|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Nick Finnigan wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote: I think we need to go back to the old system whereby anyone who acts outside the law ceases to be protected by it. But come to think of it, it would be a very useful sanction against footway cyclists. And the beauty of the situation is that Phil W Lee is the one who told/reminded us about it. If anyone complains about the possible (re?)introduction of such a legal settlement, just say PWL said it was alright and would be preferable to the current position. |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Phil W Lee wrote:
JNugent considered Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:21:42 +0100 the perfect time to write: Phil W Lee wrote: "Mrcheerful" considered Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:35:29 +0100 the perfect time to write: David Hansen wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:35:18 +0100 someone who may be "GT" wrote this:- some motorists do legally park on pavements. Whether it is legal or not depends on where one is. I know of no law in any part of the UK where the legality depends on there being space for people to get past the obstruction. I thought "causing an obstruction" was the law in all parts of the UK? Of course, actually getting the police to do something about it is another matter, unless it's they that are being obstructed. I think we need to go back to the old system whereby anyone who acts outside the law ceases to be protected by it. Then we could simply ride/climb over illegally/obstructively parked vehicles. However, in my few hundred thousand miles of motoring, I have never seen a car *driving* on a pavement. An interesting example of motoring lobby sleight of hand. It is the motorist who drives along the pavement, not the car, just as it is the cyclist who rides along the pavement, not the bike. If you haven't seen a motorist driving along the pavement then I am glad you live such a sheltered life. mounting a pavement to park is not the same as driving along the pavement. It is unless you pushed the car there, or had it craned in. No, it isn't. Then how the hell else did you get it there? Driving on the footway is illegal, and it's only because some brainless idiot of a judge at some time in the distant past decided that the presence of a vehicle on the footway was not evidence that it had been driven there (apparently the prosecution failed to prove it hadn't been craned or pushed) that the law is no longer enforced - except, of course, against bicycles. Not unless there is a local law agin it. And there isn't such a law in many places. I don't know which "many places" you are on about, but the local law in the UK is that you cannot drive a carriage on the footway, except to access adjacent property (i.e. not just the footway itself, but something beyond the boundary of the highway). Other countries (or indeed planets, such as the aforementioned judge must have been an inhabitant of) may be different. That's not to say that it is OK to simply drive along the footway to get somewhere else (eg, a street several miles away). That would be as wrong as cycling along the footway. I see thousands of cars every day parking and parked on pavements, I never see cars driving along pavements on a continual basis . I see many cyclists every day riding along pavements without a care for pedestrians, often at quite high speed. Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively. How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles? Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim to have arrived there through no fault of their own. [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes no practical differnce.] Maybe you should look it up? "The local law in the UK"? Where would one look that up? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
On 11 June, 07:21, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: You are clearly too ****ing stupid to appreciate that parking 'partially' on the pavement is perfectly legal in many cases. Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right. No, but being "wrong" does make it illegal. Not necessarily. Considerable latitude is given to the car culture to leave their bulky machines lying about all over the place It's a lovely soundbite, Duhg, but you're in danger of wearing it out. I know, Adrain, but until something better comes along... and of course motorists often park and drive illegally on pavements. Outside London, it is not inherently illegal to park on a pavement. If an obstruction is caused - whether on the road or the pavement - then it automatically becomes illegal, since obstruction is illegal. Its wrong too. Parking on pavements is obviously wrong but it is sometimes legal. Don't forget also, the motorist only needs to drive a few feet slowly to kill someone who has collapsed, unlike cyclists. Sorry, are you really suggesting that an average person would drive slowly, a few feet forward, straight over somebody lying unconscious on the pavement? Sometime backwards too, though not necessarily knowingly. If they did, I think you'll find that would most certainly be charged as murder. Not if there were no witnesses or it wasn't intentional. The point you are evading is that cars are much bigger and heavier than bicycles and that is why they damage pavements and out pedestrians at more serious risk there. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
"Doug" wrote in message ... On 11 June, 07:21, Adrian wrote: Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Considerable latitude is given to the car culture to leave their bulky machines lying about all over the place It's a lovely soundbite, Duhg, but you're in danger of wearing it out. I know, Adrain, but until something better comes along... There is already something available ..... silence. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Phil W Lee wrote:
