Could DVD Or Gone Explain This To A Simple MOP?
Discussion
bogush said:
1) Whoever had authoratively said that it was illegal to block someone in, but not out, was posting on another forum, then.
You can't block a driveway, whether there's somebody in it or not. 2 police have told you that, along with one lawyer and one road builder person (me). You don't believe us? Fair enough.
Yup, I was wrong and wrong again:
It was another forum:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=20927&m=211068&v=e
And I obviously totally misunderstood the post:
DVD said:
OBSTRUCTION OF A ROAD - VEHICLES
Road Vehicles (Con and Use) Regs, 1986 Reg 103.
No person i/c m/veh or trailer, shall cause or permit vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause unnecessary obstruction of the road.
Seemingly coming out onto the road from drive with vehicle parked across is obstruction whereas parked in same condition on trying to gain access is obstructing drive not road.
Plethora of case law as PU will confirm on what is and what isn’t with the yardstick defined in Nagy v Weston 1965: -
“Whilst there must be proof of unreasonable obstruction, whether or not use amounting to obstruction was or not unreasonable use was a question of fact depending on all the circumstances, including length of time obstruction continued, the place where it occurred, the purpose for which it was done and whether it caused an actual as opposed to a potential obstruction.”.....
My emphasis.
This may also be of relevance (though a few years old):
http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2001/11/16/emrlaw17.xml
From:
[url] dropped kerb.....they think they own...|www.petrolheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=105791&f=10&h=0 [/url]
From your antecedents elsewhere Bogush I am not going to get into a protracted discussion on this point to provide argument for arguments sake.
Nagy v Weston 1965 seems to sum up the law on this matter.
What may be obstruction to me may not necessary be so in your eyes which is why at the end of the day people in very high places with wigs give their decision.
It is noticeable in the newspaper report that it does state that there was no evidence of anyone being obstructed?
DVD
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Monday 21st June 07:02
Dwight VanDriver said:
From your antecedents elsewhere Bogush I am not going to get into a protracted discussion on this point to provide argument for arguments sake.
Sorry, I must be dumber than people think.
You've totally lost me DVD.
I'd assumed your post said that you could technically obstruct a road.
That this was not necessarily an offence.
And even if it was, whilst you could commit an offence of obstructing access to a road from a drive, you couldn't do the reverse.
Apparently a number of the police, legal and road experts here have decreed that my understanding is a load of utter and total b*ll*cks.
And, as you would expect from someone with my:
Dwight VanDriver said:
antecedents
I'd just like clarification.
On behalf of the original questioner who I might have mislead.
Feel free to withhold it if you so choose.
tvrgit said:
bogush...
bog off, there's a good lad.
I don't know what you are on about or why it matters so much to you to prove you're right, and everybody else is stupid, but it obviously does...
so ok I'm stupid
now please shut the **** up
Looks like I've been shot down in flames again.
It matters because if I am right (and I don't give a
about proving "I'm" right): At best someone who asked for information was misinformed.
At worst everyone is being misinformed about the law by people purporting to be experts.
You may want to live in a society where the public are kept in control by lies about the law.
You may want to live in a society where the uncivil "servants" do things like:
gone said:
If I was sent to a person who had left their car across a dropped kerb, whether there was a garage or not, the car would be removed at the owners expense. The perpetrator would also get a FPT for unecessary obstruction.
I hope for your sake you do not live in my patch
Without authority.
But when you actually need help they're too busy to give you a crime number, or even arrest you for doing the job you've paid them to do for you.
I don't.
And I would like to believe there's at least a small minority left who would agree with me.
gone said:
As for security model, GCHQ have nothing to do with it.
Funny that, I started to argue about something I know nothing about
I wonder if bogush/wildcat have similar thoughts occaionally when they spout about driving stuff?
Ibir Ito your superior knowledge.
"Spouting" about "driving stuff" ?!
Remind me, someone, where have I ever done that then?
All I do is ask people to clarify things for me.
Like above.
Now, why is no one prepared to helpfully clarify whether:
1) You can ticket someone for obstructing the highway by parking across an entrance to a driveway even if you are not obstructing anyone anywhere.
2) You can ticket someone for obstructing the highway by parking across an entrance to a driveway only if you are blocking the highway itself.
3) Ditto, or if you are blocking someone in the driveway (ie obstructing their access to the highway).
4) Ditto or if you are blocking someone out of the driveway (ie obstructing their access to the driveway).
