highways on your planet have shrubs growing on them,
>>> carefully tended by the local council.
>>
>> All the way to the middle of the road actually. Including tarmacked pavement and road.
>>
>>> I mean, I know there is a problem with potholes. but using them as
>>> planters is pretty ridiculous, and straining the bounds of
>>> credibility.
>>
>> There is no problem with potholes, as potholes are smaller than speedbumps. Why fix the holes then create larger obstacles? Just don't do anything and get free speeddips.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>
>>> And owned by them in nearly all cases.
>>> Otherwise, they'd require you to keep it in good order, as farmers are
>>> required to do so for public rights of way which cross their land.
>>
>> No. It's easier apparently for land to be owned by the nearest house, but the maintenance done by the council. Less legal paperwork or something.
>>
>>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>>>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>>>>> outside your house?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive).
>>>>>> And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One
>>>>>> goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted
>>>>>> for blocking yourself!
>>>>>
>>>>> The drive way has enough width for two normal cars so even if I parked
>>>>> there I wouldn't prevent my neighbours passing in their normal cars.
>>>>> However it might block a Hummer or such like and hence I assume I'm not
>>>>> allowed to park on it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what your drives look like, but mine and my next door neighbour's are parallel to each other, and right up against each other (we haven't put a fence or wall up). They're perpendicular to the street. Each drive is 1 car wide. If I parked in front of my half, I'm not blocking their half, so no problem.
>>>
>>> And if you keep a motor vehicle there without VED or insurance, no
>>> problem either.
>>> Move it onto the public highway and it's a big problem though, at
>>> least for you.
>>
>> You just contradicted yourself. "There" means in front of my drive, on the public road. Rewrite your nonsense to allow further discussion.
>
> We don't need further discussion to know you're an idiot.

Stop sidestepping the fact you can't interpret English.

>>>>> Similarly might not your parking on the pavement
>>>>> prevent exceptionally "wide" people or their accompanying stuff passing
>>>>> on the pavement? Which I believe was the case with the solar panel
>>>>> re-charger in HUll.
>>>>
>>>> Everybody parks on the pavement round here if the streets are narrow. It allows bin lorries and buses and delivery vehicles past. Wide people can walk round the car. Most people don't have a problem with half the pavement width gone.
>>>
>>> I'll drag the side of my wheelchair all along the side of your car in
>>> order to exercise my right of way.
>>
>> That makes you an arsehole. If I saw you doing that to anybody's car, I'd knock you off your silly little contraption. Being disabled does not give you the right to damage property.
>
> Owning a car does not give you the right to use it to block a public
> highway, or drive it on the FOOTway.

It has to block something, or it would disobey the laws of physics. Parking on the pavement is better, it blocks less traffic, of which there is far more of. People can walk around the car no problem.

>>> If I damage my wheelchair or smash
>>> my knuckles on your car while doing so, I'll be hammering on your door
>>> requiring your motor insurance details so that I can claim from your
>>> insurers.
>>
>> Good luck to you in claiming for damages when you were in motion and they weren't.
>>
> How do you plan to defend your deliberately causing an obstruction on
> the public highway? I'm entitled to do whatever is necessary to pass
> it with the minimum risk to me, just as I could remove a fence if you
> erected one across a public right of way, or smash the lock off a
> gate.

What utter bull****. Why don't you go try it and do the group a favour. Find a car parked on the pavement and run your key all the way along it. Go tell a policeman what you did, or better yet tell the owner and get a friend to video you get beaten senseless with a golf club.

>> Why are you using a wheelchair AND a bicycle anyway? Are you lying about your disability? Should I tell the benefits people about this?
>>
> I no longer use a bicycle, as I now lack the leg strength to do so.

So your cycling ****ed you up then. Good for you is it?

> I cycled for as long as I was still able to, and my children still do.
> I continue to take an interest in cycling matters.
> Not that it matters, as the same would apply to anyone using the
> footway for it's intended purpose, whether on foot, using a
> wheelchair, or pushing a perambulator or buggy.

I have no problem walking around an object that's in my way. Do you have a problem walking around a person coming the other way?

> I'm sure you love endangering babies and the vulnerable - you make it
> plain in your postings.

Babies can go round objects too, especially when their mother is carrying them. If they're in a pushchair it doesn't matter, mums use those to stop traffic, they shove them out into the road.

> Classic psychopathic behaviour.
> It occurs to me that such behaviour could also be classed as
> discrimination under the equalities acts, as children, babies, and the
> disabled are disproportionately affected.

