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

spiro

Joe_Horner wrote: »

"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.

Well one of the councils in London have a different view. They warned lots of householders that they could not drive there cars over the pavement into their front garden unless they have a dropped kerb. Those that chose to ignore several warnings woke up one morning to find the council had installed bollards along the boundary of the property so they couldn't get there cars out.

worried_jim

spiro wrote: »

Well one of the councils in London have a different view. They warned lots of householders that they could not drive there cars over the pavement into their front garden unless they have a dropped kerb. Those that chose to ignore several warnings woke up one morning to find the council had installed bollards along the boundary of the property so they couldn't get there cars out.

Councils helping and offering value for money to there local tax payers. Can you imagine a private company trying to get away with something like this, what a disgraceful waste of tax payers money.

Naf

OK:
Chopper vs. derrick
You're both being unnecessarily pedantic. Chopper's point is that the HC isn't legislation and so can't make something a criminal offence. So even if the HC says something is an offence (e.g. a typographical error), it isn't unless some actual legislation says so. That legislation is the RTA. derrick's point is that as the HC is an official publication, where it says that something is an offence, it is correct in saying so; and while the HC isn't the thing that makes it a criminal offence, the thing is still an offence.

derrick vs. Aretnap/ LeeUK
I haven't read the full legislation myself, admittedly, but from what's been posted there's nothing that actually says that the dropped kerb is necessary to make it lawful access. Where kerbs have been dropped indicates lawful access - but all that is actually stated is that you must be legally entitled to gain such access.

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

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

With the following taken from the introduction of the HC in mind, “Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence.”, and, ” Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’ ”

If you break the rule, by definition you break the legal requirement, (the regulation).
If you break the legal requirement, (regulation),by definition you break the rule
Ergo they are entwined so the prosecution can occur although it is the regulation that is used to prosecute, but there is no reason the rules that use MUST/MUST NOT cannot be quoted in relation to breaking the law, because as I have said the HC is the easiest reference book to go to.

Also give me your understanding of the following, again taken from the introduction, because it appears you don’t use the same dictionary:-

• legal requirements
• commiting a criminal offence

Or have the publishers got it wrong?

.

derrick

Joe_Horner wrote: »

"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.

I agree about the dropped kerb and only mentioned it as it was the point being discussed, however I am pretty certain that if you do not have a dropped kerb, (or other form), for access it is more than likely you do not have lawful access".

I never said you could get prosecuted solely for not obeying the HC, however there is this from the intro:-
"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’."


The HC is relevant as the first go to book for most drivers and riders,(and pedestrians?), and does have the relevant "abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence." under the rule, so I cannot see any reason to say "the HC is not a legal publication", it isn't but some legal requirements are in it.


.

Aretnap

Thr Highway Code actually conflates two quite different pieces of legislation, only one of which has anything to do with driving on footways, and only one of which says anything about lawful access.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34

Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act is aimed mainly at stopping people tearing up the countryside in 4x4s. It makes it illegal to drive on common land, moorland, footpaths, bridleways etc. Section 34A makes an exception for people who have a legitimate need to access the land, so a farmer can drive his tractor through his fields, and you can drive on a farm track which is also a footpath if you need to visit the farm - but not just because you enjoy driving on footpaths and scaring ramblers. This seems to be what the Highway Code means by "lawful access". The whole section has nothing to do with driving over footways in towns, indeed it makes a specific exception for driving within 15 yards of a road for the purpose of parking.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72

The prohibition on driving in footways (ie pavements running alongside roads set aside for pedestrians) comes from Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 which flatly makes it illegal to drive a carriage of any description (including those fancy horseless carriages which came along many years later) on any such footpath or causeway. It makes no exception for "legal access" or anything resembling it and so on a literal reading it would be illegal to drive over a footway to get to a house, whether or not the kerb is dropped and whether or not you have legal access to that house. However, clearly the law isn't applied as such. I'm not sure what if any case law there is around the issue but perhaps there is an argument that if the kerb has been dropped that particular bit of the footway is no longer set aside solely for the use of foot passengers, and so it becomes OK to drive on it. Perhaps.

IOW, possibly it's illegal to access your drive across a non-dropped kerb, but if it is it has nothing to do with what the Highway Code calls lawful access, it's more likely to be a question of how the footway is defined, or possibly a separate piece of legislation not referred to in the Highway Code. In any event, that particular bit of the HC is silent on the question of whether the kerb has to be dropped.

Chopper_Read

derrick wrote: »

I agree about the dropped kerb and only mentioned it as it was the point being discussed, however I am pretty certain that if you do not have a dropped kerb, (or other form), for access it is more than likely you do not have lawful access".

I never said you could get prosecuted solely for not obeying the HC, however there is this from the intro:-
"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’."


The HC is relevant as the first go to book for most drivers and riders,(and pedestrians?), and does have the relevant "abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence." under the rule, so I cannot see any reason to say "the HC is not a legal publication", it isn't but some legal requirements are in it.


.

You said rule 145 of the highway code makes it a criminal offence.

Or did someone else type that?

derrick

Chopper_Read wrote: »

You said rule 145 of the highway code makes it a criminal offence.

Or did someone else type that?

The HC states it, I have quoted it several times including my post #56 that was directed at you and which you have chosen not to answer!

"Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’ ”

Rule 145 uses "MUST NOT"


.

Janey51

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Naf

derrick wrote: »

The HC states it, I have quoted it several times including my post #56 that was directed at you and which you have chosen not to answer!

"Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’ ”

Rule 145 uses "MUST NOT"


.

So the HC says it is an offence, but does not make it one. This is the pedantic, semantic difference that Chopper is nitpicking over.