5) (3) and (4).
6) None of the above.
Because, you see, not only do I lack the superior knowledge of the experts.
But what expert advice they have posted to date has baffled and confused poor little ol' me.
Of course, some might say the really big question is:
7) Why do experts get so upset when we without their superior knowledge ask them to enlighten us?
You'd think they'd be flattered!
Then again, it might just be me getting the wrong end of the stick again.
Bogush.
the road goes from hedge to hedge and includes verges and footpaths adjacent to it and bridges which it crosses.
If someone is parked across the lowered kerb in front of a drive, even though they appear to be blocking the footpath/verge only, it is still part of a road and therefore capable of being obstructed.
If I am called to such an incident, I will have the vehicle removed if I cannot easily find the driver and serve them with the required/necessary paperwork depending on the story as to why!
Hope that helps.
the road goes from hedge to hedge and includes verges and footpaths adjacent to it and bridges which it crosses.
If someone is parked across the lowered kerb in front of a drive, even though they appear to be blocking the footpath/verge only, it is still part of a road and therefore capable of being obstructed.
If I am called to such an incident, I will have the vehicle removed if I cannot easily find the driver and serve them with the required/necessary paperwork depending on the story as to why!
Hope that helps.
gone said:
Bogush.
the road goes from hedge to hedge and includes verges and footpaths adjacent to it and bridges which it crosses.
If someone is parked across the lowered kerb in front of a drive, even though they appear to be blocking the footpath/verge only, it is still part of a road and therefore capable of being obstructed.
If I am called to such an incident, I will have the vehicle removed if I cannot easily find the driver and serve them with the required/necessary paperwork depending on the story as to why!
Hope that helps.
Sorry, mate: maybe it's me?!
I'm even more confused now.
Let's start again.
DVD posted on another forum (link provided previously), as I understood it:
1) You can "obstruct" (flow along) the highway, but this is not necessarily an offense: you have to actually be obstructing someone (some vehicle?) trying to flow along the highway, and the circumstances have to be taken into account as well (how long the obstruction lasted/ severity/ un/reasonableness/ extenuating circumstances, etc).
2) You can (ie you are not allowed to) "obstruct" access to the highway (ie obstruct exit from a driveway).
3) You cannot "obstruct" (ie it is not and offence to) block access to a driveway (ie exit off the highway.
NB This is my understanding of what I assumed the law to say after reading his post, not his actual words or even a paraphrasing of them.
I have once before seen it put as blocking someone into their drive is the equivalent of kidnap/false imprisonment/etc. But "temporarily" preventing access to your property is no crime (cf "theft" of a motor vehicle by a joyrider not being a crime).
However, I have seen this question come up several times on several fora, without an "authoratative" answer until I saw DVD's.
It has been raised again here (having been raised, but not, I believe, answered adequately, here in the past).
I'm afraid your answers have merely served to confuse me further.
You refer to the road extending from hedge to hedge:
Are you, therefore refering to vehicles parked on the verge/pavement/part on the kerb (coincidentally) in line with a driveway?
Are you saying that you use a law which is supposed to address the obstruction of flow "on" (ie along) the "highway" to remove obstructions of flow along a pavemement (and co-incidentally ublock a drive)?
It doesn't help for you to descibe how you use a law when someone wants to know what the law is.
This all might seem like nit-picking.
But it doesn't help to define where exactly the fine line between legal and illegal lies for you to say that if someone parks in a car park a mile away you aren't bothered, but if they do a handbrake turn into someone's drive and sandwich their kid between your car and theirs you will throw the book at them.
bogush said:
Sorry, mate: maybe it's me?!
I'm even more confused now.
Let's start again.
I will certainly try!
bogush said:
DVD posted on another forum (link provided previously), as I understood it:
1) You can "obstruct" (flow along) the highway, but this is not necessarily an offense: you have to actually be obstructing someone (some vehicle?) trying to flow along the highway, and the circumstances have to be taken into account as well (how long the obstruction lasted/ severity/ un/reasonableness/ extenuating circumstances, etc).
2) You can (ie you are not allowed to) "obstruct" access to the highway (ie obstruct exit from a driveway).
3) You cannot "obstruct" (ie it is not and offence to) block access to a driveway (ie exit off the highway.
NB This is my understanding of what I assumed the law to say after reading his post, not his actual words or even a paraphrasing of them.
There lies the problem. Your understanding is different from that of someone else who may also interpret it in an alternative way.