I don't believe in that act, we are not all equal. Why should the disabled spend all my taxes? Pay for your own misfortunes.

> Then there are the child
> protection laws, which have quite a bit to say about behaviour which
> endangers children or especially babies, and especially when it's
> deliberate (as it certainly is now that you have been warned about
> it).

Nothing I do endangers children. They have enough sense to walk around an object. You must have lost that ability when you went senile. Or maybe it's the lack of blood in your groin due to too much saddle humping?

And if it was illegal to park on the pavement, the police could book about 10 people per street every single day. You know what? They don't, because the actual law is nothing like Phil Lee's perception of the law.

>>> It would be an offence for you to refuse to give them.
>>
>> Utter ****e. I never ask for details when someone crashes into my car,
>
> So this is, apparently, a frequent occurrence. And I bet you claim
> it's never your fault!

Two were my fault. One I was rubbernecking roadworks and crashed into a roadworks vehicle (I guess that's karma for them). The other I'd just changed form a car with ABS to a car without and forgot it took twice as long to stop.

>> I just take their reg number. Why don't you do the same?
>>
> If your vehicle is involved in any collision owing to it's presence on
> the highway, it is an offence not to provide your insurance details to
> anyone having reasonable grounds to require them.

BULL****! Utter ****ing bull****! You DO NOT need to carry your license, insurance, MOT, anything with you in the UK. Nobody remembers their insurance details, I can't even remember the company I use! Why do you insist in making up **** that isn't actually a law? When I crash into someone and I wish to make a claim, I phone my insurance company, give them the make model and reg of the car that hit me, and they claim off their insurance. There's a ****ing nationwide insurance database you ignorant moron.

> I thought you claimed to be qualified to drive?
> Yet you don't even know the basic conditions under which your
> permission is granted.
> Have the DVLA been informed of your psychiatric issues?
> You know it's an offence not to inform them.
> I think you'll find it's officially described as antisocial
> personality disorder, but the term psychopathy is also used in both
> DSM and ICD classifications.
> Or in layman's terms, you're nucking futs.

You have OCD, that's a medical problem. You should have been shot at birth. We could do without trainspotters in this world.

>>> Good luck claiming for the damage you caused by impeding that right of
>>> way - the damage would have been caused "owing to the presence of your
>>> vehicle on the public highway" so the legal minimum insurance is
>>> required to cover any damages to me. I have every right to attempt to
>>> get past.
>>
>> You go past on the road like any sensible person. If something is in your way, you go round it. Are you physically disabled or mentally disabled? If the latter, you should be in a white coat out of the way of normal people.
>
> So you'll accept liability for my being hit by a car when attempting
> to pass the obstruction YOU caused, or any injury caused by my falling
> out of my chair when attempting to get down the kerb or back up it,
> but not for just continuing on my RIGHT of way which you are illegally
> obstructing.

You look first to see if anything's coming FFS.

> I don't believe the law agrees with you - I am allowed to do whatever
> is necessary to pass the obstruction you created on the footway set
> aside for pedestrians, especially since I've already given you fair
> warning and given you more than adequate opportunity to move the
> obstruction yourself.
> I hope your cage is a write off when it happens - as it surely will if
> you persist in your psychopathic behaviour.
> And I hope your insurance company is aware of the additional and
> unnecessary risks you expose them to, so that they can set your
> premium appropriately. Sadly, this often doesn't happen until after
> the event which is entirely foreseeable due to the psychopaths
> behaviour, meaning that the decent drivers end up footing the bill.

They work it out just fine from previous accidents. All but 2 were deemed not my fault. I happen to be an evil **** and if someone makes a mistake, I let them hit me.

--
Little Tony was staying with his grandmother for a few days.. He'd been playing outside with the other kids for a while when he came into the house and asked her, "Grandma, what's that called when 2 people sleep in the same room and one is on top of the other?"

She was a little taken, but she decided to just tell him the truth. "It's called sexual intercourse, darling".

Little Tony just said, "Oh, OK," and went back outside to play with the other kids.

A few minutes later he came back in and said angrily, "Grandma, it isn't called sexual intercourse. It's called "Bunk Beds". And Jimmy's mom wants to talk to you."

