Driveway

RichardD1970

[quote=[Deleted User];75880756]What the HC actually says (Rule 243) is

"DO NOT stop or park ... in front of an entrance to a property", i.e. whether or not there is a dropped kerb.


It also says "DO NOT stop or park ... where the kerb has been lowered to help wheelchair users and powered mobility vehicles", which does not seem to apply in the OP's case.[/QUOTE]

OK, thanks, but does "DO NOT" carry the same weight and have the same legislative backing of "MUST NOT"?

a.turner

RichardD1970 wrote: »

OK, thanks, but does "DO NOT" carry the same weight and have the same legislative backing of "MUST NOT"?

Try it in court then.

DoaM

Given that Richard is not the OP, why would he even want to? It's a request for clarification - if you don't know, don't bother making inane comments.

Car_54

RichardD1970 wrote: »

OK, thanks, but does "DO NOT" carry the same weight and have the same legislative backing of "MUST NOT"?

Have you never read the HC?

unholyangel

RichardD1970 wrote: »

OK, thanks, but does "DO NOT" carry the same weight and have the same legislative backing of "MUST NOT"?

Strictly speaking the must nots are explicitly laid out in statute. The rest can be used to prove other offences - such as careless or dangerous driving.

However, in this case there is an additional element. That its an offence to obstruct free passage along the road. That includes pavements and verges.

So an offence to block another car in, but not if theres no car there, as its only a criminal offence to obstruct access to the highway, not to private property. If OP's unlucky, his neighbours will know this and know they can safely antagonise him for an extended period of time.

RichardD1970

[quote=[Deleted User];75882937]Have you never read the HC?[/QUOTE]

Yes 🙄, I was just asking for clarification, from the obvious expert 🙄, on whether "DO NOT" is backed up by legislation the same way as "MUST NOT" is because a "MUST NOT" rule always has a link to the relevant legislation but the "DO NOT" doesn't.

Thanks to unholyangel for the sensible answer which is in line with my understanding.

a.turner

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Yes 🙄, I was just asking for clarification, from the obvious expert 🙄, on whether "DO NOT" is backed up by legislation the same way as "MUST NOT" is because a "MUST NOT" rule always has a link to the relevant legislation but the "DO NOT" doesn't.

Thanks to unholyangel for the sensible answer which is in line with my understanding.

But not 100% correct.

RichardD1970

a.turner wrote: »

But is it wrong?

You appear to be the expert, you tell us. :T

a.turner

RichardD1970 wrote: »

You appear to be the expert, you tell us. :T

If you hold a full licence you shouldn't need telling.

unholyangel

a.turner wrote: »

If you hold a full licence you shouldn't need telling.

Does having a driving licence mean you had to know every single nuance of every single rule? Or that you're a perfect driver?

Or does it simply mean you've demonstrated enough to be allowed to drive unsupervised?

Given how many mistakes are allowed on the driving tests, I'd have to go with the latter of the 3.