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

Aretnap

derrick wrote: »

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

Where does it say that?

derrick

Aretnap wrote: »

Where does it say that?

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"


Ergo as it is a criminal offence to drive over a pavement, unless that pavement,(in this case), has been dropped and the substrate reinforced, then the driver does not have lawful access.
Why do you obstruct things when you know the offence is committed?

.

Chopper_Read

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Sorry my mistake

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

Oh, you did

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 sect 72 & RTA 1988 sect 34"



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



.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

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

.

If Lee had an emergency you would.

derrick wrote: »

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 ).
E
"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"


Ergo as it is a criminal offence to drive over a pavement, unless that pavement,(in this case), has been dropped and the substrate reinforced, then the driver does not have lawful access.
Why do you obstruct things when you know the offence is committed?

.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Oh, you did

As does the HC, as rule 145 is a legal requirement, (or is that wrong?): -

"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."

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

As does the HC, as rule 145 is a legal requirement, (or is that wrong?): -

"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."

Doesn't make it a criminal offence like you said it does.

Does it?

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

If Lee had an emergency you would.

Pray enlighten me?


.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Doesn't make it a criminal offence like you said it does.

Does it?

Think you are reading something different to me, "are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence."

It really is very simple and clear, break said rule and you can get a criminal conviction from whatever legislation is in place.

Why do people like you do this? The HC is there for a reason and is the book most drivers will read, at least whilst leading up to their test, so all they have to do is obey them then no criminal convictions.
There are not many who will go to look up the relevant information as the offence is in the HC, unless they want to confirm the correct wording in said legislation.

.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

Think you are reading something different to me, "are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence."

It really is very simple and clear, break said rule and you can get a criminal conviction from whatever legislation is in place.

Why do people like you do this? The HC is there for a reason and is the book most drivers will read, at least whilst leading up to their test, so all they have to do is obey them then no criminal convictions.
There are not many who will go to look up the relevant information as the offence is in the HC, unless they want to confirm the correct wording in said legislation.

.

The act and section of the road traffic act make it a criminal offence and not the highway code.

Joe_Horner

"Lawful access" has nothing to do with whether or not there's a dropped curb. It's about whether or not you're entitled to drive onto the land you're entering.

So driving over a curb to enter your own property is legal (but you may get billed by the local Highways department of you damage their curb) whereas driving over a curb to, say, park on the village green isn't because you won't (at least, it's very unlikely you will) have lawful access for vehicles to the green.

As for the HC bit, chopper is technically right that it isn't the HC that "makes it a criminal offence". The HC is ONLY advice that, in some cases, is kind enough to tell you that there's a law about it. It's the law that then "makes it an offence"

Granted, it's largely a matter of semantics, but the law generally IS semantic and there is NO way you can be charged with "not obeying the highway code" - you get charged according to the underlying law.