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 00:24:27 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

> "Mr Macaw" > considered Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:26:02 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 23:47:21 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:
>>
>>> "Mr Macaw" > considered Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:40:56 +0100
>>> the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:24:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/04/2016 12:21, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The article title suggests he *can't* charge his car from his solar
>>>>>>> panels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite right too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does he - or anyone - really believe that it is acceptable to trail an
>>>>>> electrical flex across the footway where it could endanger any passing
>>>>>> cyclist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he wants to charge an electric vehicle up, fair enough - but he'll
>>>>>> have to have an off-street garaging space with an electricity supply.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1. I had hoped it was so obvious not to need saying but some people
>>>>> have such a sense of self entitlement it probably is worth saying.
>>>>
>>>> You own the pavement and road outside your home and can do whatever you like on it within reason.
>>>
>>> Wrong of course.
>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>> without reason.
>>
>> I can.
>
> Try cutting up firewood with a chainsaw there, when people are trying
> to use the public highway.
> If you are lucky, you'll just get tazed.
> The police will not be in the slightest bit interested in examining
> your house title deeds.

I can cut wood on the pavement if I like. I have often seen someone doing up their house and have set up a bench saw on the pavement outside their house, so they don't get sawdust in the house trodden into the carpets.

>>> However, you clearly don't
>>
>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>
> If they've adopted it, it isn't yours to do as you please with.

They maintain it, but it's owned by me. All it says is I have to allow passage through it (as in not block it permanently).

> If it is a private road, and you pay a maintenance fee to them, you
> are probably a mug, as you could go directly to their subcontractors
> for less money.

They've stopped maintaining it (an area of bushes the other side of the pavement) now anyway, so I'm doing it.

>>> and your only right on the highway
>>> (including footway and carriageway) outside your house is to pass and
>>> re-pass along it.
>>
>> And park on it. And work on my car on it. And recharge my electric car on it. And park my motorhome there and plug it in.
>>
>>> Anything else, including any use of a motor vehicle
>>> on it requires permission.
>>
>> No.
>
> Try driving a motor vehicle on it without any VED, driving licence, or
> insurance, and I'll guarantee that your car is confiscated and you end
> up in court.
> If it was your property, they wouldn't be able to do that - and I can
> also guarantee that if you try to tell the judge your house title
> deeds entitle you to do that, you'll be laughed out of court.

They don't check for tax disks outside people's homes.

>>> The permission to use a motor vehicle is
>>> generally granted in the form of a driving license.
>>
>> Irrelevant, you already have that.
>
> Strange, as you don't seem to have he basic knowledge required to
> obtain one.

All you need to get one is to memorise a few multichoice questions, then pretend to drive safely for half an hour.

>>> Just compare the meaning of license and permit - they are synonyms.
>>
>> Why are you turning this into an English lesson?
>
> Becaus ein your case, it seems to be required.
>> This is not relevant at all.
>>
> It's very relevant - it means that all use of motor vehicles on the
> public highway is permissive, and not a right.

WTF are you on about? You are either allowed or you aren't. Do grow up.

>>> Even with the general permit (or license) there are strict rules on
>>> how and where you may use a motor vehicle on a public highway, and if
>>> you don't comply with them, your permit will be withdrawn.
>>
>> **** all to do with the bit of road outside my house. Licenses are withdrawn for dangerous driving.
>>
> Or a vast number of other reasons, only a few of which have anything
> to do with driving behaviour.
> Just wait until you've had a few unexplained losses of consciousness,
> and see how long you keep your permission. Or your eyesight degrades,

Only if I tell somebody. And a doctor has an oath.

> or you are diagnosed with any of a large number of psychiatric
> conditions (some of which you show symptoms of here).

There's no such thing as a psychiatric condition. You'll be telling me you believe in homoeopathy next.

>>> All this is irrespective of how much you pay towards the cost to
>>> society of your use of a motor vehicle.
>>
>> Who mentioned cost?
>
> You. Frequently.

I can't remember what you're moaning about here.

>>> Even if you pay every tax and duty on a motor vehicle at the highest
>>> rate, you still only cover less than half of the cost.
>>> The balance comes from general taxation, i.e. a subsidy.
>>
>> Absolute bull****.
>
> No, fact.

"Fact" made up by psycholist freeloaders.

>>> So you take a subsidy from the taxpayer,
>>
>> Vehicle owners are taxpayers, therefore they subsidise themselves.
>
> But so do others. And thank you for conceding the point that they are
> subsidised from general taxation, which even children pay (in the form
> of VAT).

I didn't concede anything. There was an obvious "if" I didn't bother putting in there.

>>> while pushing those same
>>> taxpayers (who make a net contribution) out of your way to such an
>>> extent that they are now having to demand protected infrastructure.
>>
>> Who said anything about pushing?
>
> You've boasted about deliberately passing as close as possible, to
> scare cyclists onto the footway where you say they should be, despite
> it being illegal.