JNugent considered Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:29:40 +0100 the perfect time to write: Phil W Lee wrote: JNugent considered Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:21:42 +0100 the perfect time to write: Phil W Lee wrote: "Mrcheerful" considered Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:35:29 +0100 the perfect time to write: David Hansen wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:35:18 +0100 someone who may be "GT" wrote this:- some motorists do legally park on pavements. Whether it is legal or not depends on where one is. I know of no law in any part of the UK where the legality depends on there being space for people to get past the obstruction. I thought "causing an obstruction" was the law in all parts of the UK? Of course, actually getting the police to do something about it is another matter, unless it's they that are being obstructed. I think we need to go back to the old system whereby anyone who acts outside the law ceases to be protected by it. Then we could simply ride/climb over illegally/obstructively parked vehicles. However, in my few hundred thousand miles of motoring, I have never seen a car *driving* on a pavement. An interesting example of motoring lobby sleight of hand. It is the motorist who drives along the pavement, not the car, just as it is the cyclist who rides along the pavement, not the bike. If you haven't seen a motorist driving along the pavement then I am glad you live such a sheltered life. mounting a pavement to park is not the same as driving along the pavement. It is unless you pushed the car there, or had it craned in. No, it isn't. Then how the hell else did you get it there? Driving on the footway is illegal, and it's only because some brainless idiot of a judge at some time in the distant past decided that the presence of a vehicle on the footway was not evidence that it had been driven there (apparently the prosecution failed to prove it hadn't been craned or pushed) that the law is no longer enforced - except, of course, against bicycles. Not unless there is a local law agin it. And there isn't such a law in many places. I don't know which "many places" you are on about, but the local law in the UK is that you cannot drive a carriage on the footway, except to access adjacent property (i.e. not just the footway itself, but something beyond the boundary of the highway). Other countries (or indeed planets, such as the aforementioned judge must have been an inhabitant of) may be different. That's not to say that it is OK to simply drive along the footway to get somewhere else (eg, a street several miles away). That would be as wrong as cycling along the footway. I see thousands of cars every day parking and parked on pavements, I never see cars driving along pavements on a continual basis . I see many cyclists every day riding along pavements without a care for pedestrians, often at quite high speed. Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively. How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles? Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim to have arrived there through no fault of their own. [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes no practical differnce.] Maybe you should look it up? "The local law in the UK"? Where would one look that up? In this case, you could try http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._18470089_en_1 Section 28 Which tells us that: "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfa" and "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it stands across or upon any footway:" "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for a period not exceeding fourteen days," That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means "local to England and Wales". Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
JNugent wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote: JNugent : Phil W Lee wrote: [ ... ] Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively. How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles? Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim to have arrived there through no fault of their own. [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes no practical differnce.] Maybe you should look it up? "The local law in the UK"? Where would one look that up? And how, come to think of it, would looking up a piece of law - whether "local" or otherwise - tell us how how many pedestrian injuries are caused by drivers of motor vehicles drivinmg along the footway? In this case, you could try http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._18470089_en_1 Section 28 Which tells us that: "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfa" and "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it stands across or upon any footway:" "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for a period not exceeding fourteen days," That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means "local to England and Wales". Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite? Perhaps I was being a little unkind to you there. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is national (and certainly not "local") law, but it is not law which actually applies anywhere unless a council which administers a town or borough adopts it, piecemeal. They don't have to have the whole menu. They can adopt á la carte. It is because not every council has adopted it - and because not every council which has adopted some of of it has adopted all of it - that the legal position is different from place to place. In order for placing a vehicle on a footway to be illegal, the council has to have adopted that part of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which relates to such activities and which creates the "offence" (where none otherwise applies). So it is national law which may - or may not - apply locally. You cannot quote it and say "It applies everywhere". And that is because it simply doesn't. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
On Jun 12, 6:09*pm, JNugent wrote:
JNugent wrote: Phil W Lee wrote: JNugent : Phil W Lee wrote: [ ... ] Yet compare the statistics for the number of pedestrians killed on the pavement by cars and bicycles respectively. How many of them involve cars being driven *along* footways (to get somewhere else) in the manner of bicycles? Far more than involve bicycles, even if you ignore the ones who claim to have arrived there through no fault of their own. [Hint: the answer is either "none" or so close to "none" as makes no practical differnce.] Maybe you should look it up? "The local law in the UK"? Where would one look that up? And how, come to think of it, would looking up a piece of law - whether "local" or otherwise - tell us how how many pedestrian injuries are caused by drivers of motor vehicles drivinmg along the footway? In this case, you could try http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut...cukpga_1847008.... Section 28 Which tells us that: "Every person who causes any public carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, with or without horses, or any beast of burden, to stand longer than is necessary