Am I right that I will never get a dropped kerb approved here?

Bookworm105

Albermarle said:

If you do not have a dropped kerb, you must not drive over the pavement. If you do so, you are breaking the law* and enforcement action could be taken to prevent this. Furthermore:   You may become liable for a collision with a pedestrian

Not sure how having a dropped kerb would decrease the chance of hitting a pedestrian. Probably increase it as you may be going faster if there is no kerb to slow you down.

semantics
a pedestrian may expect a car to turn in across a drop kerb and would therefore be "more" aware themselves when walking on the pavement "across" the drop kerb section of the pavement.

a pedestrian would not expect a car to turn in, mount the kerb, and run them over on the pavement

RHemmings

Section62 said:

RHemmings said:

....
Off to have a more careful look at that law. EDIT: It does not look so clear. My reading of the law (I am not a judge) says that there must have been a notice issued under section 1(b) of the law before it becomes illegal to drive over the curb. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/184
....

Correct. Enforcement under S184(17) is limited to contravention of a condition imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b).  It follows that if no valid notice has been served then no offence has occurred.  That doesn't stop some councils frequently claiming otherwise though.

However, it still isn't illegal to drive over the kerb, unless the notice states that as a condition. And the conditions imposed by a notice under S184(1)(b) have to be 'reasonable' - which it could be argued a total ban on vehicles crossing the kerb/footway is not.

For that ris poor on their part, they should be clear about the basis of their powers if they are threatening fines).

There's no general requirement for there to be a "lawfully constructed dropped kerb" for access to be lawful.

If it's correct, and Leicester don't have their own act which it seems they don't as they quote the act above, then why do they say it's illegal? Note: this is a straightforward question not a rhetorical one. This seems rather mysterious to me. 

user1977

Bookworm105 said:

Albermarle said:

If you do not have a dropped kerb, you must not drive over the pavement. If you do so, you are breaking the law* and enforcement action could be taken to prevent this. Furthermore:   You may become liable for a collision with a pedestrian

Not sure how having a dropped kerb would decrease the chance of hitting a pedestrian. Probably increase it as you may be going faster if there is no kerb to slow you down.

semantics
a pedestrian may expect a car to turn in across a drop kerb and would therefore be "more" aware themselves when walking on the pavement "across" the drop kerb section of the pavement.

a pedestrian would not expect a car to turn in, mount the kerb, and run them over on the pavement

That's not what it says anyway, it says you "may become liable" for hitting a pedestrian. You'd be expected to give priority to pedestrians anyway whether or not there's a drop kerb.

theoretica

I wouldn't expect the utility covers to prevent permission for a dropped kerb - but they might significantly increase the cost of putting one in if they need to be lowered or strengthened, or the whole area strengthened.  If it is regularly driven over without a dropped kerb and damaged I hope the homeowner would face the cost of repairs.

DiamondLil

This is how our council treats "unlawful" driveways.

Albermarle

Bookworm105 said:

Albermarle said:

If you do not have a dropped kerb, you must not drive over the pavement. If you do so, you are breaking the law* and enforcement action could be taken to prevent this. Furthermore:   You may become liable for a collision with a pedestrian

Not sure how having a dropped kerb would decrease the chance of hitting a pedestrian. Probably increase it as you may be going faster if there is no kerb to slow you down.

semantics
a pedestrian may expect a car to turn in across a drop kerb and would therefore be "more" aware themselves when walking on the pavement "across" the drop kerb section of the pavement.

a pedestrian would not expect a car to turn in, mount the kerb, and run them over on the pavement

Although in our street, many people are staring at their mobile phone or have headphones on. So would probably be unaware of any vehicle in either case.

Eldi_Dos

DiamondLil said:

This is how our council treats "unlawful" driveways.

Do you know if your council makes a charge for installing the bollards or is the cost covered by public funds.

Eldi_Dos

@BagelLuvver
                         Read up on rules regarding fire hydrant access before deciding if it is worthwhile applying.

The other utilities will make it more expensive, the telecom cover would need to be swapped from a footway cover to a carriageway cover.

DiamondLil

Eldi_Dos said:

DiamondLil said:

This is how our council treats "unlawful" driveways.

Do you know if your council makes a charge for installing the bollards or is the cost covered by public funds.

Sorry no, I don't know.  I wouldn't put it past them to make a charge though. And they are pretty selective when it comes to deciding which properties to do this to - two sets of traffic lights away and almost the entire street has cars parked on the frontage of properties, no dropped kerbs, and not a bollard in sight.

BagelLuvver

I can't believe these bollard pics. I've never seen that. My council doesn't do that. But they are very anti-car so maybe this is the future.