I give them the same gap as I give a car.

> That is also an admission of dangerous driving, which is a
> disqualification offence. That means an offence for which your
> permission to use a motor vehicle will be withdrawn.

No cyclist has ever fallen off or even wobbled due to my driving. I cycle myself and give cyclists the same room I require when I'm cycling myself.

Since you cycle everywhere, one has to question whether that's because yours was withdrawn. That's the only reason you could have for cycling.

>>> Of course, you will deny all of this, at the same time as confirming
>>> it in your other posts and offering nothing to refute it.
>>
>> Try talking normally instead of in silly OCD riddles and we can have an intelligent conversation. Try speaking to a doctor to see if he can untangle your brain.
>
> I've been involved in enough studies to know that my brain functions
> perfectly well - in fact, far better than most.

They just told you that to shut you up because you bored them to tears.

>>> Such are the delusions of the psychopaths that even when it's spelled
>>> (and costed) out for them they deny it.
>>
>> See my previous sentence.
>
> You prove my point.

I proved your point by telling you to look at a sentence? You're not very clever are you?

--
How do you embarrass an archeologist?
Give him a used tampon and ask him which period it came from.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:12:33 +0100, JNugent > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 11:32, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 14/04/2016 01:11, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2016 20:15, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>>>> I'll ask FOR THE THIRD TIME. Why is dropping the kerb making it safer
>>>>>> for the pedestrians?
>>
>>>>> The most obvious answer is that it visually identifies the location
>>>>> as a route for traffic (of a limited amount, naturally) crossing the
>>>>> route of the footway and puts footway users on notice of that use.
>>>>> There are other reasons, but that is one which affects the interaction
>>>>> with pedestrians.
>>
>>>> Except it doesn't. When walking along a pavement, pedestrians are aware
>>>> of cars moving across their path (even though the car should yield to
>>>> them). They don't see a dropped kerb and look for a car. If they're
>>>> going to predict where there could be a car, they'll do it by seeing a
>>>> driveway, which is about 40 times bigger than a dropped kerb.
>>
>>> Well, that's your view.
>>
>> No, it's simple logic. A person sees a large object more easily than a
>> small one. I've never heard of anyone walking along a pavement,
>> noticing a dropped kerb, THEN looking for possible cars crossing. You
>> notice the driveway out of the corner of your eye and look out. Or more
>> likely rely on hearing the car, or that the car will stop for you as you
>> have priority over it.
>
> You seem confused.

Not at all.

> Is it your view or isn't it?

It's my observation of what people do in real life.

>>>> There is no law against having a driveway with no dropped kerb.
>>
>>> That is correct.
>>
>>>> There is no law against putting your car onto a pavement where
>>>> there is no dropped kerb...
>>
>>> ...where "putting your car onto a pavement" means crossing a footway in
>>> order to gain access to private land.
>>
>> Which is precisely what you are doing.
>
> I do apologise. I did type "a footway", but I meant to type "private land".
>
> Please disregard the remark for that reason.

Curtsey lower please. And lick my feet.

>>>> If either of those were laws, I could literally report
>>>> about 20% of the population of the nearest town to me.
>>
>>> Nevertheless, the situation is different from the way that you describe
>>> it in the circumstance that the land between the highway and the
>>> property is owned by an entity which does not choose to allow its use
>>> for access.
>>
>> YOU own the land right across the pavement into the road. But you have
>> to allow the council to maintain it as they see fit.
>
> You are thinking of the situation on estate-developed areas. It is not
> true in all cases. It may not even be true in most cases.

This is contrary to what people have said in the legal newsgroup. Maybe it's Scotland only, but I'm sure it applied to all of the UK.

> It has been true in respect of some houses I have owned previously, but
> it definitely does not apply here, in a house built adjoining a road
> which has been here since Saxon times.
>
> The road was here before the house and it is not feasible that the
> person who built the original house on the land bought half the road's
> width from whichever Rural District Council was then in operation.

From what I read in the legal group, it's too much paperwork to divide the land further and say the council owns the road. For example, a builder buys a large plot of land and builds 50 houses on it. He divides the land into 50 plots and sells each one (with the accompanying house) to each of 50 people. Having to mark out the boundaries of each access road and sell that to the council would just make matters confusing, and also cost the council money.

