Just what were they thinking ?

[Cockney]

Errrrrrrrr - the return of a teenager? Again it is the law of this country to return her and investigate but you don't like that one either?

Again NO. I was highlighting the difference between people we are at war with and applying civil law to common criminals. But you know that. I assume youre ex police. You take a statement and twist it. Ive met a few like you.

 

[cambsno]

Paul - parking on a pavement always causes an unnecessary obstruction - the Offence is committed; whether the Police prosecute is a different matter.

There are defences including:
(1) Being directed by a Police Officer
(2) Parking signs displayed stating you can

amongst others.

There is very rarely specific laws in this country 'naming the offence' but there are other laws that cover it.

e.g. Swearing in public isn't a specific offence but it is covered by the Public Order Act.

From your link to the RAC:

Rule 242 is where it gets a little less clear, stating: "You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road."

This is a must not, again, meaning if your car is reported or seen by a police officer and judged to be either in a dangerous position or causing an unnecessary obstruction of the road, you could receive a Fixed Penalty Notice.

If as you say parking on a pavement ALWAYS causes obstruction... why would signs exist permitting you to do that???

 

[Fraser Euan White]

If as you say parking on a pavement ALWAYS causes obstruction... why would signs exist permitting you to do that???

Simon, I said

'Unnecessary/wilful Obstruction'

A parking sign removes the 'unnecessary & wilful' part.

The two main laws that cover parking on pavements (outside London) are:
(1) causing an unnecessary/wilful obstruction
(2) driving on a footpath

Parking on a footpath usually causes an unnecessary obstruction, to park on a footpath you have almost definitely driven on the footpath. It is impossible to legislate for every eventuality - the law up until recently has been more than adequate to deal with people who park on a footpath.

Both of the above offences require specific evidence which is very easy to obtain but time consuming to prosecute, hence why a 'specific' offence is created (in London) where the problem is greater. It simplifies the prosecution. If someone parks on a pavement in London the offence is considered 'Complete' with no other evidence required.

Outside of London the prosecution of the Offence/Offences takes more time/requires more effort - hence prosecution is less likely but the law has still been broken.

It was a very similar situation with the use of mobile phones whilst driving - it has always been against the law; the driver committed the offence of driving without due care and attention but the problem became large enough to introduce a specific offence to make the prosecution simpler.

Parking on a pavement/verge has always been illegal; you have broken the law, just because you wouldn't be prosecuted for a specific offence is irrelevant; by parking on a pavement you have broken the law.

You are more than welcome to explain to the Court that Parking on a pavement outside London isn't illegal so I can not be prosecuted for wilful/unnecessary obstruction or driving on a pavement - good luck BTW.

 

[woof woof]

I think Sarah Lester has probably enjoyed kicking up a stink and will probably be wetting herself laughing at the thought of the creepy copper getting a talking to.

People who park on the pavement... I can sort of understand it but it drives me mad and I'd happily see them woken up in the middle of the night. It's a right royal PITA for me when I'm pushing someone in a wheel chair and often means back tracking to find a place I can safely get the chair off the pavement and onto the road and round the obstacle and then on to find somewhere I can mount the pavement again. It's a hassle, it's annoying and it's potentially dangerous.

A pox on the smug self satisfied Sarah Lester, if that's what she is and if she's actually a nice person... Just stop it Sarah. have a bit of consideration for others.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I think Sarah Lester has probably enjoyed kicking up a stink and will probably be wetting herself laughing at the thought of the creepy copper getting a talking to.

People who park on the pavement... I can sort of understand it but it drives me mad and I'd happily see them woken up in the middle of the night. It's a right royal PITA for me when I'm pushing someone in a wheel chair and often means back tracking to find a place I can safely get the chair off the pavement and onto the road and round the obstacle and then on to find somewhere I can mount the pavement again. It's a hassle, it's annoying and it's potentially dangerous.

A pox on the smug self satisfied Sarah Lester, if that's what she is and if she's actually a nice person... Just stop it Sarah. have a bit of consideration for others.

Well said Alan,

people do not realise the problems they cause by doing this; like you have explained it is a PITA for a lot of people; even worse for blind people.

It really is simple - if you break the law don't whinge when a Police officer calls at their convenience, not the Offenders.

 

[Box Brownie]

FWIW we have such inconsiderate people(?) here

There are two cars this evening completely blocking the pavement outside the house and one of them is obstructing a fire hydrant ~ they are both 'repeat offenders' and fall into the category of "not knowing what their legs are for..." i.e. there is perfectly adequate parking close by that requires them to walk all of approx 50 yards.

In regard to the nuisance it causes, thankfully this is a residential estate and the road is not a main thoroughfare but they are taking the p*ss with the repeated lack of consideration.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Again NO. I was highlighting the difference between people we are at war with and applying civil law to common criminals. But you know that. I assume youre ex police. You take a statement and twist it. Ive met a few like you.

What Civil law is being applied to common criminals; please do tell.

 

[Cockney]

What Civil law is being applied to common criminals; please do tell.

No.. go back and read it.
Ive had enough of your constant, muddled, pedantic nonsense and condescending whinging drivel for one day.
You can rant into the ether, (if it will listen).

 

[Fraser Euan White]

No.. go back and read it.
Ive had enough of your constant, muddled, pedantic nonsense and condescending whinging drivel for one day.
You can rant into the ether, (if it will listen).

I've quoted your post and made the bit in YOUR post bold that I would like you to explain.

I assume you can't hence the reply above.

 

[Cobra]

There are only a select few authorised to use red. Choose wisely!

