I understand that "Must/Must Not" in the Highway Code identify legal requirements. Not so sure on the "Do Not"'s.
The one in particular is:
218: DO NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it. etc.
Plod has been down our street putting warning notes under the windscreens of parkers with two wheels on the kerb. The note says don't do it and we are monitoring etc but doesn't identify the offence being committed.
Is there an offence being committed and, if so, what is the penalty? I should point out that the pavement is wide. Wide enough for my brother's double buggy to get past such parkers without a problem when his twins were toddlers.
|
"Obstructing the pedestrian carriageway" comes to mind
--
Terry
|
It is an offence to park on the pedestrian footway unless explicit permission is given. It must be some part of the Road Traffic Act. Ah, from
tinyurl.com/herrl
here is some authoritative information:
"Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence to obstruct a highway without lawful authority. The pedestrian footway is part of a highway. The police may issue a fixed penalty notice for such obstruction. However, in London, by virtue of section 8 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, authorised officers of borough councils and Transport for London are also empowered to issue a fixed penalty notice for the offence of obstruction under section 137 of the 1980 Act.
Section 15 of the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1974 makes it an offence to park a vehicle on footways and grass verges in London. This offence has been decriminalised under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 and, unless parking on the pavement has been specifically allowed at a particular location, London borough council parking attendants may issue a penalty charge notice where a vehicle is found parked on a pedestrian footway."
|
> Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 makes it an offence to obstruct a highway without lawful authority.
Isn't this the catch-all that makes parking on any road an offence, technically? It isn't in London, btw.
Either way, there is inconsistency here. If there is an attributable offence, the Highway Code would say "Must Not".
Or is it the case that it becomes an offence when the mother and pushchair or disabled person is diverted in to the road and subsequently hit?
I don't like parking on the pavement outside the house but we have 7ft of pavement cut to 6ft when the wheels are on the kerb. Balance this with the fact that when all cars are properly parked (in marked bays) the road becomes barely passable for two way traffic. I have witnessed the aftermath of one head on collision - fortunately without casualties - and too many wing mirrors/side swipes to mention.
|
>>Isn't this the catch-all that makes parking on any road an offence, technically? >>
No, there's a difference between parking correctly and causing an obstruction.
Parking in front of someone's driveway, for instance, is obstruction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
What concerns me most about parking on the pavement is damage to the pavement and to underground services. Outside one of my previous abodes parking on the pavement had caused a gas leak. Pavements aren't generally (except at properly constructed crossovers) sufficiently robust to withstand parking.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
Parking on a pavement is usually tolerated by the police provided that there is an uncovered width remaining of at least 1 metre.
--
L\'escargot.
|
My recollection is that "do not" and "must not" denote legal requirements; advice on good driving practice is offered as "should not".
Each of the phrases and its legal standing is defined in either the preface or an appendix to the code.
|
|
If the police consider you are causing an "obstruction",then you are.It's upto them.
|
|
|
My recollection is that "do not" and "must not" denote legal requirements; advice on good driving practice is offered as "should not".
The website www.highwaycode.gov.uk front page refers only to "must not", which is why I posted here.
Each of the phrases and its legal standing is defined in either the preface or an appendix to the code.
The rest are covered by :
"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to establish liability."
which I don't really understand. Does an accident have to occur first?
|
|
|
|
|
You're lucky you got a warning - park on the pavement in my manor and it's a fixed penalty ticket (complete with picture showing the offence).
I suspect that this is more to do with revenue collection than upholding highway regulations.
|
|
It reminds me of the "avoid alcohol" stricture on some prescriptions. I always interpret that to mean a little drop won't do any harm, but it would be better avoided if you can (which I usually can't).
|
|
|
|
£15,569was £15,751Details
£23,490was £23,990Details
£14,600was £14,800Details
£12,546was £12,864Details