>>> Ever heard of a "ransom strip"?
>>> I know of a house built in such a position that it may not be occupied
>>> without trespassing on a narrow strip of land between it and the
>>> highway. The owner of the ransom strip was willing to sell it, but only
>>> at a price which the adjoining land's owner was not prepared to pay.
>>> The house might still exist, but it had been unused for some years when
>>> I first heard of th case, and that was over twenty years ago. There's a
>>> good chance it's now been demolished - it was already looking rough.
>>> I tell you this merely to illustrate the (perhaps unexpectedly robust)
>>> rights of landowners. Councils are landowners and they often own highway
>>> land (including grass verges).
>>> Heavens forfend that any council would seek to punish a RTBer by denying
>>> him right of way across a grassed verge, but stranger things have
>>> happened.
>
>> A pavement is hardly the same as a larger piece of privately owned
>> land.
>
> It is exactly the same thing. The distinction between private and public
> ownership is not a valid one.

It's a narrow strip. Nobody but the most outrageous pedant would say you were trespassing just going over it.

>> And as I said above, the council don't own the land the pavement
>> is on.
>
> On a Hull council estate, you are not likely to be correct.
>
> It isn't impossible for the council to convey a RTB council house to the
> purchasing occupant complete with half the width of the highway
> including footways and verges, just vanishingly unlikely. It is not the
> usual practice with RTB transactions.

I was talking about normal houses. Council estates don't usually have modifications done by the tenants, that would really **** the council off.

--
Did you hear about the new instant lottery game in India?
You scratch the ticket and if the dot matches the one on your forehead, you win a convenience store in the US.

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:33:49 +0100, skate > wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:35:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>
>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>
>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>
>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>
>>>>> which are
>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>
>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>
>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>> designated right of way area.
>>>
>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>> outside your house?
>>
>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I
>> often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the
>> drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!
>
> Unless, that is, you have a dropped kerb leading to your drive and
> your council has decided that you can be prosecuted for blocking
> yourself.
>
> "From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic
> Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to
> introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that
> park on dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide
> specific traffic signs or road markings. These Regulations do not
> apply to Scotland regulations." So says DIRECTGOV...

If you're prosecuted for blocking your own drive, you simply tell them it's your drive and they cancel it. They should, in the interest of less paperwork, check if the car is registered at the address it's blocking. But traffic wardens are the dumbest mother****ers in the known universe.

--
A blonde is walking down a creek. While she's looking around she notices Judi walking along the other side of the creek. She yells to the other blonde. "Hey, how do I get to the other side?"
Judi replies, "You are on the other side!"

[Mr Macaw]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:17:39 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 14/04/2016 12:50, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:43:07 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2016 12:35, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council
>>>>>> owned it,
>>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to
>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow
>>>>>> passage to
>>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of
>>>>> the
>>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>>> outside your house?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive).
>>>> And I often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One
>>>> goes in the drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted
>>>> for blocking yourself!
>>>
>>> The drive way has enough width for two normal cars so even if I parked
>>> there I wouldn't prevent my neighbours passing in their normal cars.
>>> However it might block a Hummer or such like and hence I assume I'm not
>>> allowed to park on it.
>>
>> I don't know what your drives look like, but mine and my next door
>> neighbour's are parallel to each other, and right up against each other
>> (we haven't put a fence or wall up). They're perpendicular to the
>> street. Each drive is 1 car wide. If I parked in front of my half, I'm
>> not blocking their half, so no problem.
>>
>
> This isn't my drive, my drive is totally separate. It is just a right of
> way across my front garden. I never drive on it as it only goes to my
> neighbour's house.

That sounds a very odd arrangement and I'd need a diagram or photo to know what you mean. But yes, if you prevented them getting into or out of their drive, I'd think you could be prosecuted, in just the same way as if you blocked a random person's drive somewhere down the road. Then again, most people know and get on with their next door neighbour and would just politely ask them to move the obstruction, or move it themselves.

With my next door neighbour, things can get congested if we both have a few cars, as we both normally use each other's drive to drive our cars around our other ones. At one point I had a non-functional car (the wheels were off it) further down my drive than the one I was using, and when she had visitors I had to ask them to park on the road for a second :-)

>>> Similarly might not your parking on the pavement
>>> prevent exceptionally "wide" people or their accompanying stuff passing
>>> on the pavement? Which I believe was the case with the solar panel
>>> re-charger in HUll.
>>
>> Everybody parks on the pavement round here if the streets are narrow.
>> It allows bin lorries and buses and delivery vehicles past. Wide people
>> can walk round the car. Most people don't have a problem with half the
>> pavement width gone.
>
> Yes but what happens in practice and the law are two separate things. In
> the past the rights of cars and car owners were considered paramount but
> now in places like London, where many people do not have cars, we are
> seeing pedestrian rights being asserted more forcefully. I suspect that
> what you describe as normal behaviour is not legal and in the future may
> be stopped.

