blocking driveway

Nearly_Old

unholyangel wrote: »

I can see that the point of my post went whoosh, right over your head. No it didn't and I answered, the right to access always has to comply with the applicable laws in force at the time the access wants to be taken. If the costruction (or use) of an access cannot be achieved within the applicable laws then the right to construct (or use) will be refused. The right to access exists but it is not always possible to enforce this right.

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. - but 103 is ONLY concerned with traffic already on the road having the right of free passage.

Again you seem to be overlooking that your interpretation could result in an obstruction completely blocking access to all traffic on a highway - If there was an obstruction blocking all traffic at any point on the highway then that could be an offence under Regulation 103, but not if say the blockage was caused by a serious accident.

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. - yes they could be committing an offence if they were blocking the highway completely. If someone left a broken down vehicle on the exit of a roundabout which in effect is the start of a section of road within the highway network and it was causing serious congestion then there would IMO be a clear offence under 103 as it would obstructing traffic passing on the highway.

Which is patently absurd

.

103 is solely concerned with free passing and re-passing along the road (or highway depending which version appears on Google). It is a short regulation that leaves no room for interpretation and all case law to date concerns vehicles travelling on the road being obstructed.

The OP's car is either on the drive or if moved forward on the footway. The footway is part of the highway but vehicles are not allowed to travel along the footway but only to cross the footway to reach the dropped crossing.

If the OP has a dropped crossing and lives in a special enforcement area then the remedy is Section 86 and the local council enforcement section.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

103 is solely concerned with free passing and re-passing along the road (or highway depending which version appears on Google). It is a short regulation that leaves no room for interpretation and all case law to date concerns vehicles travelling on the road being obstructed.

The OP's car is either on the drive or if moved forward on the footway. The footway is part of the highway but vehicles are not allowed to travel along the footway but only to cross the footway to reach the dropped crossing.

If the OP has a dropped crossing and lives in a special enforcement area then the remedy is Section 86 and the local council enforcement section.

That sums it up, you're googling and choosing what fits your straw man argument.

Read Section 103 of the Construction and Use Regs 1986.

The show us where it states free passage of the road.

And don't be using any case law that predates the legislation.

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

That sums it up, you're googling and choosing what fits your straw man argument.

Read Section 103 of the Construction and Use Regs 1986.

The show us where it states free passage of the road.

And don't be using any case law that predates the legislation.

Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 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.

"road"
rəʊd/
noun
noun: road; plural noun: roads; plural noun: Roads
1.
a wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use.

Reading it then 103 falls down as a "road" cannot itself be obstructed as it is an fixed object.

AndyMc.....

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Regulation 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 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.

"road"
rəʊd/
noun
noun: road; plural noun: roads; plural noun: Roads
1.
a wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use.

Reading it then 103 falls down as a "road" cannot itself be obstructed as it is an fixed object.

But you agree it doesn’t require a sepearate order, bylaw or special condition to be an offence.

Nearly_Old

AndyMc..... wrote: »

But you agree it doesn’t require a sepearate order, bylaw or special condition to be an offence.

Technically as 103 itself has not yet been amended then I suppose it is possible that an offence could be committed. However as the application of 103 has effectively been re-defined by various appeal and other judgements then there is very little likelihood of actually being prosecuted.

The CPS now appears to use the Highways Act and Town and Country Planning Acts for obstructions, parking, etc as these are safer options. It also looks as if many previous convictions made using 103 have subsequently been overturned.