blocking driveway

Nearly_Old

Undervalued wrote: »

To be honest I don't follow the logic in that as I think your passage along the highway could include wanting to turn off it as well but unless somebody takes it to court to get a ruling that is they way it is round here.

The logic is that if you are returning and your access is blocked then you can park somewhere else; e.g. further along the road until the blockage has been removed. In our area the police generally do not attend but the local PCSO has spoken to some owners when there have been continuing problems.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

There is nothing to explain:
[FONT=&quot]Section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 1988[/FONT][FONT=&quot] makes it an offence for the person in charge to leave a vehicle or trailer on a road in such a position or condition as to cause a danger to other road users. The OP's car is not an active road user as the vehicle is parked on a private drive. The parked car blocking the drive is not a danger to the OP's car as both are stopped so it can only be a danger to traffic passing on the road/highway. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]creates the offence of unnecessary obstruction. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road. Assuming that the OP does have a dropped crossing then all that gives them is the right to drive across the pavement. If the OP does have a dropped crossing and it is an area of special enforcement then the council parking enforcement can deal with it as it is a parking offence to park across a dropped crossing.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended by sections 38 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Schedule 7) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]provides an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway. The op's parked car is not passing along the highway and therefore the parked car cannot be obstructing it. As with all regulations/contracts/etc it is what the words actually say that takes precedence and not what it could be thought to extend to.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]The lack of any direct regulation in respect of a right of access is a bit surprising but it is possible that when they were first drafted it was not seen as an issue. The regulations have been used to prevent access. E.g. there is a major plant depot adjacent to the A1 in the north east and the Highways Agency imposed time restrictions on plant leaving the depot so as to avoid delays on the A1 during peak periods.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Yet again your putting your own slant on 103, where does it say it needs to be an area of special enforcement?

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Yet again your putting your own slant on 103, where does it say it needs to be an area of special enforcement?

No - you have misread my post as I have not made any direct link between 103 and an area of special enforcement as the two are totally separate; but to make clear. All I said was that all a dropped crossing gives is the right to drive across the pavement; i.e. it is nothing to do with 103. To clarify:


103 does not in itself make parking across a dropped kerb an offence as it is only concerned with free passage hence the need for separate legislation to cover parking across a dropped crossing.



Special enforcement area (see section 86) in the link below:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/part/6/crossheading/additional-contraventions-in-special-enforcement-areas/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true
makes parking across a dropped crossing an offence in its own right but this is a Parking offence and not an Obstruction offence and it would fall to the local authority to enforce it.


So in the OP's case, as I stated before, if there is a dropped crossing AND it is a special enforcement area then the local council can enforce it by ticketing the parked vehicle that is blocking the drive. This would then be a Parking Offence and not an Obstruction Offence.

unholyangel

Nearly_Old wrote: »

There is nothing to explain:
[FONT=&quot]Section 22 of the Road Traffic Act 1988[/FONT][FONT=&quot] makes it an offence for the person in charge to leave a vehicle or trailer on a road in such a position or condition as to cause a danger to other road users. The OP's car is not an active road user as the vehicle is parked on a private drive. The parked car blocking the drive is not a danger to the OP's car as both are stopped so it can only be a danger to traffic passing on the road/highway. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]creates the offence of unnecessary obstruction. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road. Assuming that the OP does have a dropped crossing then all that gives them is the right to drive across the pavement. If the OP does have a dropped crossing and it is an area of special enforcement then the council parking enforcement can deal with it as it is a parking offence to park across a dropped crossing.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended by sections 38 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Schedule 7) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]provides an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway. The op's parked car is not passing along the highway and therefore the parked car cannot be obstructing it. As with all regulations/contracts/etc it is what the words actually say that takes precedence and not what it could be thought to extend to.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]The lack of any direct regulation in respect of a right of access is a bit surprising but it is possible that when they were first drafted it was not seen as an issue. The regulations have been used to prevent access. E.g. there is a major plant depot adjacent to the A1 in the north east and the Highways Agency imposed time restrictions on plant leaving the depot so as to avoid delays on the A1 during peak periods.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Once again you're ignoring that the publics right of way over the highway is over the whole highway. You're also ignoring that road users doesn't just mean active road users (as you put it).

Why don't you search for Marshall v Blackpool Corporation or Cusack v London Borough of Harrow (which discussed the former judgement).