for loading or unloading goods, or for taking up or setting down passengers (except hackney carriages, and horses and other beasts of draught or burthen, standing for hire in any place appointed for that purpose by the commissioners or other lawful authority), and every person who, by means of any cart, carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow, or any animal, or other means, wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfa" and "Every person who leads or rides any horse or other animal, or draws or drives any cart or carriage, sledge, truck, or barrow upon any footway of any street, or fastens any horse or other animal so that it stands across or upon any footway:" "shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding [F1level 3 on the standard scale] for each offence, or, in the discretion of the justice before whom he is convicted, may be committed to prison, there to remain for a period not exceeding fourteen days," That is NOT (got it? ***NOT***) "local law", unless "local law" means "local to England and Wales". Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite? Perhaps I was being a little unkind to you there. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is national (and certainly not "local") law, but it is not law which actually applies anywhere unless a council which administers a town or borough adopts it, piecemeal. They don't have to have the whole menu. They can adopt á la carte. It is because not every council has adopted it - and because not every council which has adopted some of of it has adopted all of it - that the legal position is different from place to place. In order for placing a vehicle on a footway to be illegal, the council has to have adopted that part of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 which relates to such activities and which creates the "offence" (where none otherwise applies). So it is national law which may - or may not - apply locally. You cannot quote it and say "It applies everywhere". And that is because it simply doesn't.- Hide quoted text - Just looking at the 'offence' itself, in narrow streets it is often sensible to park your car partly on the footpath so that it doesn't block the road too much. I always leave enough room on the footpath for a pram to to pass. I hate driving in London, because it is very difficult to find anywhere to park your car without paying a small fortune to NCP, and the whole place is covered by confusing local byelaws that you don't know if you don't live there. In some boroughs you can park partly on the pavement, but in others you can't. Derek C |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Derek C wrote:
Just looking at the 'offence' itself, in narrow streets it is often sensible to park your car partly on the footpath so that it doesn't block the road too much. I always leave enough room on the footpath for a pram to to pass. I hate driving in London, because it is very difficult to find anywhere to park your car without paying a small fortune to NCP, and the whole place is covered by confusing local byelaws that you don't know if you don't live there. In some boroughs you can park partly on the pavement, but in others you can't. And I expect that where there are signs to park partly on the pavement, a car parked completely on the carriageway is prima facie an obstruction. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Phil W Lee wrote:
Adrian considered 11 Jun 2010 06:05:16 GMT the perfect time to write: Do you really think that pavements are constructed markedly differently at drop kerbs, specifically intended for vehicular access? They're not. Maybe you should check the construction standards before making yourself look foolish. There is a CONSIDERABLE difference in the standard required for a section of footway with a dropped kerb, as you'd find out if you ever had to have one installed (say, for a new driveway). This, from the ****wit who thinks I could run my business using a push bike. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Another one killed on a pavement and a wall smashed!
Phil W Lee wrote:
JNugent : [huge snip] PWL: I don't know which "many places" you are on about, but the local law in the UK is that you cannot drive a carriage on the footway, except to access adjacent property (i.e. not just the footway itself, but something beyond the boundary of the highway). ... Maybe you should look it up? "The local law in the UK"? Where would one look that up? In this case, you could try http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatut..._18470089_en_1 Section 28 [Quoted Town Police Clauses Act 1847] Wher is this "local law" you tried to cite? You were the one who claimed that any such laws would only be local. Indeed they are, as I pointed out in another post. I simply pointed out that "local" in that case must be England and Wales (although I actually said UK, so apologies to those in Scotland and Ulster who probably have their own equivalents). I gave you that get-out and so you have tried to use it, but it is beyond the bounds of credibility that you meant national law when you said "local law". I'll paste a copy of that below, in case you can't manage to remember it or look through the quoted text above: Not unless there is a local law agin it. And there isn't such a law in many places. I don't know which "many places" you are on about, but the local law in the UK is that you cannot drive a carriage on the footway, except to access adjacent property (i.e. not just the footway itself, but something beyond the boundary of the highway). Other countries (or indeed planets, such as the aforementioned judge must have been an inhabitant of) may be different. See the parallel post (from earlier). The law you cited does not apply everywhere in E&W. Even where it applies, not every part of it need apply. That means that my point that there isn't such a law (against footway parking) in many places is correct. But we all knew that in the first place. You appear not to understand how the TPCA 1847 works. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Two killed in pavement collision. | D.M. Procida | UK | 6 | September 28th 09 10:31 PM |
"Boy killed as car mounts pavement" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 435 | May 10th 09 02:40 PM |
Two pavement deaths by killer motorist who also destroyed a wall | Doug[_3_] | UK | 31 | February 27th 09 06:25 PM |
Another pedestrian killed on the pavement | David Hansen | UK | 24 | June 5th 07 09:54 AM |
Pavement cyclist killed | Tony Raven | UK | 1 | November 4th 06 08:07 PM |