DVD posted the 'nuts and bolts' of the act in relation to obstructing the highway, that is all as I understand it.
bogush said:
I have once before seen it put as blocking someone into their drive is the equivalent of kidnap/false imprisonment/etc.
I don't think that would be anything like kidnap/false imprisonment as it only prevents you from accessing a road with your car. It would not stop you walking around it.
bogush said:
But "temporarily" preventing access to your property is no crime (cf "theft" of a motor vehicle by a joyrider not being a crime).
I think you will find that they are both covered by the criminal law. Blocking someones driove is not a recordable criminal offence but still counts as criminal. TWOC most definately is a recordable crime.
bogush said:
However, I have seen this question come up several times on several fora, without an "authoratative" answer until I saw DVD's.
DVD is spot on with his information. You will not get better stuff than from him unless you pay thousands for it through a specialist lawyer!
bogush said:
It has been raised again here (having been raised, but not, I believe, answered adequately, here in the past).
I think DVD has done so quite well.
bogush said:
I'm afraid your answers have merely served to confuse me further.
That wasn't the intention at all.
bogush said:
You refer to the road extending from hedge to hedge:
definition of road under Sect 192(1)RTA 1988
....any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes....
Generally a road stretches to the boundary fences or grass verges adjacent to it, including any pavements. Case law is (Worth v Brooks [1959]Crim LR 855)
If a vehicle is partly on a road and partly on some other privately owned land it can be treated as being on a road for the purposes of Road Traffic Legislation.
(Randall v Motor Insurers Bureau [1969] 1 All ER 21)
bogush said:
Are you, therefore refering to vehicles parked on the verge/pavement/part on the kerb (coincidentally) in line with a driveway?
See above.
bogush said:
Are you saying that you use a law which is supposed to address the obstruction of flow "on" (ie along) the "highway" to remove obstructions of flow along a pavemement (and co-incidentally ublock a drive)?
Yes.
bogush said:
It doesn't help for you to descibe how you use a law when someone wants to know what the law is.
I can only try to explain and hope it makes sense. Sometimes it will not at all but I only try to show how it can be and very often is used.
bogush said:
This all might seem like nit-picking.
bogush said:
But it doesn't help to define where exactly the fine line between legal and illegal lies for you to say that if someone parks in a car park a mile away you aren't bothered, but if they do a handbrake turn into someone's drive and sandwich their kid between your car and theirs you will throw the book at them.
I don't quite see what that has to do with any of this previous post.
There are 3 offences of obstruction
1 = Obstruction of the Highway- Highways Act 1980, Sect 137 Power of arrest under Sect 25 PACE general conditions of arrest.
states If a person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence...
2 = Obstruction on a road - Road Vehicles Construction and use regs 1986, Reg 103
states 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.
3 = Obstruction of Street -Town Policce Clauses Act 1847 Sect 28
states Every person who in any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, ....wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfare...
So you can see that there are many different hats which could fit someone blocking a driveway.
What amounts to an obstruction is a question of fact for a Magistrate to decide in each case Wade v Grange[1977] RTR 417; also DPP v Jones (Margaret) [1999] 2 WLR 625)
So that concludes that whether you understand the law personally or not, someone sitting in judgement may interpret it differently to yourself, the Police officer who instigated the prosecution and the complainant/offender in each case.
That is why we have courts and why there is so much case law.
In a situation where I am called to a blocked driveway, I will try to find the driver of the offending vehicle and have it moved, failing that a removal at their expense and possible court appearence may follow. If it does, then the Magistrate will be the person who has to decide on whether that decision was the right one by myself.
gone said:
There are 3 offences of obstruction
1 = Obstruction of the Highway- Highways Act 1980, Sect 137 Power of arrest under Sect 25 PACE general conditions of arrest.
states If a person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence...
So you are saying under (1) that someone parking across a drive is not guilty of an offence because they are not obstructing the free passage along a highway.
gone said:
2 = Obstruction on a road - Road Vehicles Construction and use regs 1986, Reg 103
states 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.
Ditto if a road is the same as the highway above for going along.
gone said:
3 = Obstruction of Street -Town Policce Clauses Act 1847 Sect 28
states Every person who in any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, ....wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfare...
More questions I'm afraid:
Does this refer to vehicles or pedestrians?
What is a public crossing?
Is a crossover to a drive a public thoroughfare?
I'm afraid I still am not clear that:
gone said:
So you can see that there are many different hats which could fit someone blocking a driveway.