A land-owner having land adjacent to a public highway has, at common law, free access to and from the highway at any point where they abut.
Lord Atkin said: ‘The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises. This is so whether he or his predecessors originally dedicated the highway or part of it and whether he is entitled to the whole or some interest in the ground subjacent to the highway or not. The rights of the public to pass along the highway are subject to this right of access: just as the right of access is subject to the rights of the public, and must be exercised subject to the general obligations as to nuisance and the like imposed upon a person using the highway. Apart from any statutory provision there is no obligation upon an adjoining owner to fence his property from the highway . . Moreover the ordinary traffic on any highway is always liable to be increased by the exercise by an adjoining owner of this right of access. A building estate may be developed, or a theatre, concert hall, cinema, or hotel erected on premises which will necessarily involve incalculable increase of traffic. Subject to special statutory provisions protecting footpaths, the right of access is not affected by the fact that part of the highway is only dedicated as a footway, or is otherwise lawfully appropriated to foot passengers. The passage of the public along a footway is always liable to be temporarily interrupted by adjoining owners’ right of access, whether to the footway or the roadway: and the dangers, if dangers there be, of a pedestrian having his path crossed by vehicles exercising right of access may be increased, and lawfully increased, by the adjoining owner or owners increasing their means of access.’

Car_54

Nearly_Old wrote: »

T[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended by sections 38 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Schedule 7) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]provides an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway. The op's parked car is not passing along the highway and therefore the parked car cannot be obstructing it. As with all regulations/contracts/etc it is what the words actually say that takes precedence and not what it could be thought to extend to.[/FONT]

If the OP drives forwatd a few feet he will be on the footpath, and hence the highway. He is therefore impeded by the offending vehicle from free passage along the highway.

AndyMc.....

Car_54 wrote: »

Nearly_Old wrote: »

T[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended by sections 38 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Schedule 7) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]provides an offence of wilful obstruction of the highway. An offence is committed if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way willfully obstructs the free passage along a highway. The op's parked car is not passing along the highway and therefore the parked car cannot be obstructing it. As with all regulations/contracts/etc it is what the words actually say that takes precedence and not what it could be thought to extend to.[/FONT]

If the OP drives forwatd a few feet he will be on the footpath, and hence the highway. He is therefore impeded by the offending vehicle from free passage along the highway.

Same applies for 103 once the wheels are on the footpath it’s the road so no need for a separate by law or special enforcement.

Nearly_Old

unholyangel wrote: »

Why don't you search for Marshall v Blackpool Corporation or Cusack v London Borough of Harrow (which discussed the former judgement).

Cusack v London Borough of Harrow has nothing to do with the OP's original question as it is solely to do with whether compensation was payable when pedestrian guard rails were erected that blocked access to a parking area that was previouly the front garden of the property from which the solicitor (Cusack) ran his business. The council used Section 80 of the Highways Act for which no compensation was due and Cusack's argument was the council should have used Section 66 of the Highways Act for which compensation would have been payable. The case is summarised in the link below and the Supreme Court found in favour of the Council. If you look at the full judgement the court also decided that there was no interference with pedstrian and two wheeled access.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/40.(image1).pdf


Marshall v Blackpool Corporation:
Quote:
A land-owner having land adjacent to a public highway has, at common law, free access to and from the highway at any point where they abut. Lord Atkin said: ‘The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises.


The use of the word "free" in the above is not to do with money but the fact the landowner is free to apply for an access. In exercising this right then the landowner has to comply with all current legislation and pay for any works required to the existing highway. At the lower end of the scale a private individual has to pay for a dropped crossing if they wish to use part of their existing land as a driveway. Failure to do this can be very costly as detailed in the link below:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-524838/Cars-trapped-illegal-driveways-council-fits-bollards-middle-night.html


At the other end of the scale when a developer whose land adjoined an existing roundabout that was also an access to the motorway submitted initial planning permission the Highways Agency lodged an objection. The section was already very congested and based on the projected traffic figures the necessary alterations to the motorway and junctions were designed in draft and costed. The Highways Agency then agreed to withdraw their objection after the developer agreed to pay the sum of £53M for all the works required. In the end the developer reduced the scale of the proposed development and paid a smaller sum to the Highways Agency. Section 184 of the Highways Act places an obligation on the Highway Authority: the need to ensure, so far as practicable, safe access to and egress from premises. As above in Cusack's case this was not disputed it was a question of whether compensation was payable.

So having a right and exercising that right are two very different things.

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Same applies for 103 once the wheels are on the footpath it’s the road so no need for a separate by law or special enforcement.

So why was a new offence enacted?

It was originally developed for urban areas which were designed some years ago and cannot now cope with the increase in car ownership and there was an escalating parking problem. The law makers and law enforement agencies (police and local authrities) for whatever reason have decided that 103 is not/would be very difficult to apply so a new offence was created. With respect I would say that the police and local authrities have more knowledge of when a new statute is required then anyone who posts on internet forums.


