So I am scum - driving without insurance/mot/tax

keith1950

You sound like a total nightmare , I hope the rest of your existance isn't so chaotic.

Without sounding to be too harsh , I hope you get what you deserve.

SailorSam

I think the best advice i can give is go and get the bus to Halfords and buy yourself a bike.

artbaron

Tony_Williams wrote: »

By the way I am not looking for symphony

Funny you should mention symphony because here's the world's smallest violin, playing just for you

derrick

Tony_Williams wrote: »

BANG - it happened with my last car messing the gear box up and under where the exhaust is (costed £200-£400 ish) - this again but I knew why the kerb! The kerb drop off my driveway screwed the car. So if I EVER get it back or another I am laying bricks (council want £1200 to lower it"

jaybeetoo wrote: »

Some councils will grant you permission to lower the kerb (for a fee) and allow you to use an approved contractor to do the work - might be worth checking.

If you just lay bricks you might be facing another fine.

Correct, Rule 145 of the HC makes it a criminal offence as backed up by the relevant abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence, (see the introduction 3rd paragraph ).

"145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34"



"Lawful access" in this case is a dropped pavement.



.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

Correct, Rule 145 of the HC makes it a criminal offence as backed up by the relevant abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence, (see the introduction 3rd paragraph ).

"145
You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.
Laws HA 1835 secat 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34"



"Lawful access" in this case is a dropped pavement.




.

Rule 145 does not make it a criminal offence.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Rule 145 does not make it a criminal offence.

Here we go again, the rule itself no, but the regulation it reference's to does, hence why, for the pedantic s, I also linked to the introduction: -

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."

As rule 145 states MUST NOT then a criminal offence takes place if you disobey it, that make it easier for you?

.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

Here we go again, the rule itself no, but the regulation it reference's to does, hence why, for the pedantic s, I also linked to the introduction: -

"Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence."

As rule 145 states MUST NOT then a criminal offence takes place if you disobey it, that make it easier for you?

.

It's the road traffic act that makes it an offence

So why not just post that?

Face it you were wrong.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It's the road traffic act that makes it an offence

So why not just post that?

Face it you were wrong.

Not wrong, it's just pedantic's like you that attempt to confuse for some obscure reason!

I don't need to post it, it is already there in what I posted, with the reference to the actual law!

Everyone,(?), reads the HC, it is part of learning to drive, then we use it as a reference, not many go to the RTA books to reference traffic laws.

What you appear to be saying is that if it is in the HC we can ignore it because "it is not a legal book", well try that with a cop car behind you and go through a red light, speed, park on a pedestrian crossing etc.

If everyone adhered to the HC there would be a lot less accidents and fines being paid etc.

At the risk of repetaing myself: - "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence."

It isn't rocket science.

Face it you are wrong, or is the HC wrong?

.

[Deleted User]

I bump up and over the foot path every day to get my car onto my property. It's not a purpose built drive way like new build housing estates. It's just a back yard to a terraced house.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

Not wrong, it's just pedantic's like you that attempt to confuse for some obscure reason!

I don't need to post it, it is already there in what I posted, with the reference to the actual law!

Everyone,(?), reads the HC, it is part of learning to drive, then we use it as a reference, not many go to the RTA books to reference traffic laws.

What you appear to be saying is that if it is in the HC we can ignore it because "it is not a legal book", well try that with a cop car behind you and go through a red light, speed, park on a pedestrian crossixng etc.

If everyone adhered to the HC there would be a lot less accidents and fines being paid etc.

At the risk of repetaing myself: - "Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence."

It isn't rocket science.

Face it you are wrong, or is the HC wrong?

.

No, its you that's wrong.

You said rule 145 makes it a criminal offence.

It doesn't.