I'd like to think Scotland is more sensible than London and it would never happen.

--
What is the first thing a blonde learns when she takes driving lessons?
You can also sit upright in a car.

[skate]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:30:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:33:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:35:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>
>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>>
>>>>>> which are
>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>
>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>
>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>
>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>> outside your house?
>>>
>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I
>>> often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the
>>> drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!
>>
>> Unless, that is, you have a dropped kerb leading to your drive and
>> your council has decided that you can be prosecuted for blocking
>> yourself.
>>
>> "From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic
>> Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to
>> introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that
>> park on dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide
>> specific traffic signs or road markings. These Regulations do not
>> apply to Scotland regulations." So says DIRECTGOV...
>
>If you're prosecuted for blocking your own drive, you simply tell them it's your drive and they cancel it.

It seems ages since I posted that message... how many celebs were you
waiting to pass away before replying? But anyway... if you're going to
rely on the good nature, and mercy, of officialdom, you had better
keep your fingers crossed (again). They could just as easily oblige
you to pay up saying that it's their policy to keep the roadways, and
footways, clear of obstructing vehicles regardless of who owns them.

>They should, in the interest of less paperwork, check if the car is registered at the address it's blocking.

And thus reduce the amount of revenue they're raising? Why should they
care, if the law is on their side?

>But traffic wardens are the dumbest mother****ers in the known universe.

If travelling by bike, though, they're usually no problem. By car, you
can sometimes avoid them, and their parking restrictions, if you're
prepared to park a good way away from your destination and walk.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:11:49 +0100, skate > wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:30:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:33:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:35:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>>> outside your house?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I
>>>> often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the
>>>> drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!
>>>
>>> Unless, that is, you have a dropped kerb leading to your drive and
>>> your council has decided that you can be prosecuted for blocking
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> "From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic
>>> Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to
>>> introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that
>>> park on dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide
>>> specific traffic signs or road markings. These Regulations do not
>>> apply to Scotland regulations." So says DIRECTGOV...
>>
>> If you're prosecuted for blocking your own drive, you simply tell them it's your drive and they cancel it.
>
> It seems ages since I posted that message...

Only 1 week. Do you think newsgroups are realtime conversations or something?

> how many celebs were you waiting to pass away before replying?

What a strange measurement of time.

> But anyway... if you're going to
> rely on the good nature, and mercy, of officialdom, you had better
> keep your fingers crossed (again). They could just as easily oblige
> you to pay up saying that it's their policy to keep the roadways, and
> footways, clear of obstructing vehicles regardless of who owns them.

I'm going by what I've read in legal groups, and the common sense of my own council. Of course some councils are ****wits of the highest order.

>> They should, in the interest of less paperwork, check if the car is registered at the address it's blocking.
>
> And thus reduce the amount of revenue they're raising? Why should they
> care, if the law is on their side?

The law is to prevent you blocking access. Clearly you cannot be blocking yourself, as you own the keys to both vehicles. In fact, if my neighbour gave me permission to park across her drive when she was on holiday, I'd expect not to be prosecuted for that either. Around here, you have to report the car that's across your drive first, the council don't make assumptions.

>> But traffic wardens are the dumbest mother****ers in the known universe.
>
> If travelling by bike, though, they're usually no problem. By car, you
> can sometimes avoid them, and their parking restrictions, if you're
> prepared to park a good way away from your destination and walk.

Or bring someone with you to sit in the car and move it when they see the ******* coming.

I once told a random stranger off for chatting to one of them as though they were a normal human being. I said something derogatory like "don't talk to those lowlifes please". They were both too shocked to say much back.

--
Confucius say man who sniff coke, drown.

[skate]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:45:47 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:11:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:30:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:33:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:35:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>>>> outside your house?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I
>>>>> often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the
>>>>> drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!
>>>>
>>>> Unless, that is, you have a dropped kerb leading to your drive and
>>>> your council has decided that you can be prosecuted for blocking
>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> "From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic
>>>> Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to
>>>> introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that
>>>> park on dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide
>>>> specific traffic signs or road markings. These Regulations do not
>>>> apply to Scotland regulations." So says DIRECTGOV...
>>>
>>> If you're prosecuted for blocking your own drive, you simply tell them it's your drive and they cancel it.
>>
>> It seems ages since I posted that message...
>
>Only 1 week. Do you think newsgroups are realtime conversations or something?