The Highway:
All land between the defined highway boundaries that may comprise all or any of the following:
Road/carriageway - primarily for the passage of wheeled vehicles but may be used by pedestrians, animals, etc but the rights of the other groups acn be restricted; e.g. barriers to stop unrestricted pedestrian access on heavily trafficked roads.
Footways - primarily for pedestrian traffic with legal restrictions in place that vehicles must not be driven on the footway. One of the exceptions is that vehicles may be driven across the footway when a dropped crossing has been provided as part of an approved access.
Verges (unmade and made), drainage ditches, SUDs drainage systems, batters/berms as part of cuttings/embankments.


If the OP drives forward a few feet he will be on the footpath, and hence the highway. He is therefore impeded by the offending vehicle from free passage along the highway.

The care is on the highway but it is on the footway not the road and as Andy Mc..... has posted many times:
103. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road.


So movement across the footway is blocked but as long as the normal traffic is passing and re-passing freely along the road no offence has been comitted under 103. That is very probably why the new Section 86 offence has been introduced.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

So why was a new offence enacted?

It was originally developed for urban areas which were designed some years ago and cannot now cope with the increase in car ownership and there was an escalating parking problem. The law makers and law enforement agencies (police and local authrities) for whatever reason have decided that 103 is not/would be very difficult to apply so a new offence was created. With respect I would say that the police and local authrities have more knowledge of when a new statute is required then anyone who posts on internet forums.


The Highway:
All land between the defined highway boundaries that may comprise all or any of the following:
Road/carriageway - primarily for the passage of wheeled vehicles but may be used by pedestrians, animals, etc but the rights of the other groups acn be restricted; e.g. barriers to stop unrestricted pedestrian access on heavily trafficked roads.
Footways - primarily for pedestrian traffic with legal restrictions in place that vehicles must not be driven on the footway. One of the exceptions is that vehicles may be driven across the footway when a dropped crossing has been provided as part of an approved access.
Verges (unmade and made), drainage ditches, SUDs drainage systems, batters/berms as part of cuttings/embankments.


If the OP drives forward a few feet he will be on the footpath, and hence the highway. He is therefore impeded by the offending vehicle from free passage along the highway.

The care is on the highway but it is on the footway not the road and as Andy Mc..... has posted many times:
103. No person in charge of a motor vehicle or trailer shall cause or permit the vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause any unnecessary obstruction of the road.


So movement across the footway is blocked but as long as the normal traffic is passing and re-passing freely along the road no offence has been comitted under 103. That is very probably why the new Section 86 offence has been introduced.

A road runs from building line to building line and includes verges and footpaths.

unholyangel

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Cusack v London Borough of Harrow has nothing to do with the OP's original question as it is solely to do with whether compensation was payable when pedestrian guard rails were erected that blocked access to a parking area that was previouly the front garden of the property from which the solicitor (Cusack) ran his business. The council used Section 80 of the Highways Act for which no compensation was due and Cusack's argument was the council should have used Section 66 of the Highways Act for which compensation would have been payable. The case is summarised in the link below and the Supreme Court found in favour of the Council. If you look at the full judgement the court also decided that there was no interference with pedstrian and two wheeled access.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/40.(image1).pdf


Marshall v Blackpool Corporation:
Quote:
A land-owner having land adjacent to a public highway has, at common law, free access to and from the highway at any point where they abut. Lord Atkin said: ‘The owner of land adjoining a highway has a right of access to the highway from any part of his premises.


The use of the word "free" in the above is not to do with money but the fact the landowner is free to apply for an access. In exercising this right then the landowner has to comply with all current legislation and pay for any works required to the existing highway. At the lower end of the scale a private individual has to pay for a dropped crossing if they wish to use part of their existing land as a driveway. Failure to do this can be very costly as detailed in the link below:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-524838/Cars-trapped-illegal-driveways-council-fits-bollards-middle-night.html


At the other end of the scale when a developer whose land adjoined an existing roundabout that was also an access to the motorway submitted initial planning permission the Highways Agency lodged an objection. The section was already very congested and based on the projected traffic figures the necessary alterations to the motorway and junctions were designed in draft and costed. The Highways Agency then agreed to withdraw their objection after the developer agreed to pay the sum of £53M for all the works required. In the end the developer reduced the scale of the proposed development and paid a smaller sum to the Highways Agency. Section 184 of the Highways Act places an obligation on the Highway Authority: the need to ensure, so far as practicable, safe access to and egress from premises. As above in Cusack's case this was not disputed it was a question of whether compensation was payable.

So having a right and exercising that right are two very different things.

I can see that the point of my post went whoosh, right over your head.

The purpose of the above cases was to prove that you have a right to access the highway from private land and that the right to use the highway is not just for traffic already on that highway.

Again you seem to be overlooking that your interpretation could result in an obstruction completely blocking access to all traffic on a highway yet as long as it was at the start of the highway (as before, its not just one big highway, its lots of connecting highways), they wouldn't be committing an offence. Which is patently absurd.