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

OldFartPlumber

Tony_Williams wrote: »

Ok, first off I will explain.
I am not looking for symphony

?
.

Try busking . I`d donate a note or 2;)

RichardD1970

derrick wrote: »

Why do people like you do this?

Because he is a Troll, who likes to get a rise out of people like you and try to prove he is the better man?

photome

As per usual a motoring thread descends in to " I am right" no " I am right" thread, and always the same morons.

And that, after the post was started by a troll

Aretnap

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 ).

"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?.

I meant where does it say anything about dropped kerbs? Lawful access generally refers to a right to enter the land - either because you own it, or you have the landowner's permission, or because you have legitimate business there. If you read the relevant sections of the law rather than relying on the Highway Code, that sort of jumps out at you.

vikingaero

This thread was less than one page long this morning. By early evening it's 3 pages. Must have known it had been Choppered.

Tilt

vikingaero wrote: »

This thread was less than one page long this morning. By early evening it's 3 pages. Must have known it had been Choppered.

It does seem strange that a certain newbie on here seems to turn threads he contributes to, into pedantic, un-necessary and un-helpful arguments. Even when he is proved wrong he would never admit it although technically (and pedantically) he is right here. But I knew what derrick was trying to say about disobeying the HC, and TBH it was so trivial in pointing out that it's the actual RTA which you breach, that I think it's irrelevant and has just turned the thread into a fiasco. Talk about splitting hairs!

If ever there was an Olympic sport for being pedantic or argumentative, you would not need to look far for the gold medal winner.

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

It does seem strange that a certain newbie on here seems to turn threads he contributes to, into pedantic, un-necessary and un-helpful arguments. Even when he is proved wrong he would never admit it although technically (and pedantically) he is right here. But I knew what derrick was trying to say about disobeying the HC, and TBH it was so trivial in pointing out that it's the actual RTA which you breach, that I think it's irrelevant and has just turned the thread into a fiasco. Talk about splitting hairs!

If ever there was an Olympic sport for being pedantic or argumentative, you would not need to look far for the gold medal winner.

Pot and kettle.

Tilt

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Pot and kettle.

Yeah, you have both... in many shades of black. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Chopper_Read

Tilt wrote: »

Yeah, you have both... in many shades of black. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Here we go with another ti[strike]l[/strike]t will have the last say thread.

vaio

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 ).

"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?

.

Nah, I'm with Aretnap in that "lawful access to property" is to do with ownership/permission of the owner of the property rather than a dropped curb.

If the legislators had meant you can't drive on pavements unless the kerb is dropped than they would have said that. What they mean is what they said, you can't drive on a pavement/footpath/ bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.