No, but newsgroups need not be painfully slow (ideally a direct reply
within 24 hours but within a maximum of 48 hours, that would be my
suggestion).

>> how many celebs were you waiting to pass away before replying?
>
>What a strange measurement of time.

It can't have escaped your notice...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546279/Survey-shows-celebrities-dying-year.html

>> But anyway... if you're going to
>> rely on the good nature, and mercy, of officialdom, you had better
>> keep your fingers crossed (again). They could just as easily oblige
>> you to pay up saying that it's their policy to keep the roadways, and
>> footways, clear of obstructing vehicles regardless of who owns them.
>
>I'm going by what I've read in legal groups, and the common sense of my own council. Of course some councils are ****wits of the highest order.

OK. That, what you have said there, sounds fair enough.

>>> They should, in the interest of less paperwork, check if the car is registered at the address it's blocking.
>>
>> And thus reduce the amount of revenue they're raising? Why should they
>> care, if the law is on their side?
>
>The law is to prevent you blocking access. Clearly you cannot be blocking yourself,as you own the keys to both vehicles. In fact, if my neighbour
>gave me permission to park across her drive when she was on holiday, I'd expect not to be prosecuted for that either. Around here, you have to
>report the car that's across your drive first, the council don't make assumptions.

Yes. That's fair enough, too. (I must have been in a real bad mood
when I wrote in this morning - unduly cynical!)

>>> But traffic wardens are the dumbest mother****ers in the known universe.
>>
>> If travelling by bike, though, they're usually no problem. By car, you
>> can sometimes avoid them, and their parking restrictions, if you're
>> prepared to park a good way away from your destination and walk.
>
>Or bring someone with you to sit in the car and move it when they see the ******* coming.

Hmm, I have resorted to that option in the past (some areas are almost
no-go as far as parking is concerned).

>I once told a random stranger off for chatting to one of them as though they were a normal human being. I said something derogatory like "don't talk
>to those lowlifes please". They were both too shocked to say much back.

Oh dear, just when I was beginning to think what a reasonable person
you were... (that was a joke, by the way). :)

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:27:25 +0100, skate > wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:45:47 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:11:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 21:30:52 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:33:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:35:06 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 12:27:27 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 11:27, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:05 +0100, Nick > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14/04/2016 00:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong of course.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you owned it, you would be able to do whatever you like on it
>>>>>>>>>>> without reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do. It's in the title deeds. The council maintain it though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that is normal, though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is normal. I had a discussion about it in a legal group when I was
>>>>>>>> asking about taking over some land in front of my garden, which I never
>>>>>>>> knew I owned. The previous owner incorrectly said the council owned it,
>>>>>>>> and I saw them cutting the shrubs, so I believed him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I imagine if the council maintain it you do have restrictions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The road and pavement are almost always maintained by the council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>> probably laid out in the title deeds. I would be interested to know if
>>>>>>>>> there are and if so what they are, if you could be bothered to look.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My deeds are no different to everyone else's. You must allow passage to
>>>>>>>> people on foot from one side of your property to the other. It's
>>>>>>>> classed as a right of way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK that is interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a right of way over the front of my property, not a pavement but
>>>>>>> a driveway to a neighbour's house, my assumption has always been that
>>>>>>> the neighbour's right to pass and repass prevents me blocking any of the
>>>>>>> designated right of way area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. aren't you still effectively blocked from parking on the pavement
>>>>>>> outside your house?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not (but you would be if you also blocked your neighbour's drive). And I
>>>>>> often see it done, someone has 2 cars and a 1 car driveway. One goes in the
>>>>>> drive, one parks across it. You clearly can't be prosecuted for blocking yourself!
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless, that is, you have a dropped kerb leading to your drive and
>>>>> your council has decided that you can be prosecuted for blocking
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> "From 1 June 2009, as a result of Regulations made under the Traffic
>>>>> Management Act 2004, all councils in England and Wales have powers to
>>>>> introduce blanket Special Enforcement Areas covering vehicles that
>>>>> park on dropped kerbs or double-park without a requirement to provide
>>>>> specific traffic signs or road markings. These Regulations do not
>>>>> apply to Scotland regulations." So says DIRECTGOV...
>>>>
>>>> If you're prosecuted for blocking your own drive, you simply tell them it's your drive and they cancel it.
>>>
>>> It seems ages since I posted that message...
>>
>> Only 1 week. Do you think newsgroups are realtime conversations or something?
>
> No, but newsgroups need not be painfully slow (ideally a direct reply
> within 24 hours but within a maximum of 48 hours, that would be my
> suggestion).

