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

Johno100

SailorSam wrote: »

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

Then he wouldn't need Insurance, Tax or an MOT but he'd still be scum.:rotfl:

Gloomendoom

SailorSam wrote: »

I think the best advice I can give is go and get the bus to Waterstones and buy yourself a dictionary.

Fixed it for you.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

No, its you that's wrong.

You said rule 145 makes it a criminal offence.

It doesn't.

I will try and make this really simple for you as you appear to be having problems.

From 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.

Rule 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

As you can see rule 145 has the words "MUST NOT", ergo making it a criminal offence, or at least according to the HC itself which is a legitimate publishing from OMHG.

.

derrick

Deleted_User wrote: »

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.

Then maybe you should pay to have a dropped kerb like other law abiding people or stop breaking the law, because as it is you are.

If someone parks up outside your back yard whilst your vehicle is inside, you have no legal recourse to have them move,(assuming they are parked legally), as you had no legal right to cross the pavement in the first place, hope it happens soon.
.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

I will try and make this really simple for you as you appear to be having problems.

From 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.

Rule 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

As you can see rule 145 has the words "MUST NOT", ergo making it a criminal offence, or at least according to the HC itself which is a legitimate publishing from OMHG.

.

You can post it all the colours you like but it will not make it correct

Rule 145 doesn't make it an offence the rta does.

All the highway code does is give advice and reference to the law

Can you evidence anyone getting a criminal conviction contrary to any sections of the highway code?

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

Then maybe you should pay to have a dropped kerb like other law abiding people or stop breaking the law, because as it is you are.

If someone parks up outside your back yard whilst your vehicle is inside, you have no legal recourse to have them move,(assuming they are parked legally), as you had no legal right to cross the pavement in the first place, hope it happens soon.
.

It's probably a !!!! like you who'd block him in.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It's probably a !!!! like you who'd block him in.

If I did, it would not be me breaking the law!

.

Norman_Castle

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

Without being pedantic, I guess you mean pedants.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

You can post it all the colours you like but it will not make it correct

Rule 145 doesn't make it an offence the rta does.

All the highway code does is give advice and reference to the law

Can you evidence anyone getting a criminal conviction contrary to any sections of the highway code?

And the HC is the go to book for most motorists who want to find the information out as to whether they have or may commit an offence, they can then go to the relevant RTA if still need to, but most will know if they have committed an offence by reading the HC without having to go any further, i.e. the point on this thread about driving over pavements is covered in the HC without reasonable people needing to consult the relevant RTA to know it is a criminal offence whichever book you get it from!

Maybe you should read the intro again, as it also says: -
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

I have never said it can cause someone to receive a criminal conviction, just that it states breaking certain rules can earn you such under the relevant regulation, and lets face it, it is easier to read those regs than go to the RTA, although you do have that option.

.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

And the HC is the go to book for most motorists who want to find the information out as to whether they have or may commit an offence, they can then go to the relevant RTA if still need to, but most will know if they have committed an offence by reading the HC without having to go any further, i.e. the point on this thread about driving over pavements is covered in the HC without reasonable people needing to consult the relevant RTA to know it is a criminal offence whichever book you get it from!

Maybe you should read the intro again, as it also says: -
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

I have never said it can cause someone to receive a criminal conviction, just that it states breaking certain rules can earn you such under the relevant regulation, and lets face it, it is easier to read those regs than go to the RTA, although you do have that option.

.

Sorry my mistake

I thought you said rule 145 makes it a criminal offence.