Indeed, even we aren't allowed to use red, but what we do use is green, when we start to get annoyed at petty sniping.
Posting in bold usually means its a final warning and / or the thread is about to get

Hints taken?

 

[Sky]

Regardless of the law, from my perspective as a wheelchair user; drivers that park on pavements are arseholes and they make my life hell.

 

[camerassassin]

But that's no reason for a cop to come bashing on anyones' door at 01.30 [ or whenever it was]

That sort of interview should be done in normal daylight hours - it wasn't an emergency at that very moment in time

 

[gman]

It does seem a little insensitive to be calling at that time of night, especially without warning. But I can also see the other side of the argument in that if this is a quiet time for the police then it does make more sense rather than taking an officer away from patrol during peak times or when he may be more likely to be called away.

Perhaps an alternative would be for her to have to go to the police station instead, say at an allotted time? If the officer is called away during the interview then she has to wait until he returns to complete things. I'll bet after being in the station for 4+ hours she would think twice before inconveniencing others again.

 

[Cockney]

Indeed, even we aren't allowed to use red, but what we do use is green, when we start to get annoyed at petty sniping.
Posting in bold usually means its a final warning and / or the thread is about to get

Hints taken?

 

[Gremlin]

How about parking on a pavement next to double yellow lines so you can nip across to the shop and
buy fags/paper whatever, that does annoy me but I can guarantee when I walk down the shops
later there will be at least one vehicle parked just by the junction with the footpath

 

[Steve Smith]

Parking on the pavement anywhere in the UK can commit an offence, as the Highway code 'hints' at..

Yes, but it's a separate offence of obstructing a footpath. Just putting your wheels a few inches onto a pavement does not necesarily obstruct.

The police here consider obstruction to be not leaving enough space for a double pram/pushchair to pass.


Steve.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Yes, but it's a separate offence of obstructing a footpath. Just putting your wheels a few inches onto a pavement does not necesarily obstruct.

The police here consider obstruction to be not leaving enough space for a double pram/pushchair to pass.


Steve.

Steve, regarding the unnecessary/wilful obstruction, any part of a car parked on a footpath usually commits this offence and to get there it has usually driven on the footpath as well - this is why it is illegal.

There is no 'almost broke the law' scenario; it is a case of you either have or haven't.

It is entirely up to an Officer whether he takes no further action, gives words of advice or prosecutes for the Offence - quite often the level of obstruction being caused will have a factor in this.

If a member of the public reports an incident of this nature to the Police then it does require an 'incident' to be logged and it has to be dealt with in one way or another.

We know very, very little details about this incident so everything is speculation.

Just because (outside London) there is no specific offence of Parking on a pavement it does not mean that it is not illegal to do so.

There is no specific offence of 'shouting and swearing in the street' but it is certainly illegal to do so.

If we had to have specific laws for everything the Politicians wouldn't have time to do anything else.

 

[cambsno]

Steve, I agree regarding the unnecessary obstruction, however any part of a car parked on a footpath usually commits this offence and to get there it has usually driven on the footpath as well - this is why it is illegal.

There is no 'almost broke the law' scenario; it is a case of you either have or haven't.

It is entirely up to an Officer whether he takes no further action, gives words of advice or prosecutes for the Offence - quite often the level of obstruction being caused will have a factor in this.

If a member of the public reports an incident of this nature to the Police then it does require an 'incident' to be logged and it has to be dealt with in one way or another.

We no very, very little details about this incident so everything is speculation.

Yet when suspicious drug dealing was reported to police in our village nothing happened! Same as anti social behaviour in the next one. At times you would think they only pick on the easy cases!!

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Yet when suspicious drug dealing was reported to police in our village nothing happened! Same as anti social behaviour in the next one. At times you would think they only pick on the easy cases!!

I don't know the nature of the reports that were made in your village or the next one, just as I don't know the circumstances of the nature of the incident being discussed here so It wouldn't be right to talk about the reasons why the Police responded/didn't respond in the way they did.

I can only comment on the law and that the Offender shouldn't be 'dictating' when they should be spoken too about breaking it.

 

[Ellie Jones]

It's nothing new, I've had the police turn up after midnight, to inquire about my car...... this was way back in the late 90's.

My car was parked in a layby about 10 miles outside of town, apparently according to the police it was blocking a farmers field Gate!

Why was my car parked in A layby 10 miles out of town My engine decided to spectacularly blow up, several miles out of town on my way to work I heard a knocking noise as I was ponder what on earth this noise was, my engine went bang, smoke and steam everywhere, and instant lose of power.. Thankfully I was at the top of the hill to the layby, so manage to coast the car down the hill into the layby to where it was safe..... There was noway I was going to move my car anywhere once it stopped.

I managed to get into work, arrange for my parents to pick me up, when I finished, no time to sort out any sort recovery, until I was off work 2 days later...

I sure that it wasn't in front of the field gate, as I was near the bottom of the layby and the field gate is near the entrance, so I reckon that somebody reported it, to see that it was stolen or not... As funny enough it was nicked, the only way the car was going to be moved anywhere was via a tow truck.....

And coming from a farming community, why didn't the farmer just shunt it out the way, like most farmers will if need be.

I wasn't illegally parked, there were reasons beyond my control way the car was there, which the police were quite satisfied with, as yes it could have been stolen and dumped, and perhaps I hadn't had a chance to report it stolen!

But if one choses to totally disregard the highway code, obstruct other road users or obstruct a footpath, so people got to venture out onto the road to pass, then be prepared to that pc plod, when they get a chance will come and knock on your door, while remembering they do actually work 27/7 365 days of the year....

But doesn't matter how much she moans and protests, bet she won't be parking on the pave any time soon .