Not possible, there are more replies than I can keep up with.

>>> how many celebs were you waiting to pass away before replying?
>>
>> What a strange measurement of time.
>
> It can't have escaped your notice...
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546279/Survey-shows-celebrities-dying-year.html

Do you believe celebs pass away more quickly than the rest of us?

>>>> They should, in the interest of less paperwork, check if the car is registered at the address it's blocking.
>>>
>>> And thus reduce the amount of revenue they're raising? Why should they
>>> care, if the law is on their side?
>>
>> The law is to prevent you blocking access. Clearly you cannot be blocking yourself,as you own the keys to both vehicles. In fact, if my neighbour
>> gave me permission to park across her drive when she was on holiday, I'd expect not to be prosecuted for that either. Around here, you have to
>> report the car that's across your drive first, the council don't make assumptions.
>
> Yes. That's fair enough, too. (I must have been in a real bad mood
> when I wrote in this morning - unduly cynical!)

Try alcohol or weed.

>>>> But traffic wardens are the dumbest mother****ers in the known universe.
>>>
>>> If travelling by bike, though, they're usually no problem. By car, you
>>> can sometimes avoid them, and their parking restrictions, if you're
>>> prepared to park a good way away from your destination and walk.
>>
>> Or bring someone with you to sit in the car and move it when they see the ******* coming.
>
> Hmm, I have resorted to that option in the past (some areas are almost
> no-go as far as parking is concerned).

There's a street here with about 6 different types of parking bay along it, alternating almost every space. Disabled, loading, residents, limited time, etc, etc, etc. It's impossible to work out which is which. I think they do it on purpose.

--
The biggest difference between sex for money and sex for love is that sex for money usually costs a LOT less.

[skate]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:49:51 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:27:25 +0100, skate > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:45:47 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:11:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
[snip]
>>>> It seems ages since I posted that message...
>>>
>>> Only 1 week. Do you think newsgroups are realtime conversations or something?
>>
>> No, but newsgroups need not be painfully slow (ideally a direct reply
>> within 24 hours but within a maximum of 48 hours, that would be my
>> suggestion).
>
>Not possible, there are more replies than I can keep up with.

It has to take a fair bit of dedication to become something of a
Usenet celeb (entries in the "other personalities" category, for
example, are people known for their exceptional and widely read
contributions within their respective Usenet communities):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_celebrity

>>>> how many celebs were you waiting to pass away before replying?
>>>
>>> What a strange measurement of time.
>>
>> It can't have escaped your notice...
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546279/Survey-shows-celebrities-dying-year.html
>
>Do you believe celebs pass away more quickly than the rest of us?

Well, it's not so much that, although, some do - rock stars with
appropriate lifestyles, for instance, tend to flash and burn rather
than fade away (with notable exceptions). Really, it's that a greater
number of celebs are dying within a given period of time, maybe
because these days there seem to be almost as many celebs as ordinary
people (possibly the price we have to pay for having so many TV talent
and reality shows).

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:02:01 +0100, skate > wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:49:51 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:27:25 +0100, skate > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:45:47 +0100, "Mr Macaw" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:11:49 +0100, skate > wrote:
> [snip]
>>>>> It seems ages since I posted that message...
>>>>
>>>> Only 1 week. Do you think newsgroups are realtime conversations or something?
>>>
>>> No, but newsgroups need not be painfully slow (ideally a direct reply
>>> within 24 hours but within a maximum of 48 hours, that would be my
>>> suggestion).
>>
>> Not possible, there are more replies than I can keep up with.
>
> It has to take a fair bit of dedication to become something of a
> Usenet celeb (entries in the "other personalities" category, for
> example, are people known for their exceptional and widely read
> contributions within their respective Usenet communities):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_celebrity
>
>>>>> how many celebs were you waiting to pass away before replying?
>>>>
>>>> What a strange measurement of time.
>>>
>>> It can't have escaped your notice...
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3546279/Survey-shows-celebrities-dying-year.html
>>
>> Do you believe celebs pass away more quickly than the rest of us?
>
> Well, it's not so much that, although, some do - rock stars with
> appropriate lifestyles, for instance, tend to flash and burn rather
> than fade away (with notable exceptions). Really, it's that a greater
> number of celebs are dying within a given period of time, maybe
> because these days there seem to be almost as many celebs as ordinary
> people (possibly the price we have to pay for having so many TV talent
> and reality shows).

Or just the laws of statistics.

--
Circumvent (n.), an opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men.