Though I think I'm clearer now that you seem to be saying that the original questioner who had nowhere else to park except across a driveway was not committing an offence if he was not actually obstructing someone.
Or am I still confused?
Or, as I said at the start of this thread (and intimated in the other:
DVD said:
OBSTRUCTION OF A ROAD - VEHICLES
Road Vehicles (Con and Use) Regs, 1986 Reg 103.
No person i/c m/veh or trailer, shall cause or permit vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause unnecessary obstruction of the road.
Seemingly coming out onto the road from drive with vehicle parked across is obstruction whereas parked in same condition on trying to gain access is obstructing drive not road.
Plethora of case law as PU will confirm on what is and what isn’t with the yardstick defined in Nagy v Weston 1965: -
“Whilst there must be proof of unreasonable obstruction, whether or not use amounting to obstruction was or not unreasonable use was a question of fact depending on all the circumstances, including length of time obstruction continued, the place where it occurred, the purpose for which it was done and whether it caused an actual as opposed to a potential obstruction.”.....
bogush said:
There are 3 offences of obstruction
1 = Obstruction of the Highway- Highways Act 1980, Sect 137 Power of arrest under Sect 25 PACE general conditions of arrest.
states If a person without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence...
So you are saying under (1) that someone parking across a drive is not guilty of an offence because they are not obstructing the free passage along a highway.
I would argue that to obstruct the person from entering the highway means that he/she would be unable to have free passage along it. So I would use this one to start with if someone could not get off their driveway and onto the road.
bogush said:
2 = Obstruction on a road - Road Vehicles Construction and use regs 1986, Reg 103
states 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.
Ditto if a road is the same as the highway above for going along.
Highway and Road have different definitions.
You already have the definition of a road
Highway = A way over which the public has a right to pass and re-pass by foot, horse or vehicle, or with animals (Lang v Hindhaugh [1986]RTR 271)
For a highway to exist there must be some form of 'dedication' of the relevant land to the public and, once so dedicated, it is unlikely that the public status of Highway can be changed.
Unlike a road, a highway does not cease to be such when it is temporarily roped off or closed!
bogush said:
3 = Obstruction of Street -Town Policce Clauses Act 1847 Sect 28
states Every person who in any street, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers, ....wilfully interrupts any public crossing, or wilfully causes any obstruction in any public footpath or other public thoroughfare...
More questions I'm afraid:
bogush said:
Does this refer to vehicles or pedestrians?
as it says, EVERYONE (vehicle, pedestrain, wheelbarrow, market stall!)
bogush said:
What is a public crossing?
as it suggests, a crossing of a road/highway such as somewhere a path meets the road and has to traverse it to regain the path on the other side.
bogush said:
Is a crossover to a drive a public thoroughfare?
Yes.
bogush said:
I'm afraid I still am not clear that:
I am intrigued as to why you need to be so clear on such a tedious subject as obstruction and dropped kerbs?
bogush said:
Though I think I'm clearer now that you seem to be saying that the original questioner who had nowhere else to park except across a driveway was not committing an offence if he was not actually obstructing someone.
Or am I still confused?
I hope this will clear it up for you.
You do not commit an offence by parking across a dropped kerb of a driveway until someone is inconvenienced by that fact. If no one is being obstructed then there is no offence. When a complaint comes in, the offence is complete.
In fact you do not commit any offence of obstruction if no one is obstructed!
bogush said:
Or, as I said at the start of this thread (and intimated in the other:
DVD said:
OBSTRUCTION OF A ROAD - VEHICLES
Road Vehicles (Con and Use) Regs, 1986 Reg 103.
No person i/c m/veh or trailer, shall cause or permit vehicle to stand on a road so as to cause unnecessary obstruction of the road.
Seemingly coming out onto the road from drive with vehicle parked across is obstruction whereas parked in same condition on trying to gain access is obstructing drive not road.
Plethora of case law as PU will confirm on what is and what isn’t with the yardstick defined in Nagy v Weston 1965: -
“Whilst there must be proof of unreasonable obstruction, whether or not use amounting to obstruction was or not unreasonable use was a question of fact depending on all the circumstances, including length of time obstruction continued, the place where it occurred, the purpose for which it was done and whether it caused an actual as opposed to a potential obstruction.”.....
Thats correct under this particular Act and Section.
Put a different hat on it and you still have an offence if you want to get on the drive from the road!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff