Quad bike on private road

happybiker

Chopper_Read wrote: »

You're not 100% correct. Some of the rta only applies to a road.

Sorry, i was commenting mainly about Rover Drivers comments re. Public place.

Some people have been rather scathing about Tilt's posts but i feel he has been much nearer the mark than any of his detractors

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Brilliant argument, I've been here longer so I'm right.

If you went through your relatives case with a fine tooth comb why couldn't you get him off? Was the damage done in interview cause you don't want to talk about that?

!!!!!!! Talk about trying to hammer a nail into a concrete block! :wall:BECAUSE THE RTA APPLIED TO WHERE HE WAS PARKED!!!

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

But while I respect what you are trying to say, I can assure you that when my cousin got caught, we went through this issue with a fine tooth comb so my understanding is pretty clear TBH. However, as I mentioned in a previous post, it does appear to be sometimes a very grey area to where is considered that the RTA applies and where it does not. Yes supermarket and pub car parks are pretty well usually private land to which the public have access. But the grey areas seem to creep in when it come to private roads (or drives). This definition can vary quite a bit apparently and is not even clear in the act. It seems to depend on what type of area the road or 'drive' leads to and whether or not the public can freely access it.

As for the OP's case, I would suggest (without seeing it) that some parts of the RTA would apply because the 'road' serves more than one property. And I think it depends what mood the police are in to whether they investigate if the quad bikers are actually contravening the RTA or try and fob off the OP by saying "sorry, can't help, it's private property sir". A bit like they use to do when someones car got towed by a private company from private land.

Not really a grey area, either it is a public place or it isn't.
As fivetide has said, on private land it is about consent, if there is no consent for the public to be on the land, the RTA does not apply.

The public may have consent to use a private road etc. and so the RTA would apply, if only residents for example, had consent, then the RTA would not apply.

In the OP's case, it would depend on the status of the road.

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

!!!!!!! Talk about trying to hammer a nail into a concrete block! :wall:BECAUSE THE RTA APPLIED TO WHERE HE WAS PARKED!!!

Yeah, it does because he wasn't on his drive was he?

What did he say in interview to secure his conviction?

I bet he was like you, thought he knew it all.

happybiker

Chopper_Read wrote: »

You're not 100% correct. Some of the rta only applies to a road.

Sorry, i was commenting mainly about Rover Drivers comments re. Public place.

Some people have been rather scathing about Tilt's posts but i feel he has been much nearer the mark than any of his detractors

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Not really a grey area, either it is a public place or it isn't.
As fivetide has said, on private land it is about consent, if there is no consent for the public to be on the land, the RTA does not apply.

The public may have consent to use a private road etc. and so the RTA would apply, if only residents for example, had consent, then the RTA would not apply.

In the OP's case, it would depend on the status of the road.

Sorry RD, but I think that is mainly wrong. If it were the case then the police would need to always establish whether or not the public had consent to be on the road/land in question to whether the RTA applied or not. How would that work unless the area did not have free access, i.e. was not gated?

In my cousin's case, it was argued that he was parked on private property (a boat yard) at 2am in the morning. The police were able to freely drive into said boat yard as they had been asked to keep an eye on it due to recent thefts of fuel etc. Because it was freely accessible, it was deemed to be covered by some sections of the RTA (excess alcohol etc). Apparently had the drive/road leading down to the yard been gated, then the RTA would not have applied.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Yeah, it does because he wasn't on his drive was he?

What did he say in interview to secure his conviction?

I bet he was like you, thought he knew it all.

Still waiting for a response to post #46, newbie. You really need to show a little more respect to your elders.

Tilt

happybiker wrote: »

Sorry, i was commenting mainly about Rover Drivers comments re. Public place.

Some people have been rather scathing about Tilt's posts but i feel he has been much nearer the mark than any of his detractors

Oh dear... this will really confuse the newbie, at least 2 people not agreeing with him! Stand by for more flying toys from his pram! :eek:

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

Sorry RD, but I think that is mainly wrong. If it were the case then the police would need to always establish whether or not the public had consent to be on the road/land in question to whether the RTA applied or not. How would that work unless the area did not have free access, i.e. was not gated?

In my cousin's case, it was argued that he was parked on private property (a boat yard) at 2am in the morning. The police were able to freely drive into said boat yard as they had been asked to keep an eye on it due to recent thefts of fuel etc. Because it was freely accessible, it was deemed to be covered by some sections of the RTA (excess alcohol etc). Apparently had the drive/road leading down to the yard been gated, then the RTA would not have applied.

So why is that any different to a camp site?

Asleep in your car or tent is the same thing.

Your relative was doing a little more than sleeping in the car them wasn't he?

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

In my cousin's case, it was argued that he was parked on private property (a boat yard) at 2am in the morning. The police were able to freely drive into said boat yard as they had been asked to keep an eye on it due to recent thefts of fuel etc. Because it was freely accessible, it was deemed to be covered by some sections of the RTA (excess alcohol etc). Apparently had the drive/road leading down to the yard been gated, then the RTA would not have applied.

It would have depended on the status of the land, if it was restricted to only users of the boatyard, it would not be a public place as only the boatyard users had consent to use it, not the public.

Gates make no difference, some public car parks, roads, etc. which are public places have gates, some don't. In the same way that some that are not public places may or may not have gates.




i