Offence code 1909
Discussion
I've just recieved a fixed penalty notice for offence code 1909 - for 'driving on the footpath'. I was only parked on the pavement in North Wales along with dozens of other cars as it safer to park on the pavement. Is this fair? cos I wasn't actually caught driving on the footpath and it seems to me to be another money raiser for the North Wales constabulary.
Also what exactly is offence 1909?
Any thoughts appreciated
JS
Also what exactly is offence 1909?
Any thoughts appreciated
JS
Stop mumping. You used the pavement through choice and you know you shouldn't. Leave it for pedestrians, wheelchairs, and the blind - who when they find some inconsiderate sod like you, can't choose to use the pavement, but must use the road. A fine here isn't cash generating, it's law enforcement. At least the offence is non-endorsable.
Speeding attracts some sympathy because in itself there is no victim, and if combined with poor driving, the usual victim is the speeder. Yours is plain self-fishness, causing inconvenience to everybody else cos you can't be arsed. Then again, you probably here this all the time when you take up disabled spaces in car parks.
>> Edited by bobthebench on Monday 17th February 02:00
Speeding attracts some sympathy because in itself there is no victim, and if combined with poor driving, the usual victim is the speeder. Yours is plain self-fishness, causing inconvenience to everybody else cos you can't be arsed. Then again, you probably here this all the time when you take up disabled spaces in car parks.
>> Edited by bobthebench on Monday 17th February 02:00
bobthebench said: Stop mumping. You used the pavement through choice and you know you shouldn't. Leave it for pedestrians, wheelchairs, and the blind - who when they find some inconsiderate sod like you, can't choose to use the pavement, but must use the road. A fine here isn't cash generating, it's law enforcement. At least the offence is non-endorsable.
Speeding attracts some sympathy because in itself there is no victim, and if combined with poor driving, the usual victim is the speeder. Yours is plain self-fishness, causing inconvenience to everybody else cos you can't be arsed. Then again, you probably here this all the time when you take up disabled spaces in car parks.
>> Edited by bobthebench on Monday 17th February 02:00
Bod How you know he hasent got a orange badge/oh yea blue now.
Having been done for driving on a footpath back in 1976. (Actually crossing it to get to a private piece of land), I should be sympathetic. But Bob you are completely correct in this instance (at least as it appears on the original post). the footways are for pedestrians. Used to see people parking on the footway infront of my old house, there was a blind girl used to come up the street had my fullest sympathy!!
To say it is safer to park on the footway is extremely selfish!!
To say it is safer to park on the footway is extremely selfish!!
I disagree. How can you say that without having seen the footpath in question?
Tony Hall said: To say it is safer to park on the footway is extremely selfish!!
I have seen some roads where the footpath is almost as wide as the road, where if you actually parked on the road, you would heavily impede the flow of traffic, and add a fair amount of danger to the drivers/pedestrians.
While I don't condone blocking the footpath for pram/wheelchair users, I think a fair amount of commonsense is required here, as frequently parking on the footpath is the safe option.
Nothings ever black and white of course, but I tend not to have too much sympathy for pavement parkers. Neighbour of mine does it routinely, and has caused significant damage to the pavement as a result, and it had to be resurfaced. I doubt he had to pay for it, but he should have; I object to my taxes being used to repair damage caused by one individuals selfishness.
Pretty well everyone else on the road has widened their driveways to cope with the obligatory 2 cars, but not this chump. Why go to the expense when the council provides a perfectly adequate pavement to park on?
Pretty well everyone else on the road has widened their driveways to cope with the obligatory 2 cars, but not this chump. Why go to the expense when the council provides a perfectly adequate pavement to park on?
I generally have little sympathy as I agree that pavements are for pedestrians not cars. However, local councils should be forced to make sure that all roads are wide enough to park cars on OR have double yellows. Too many modern housing estates have such narrow and curvy roads that you cannot easily park a car on them and not affect traffic.
icamm said: I generally have little sympathy as I agree that pavements are for pedestrians not cars. However, local councils should be forced to make sure that all roads are wide enough to park cars on OR have double yellows. Too many modern housing estates have such narrow and curvy roads that you cannot easily park a car on them and not affect traffic.
I had this problem as well, at my flat in central London EC1 the only parking was a narrow lane outside. If you did not park on the pavement you would block the road.
I just got a warning from a parking attendant.
I blame the council.
Deester...
Hi icamm. Working as I do for a Consulting Engineer, I have to "engineer up" (ie make things fit the land available and do the drainage and setting out) Architects housing layouts. The architects are being led down a path by the Council Planners; a route which is trying to exclude cars and vehicle ownership.
Whereas once councils asked for at least 2 parking spaces sometimes including garage sometimes as well as a garage per dwelling + 1 visitor space per 3 dwellings, now, on one large development I have been working on, the planners have actually asked for gates to preclude the parking of a second car. Most properties have a garage and no extra parking. There are no visitor spaces and front gardens are minimal.
The "idea" is to push residents to public transport or I believe they were offering cheap bicycles.
Now most people still have the mindset that they need 2 cars so the second will be parked on the mews court fronting the house. So will the first car if the garage is full of the usual clutter. Now in the old days there was to be a minimum of 21m front to front on a new house. Not anymore, houses are being squeezed closer together (John Prescott's PP3 document). Result houses so close together that the only thing stopping your neighbour looking into your front room is the car parked in front of it!
Whereas once councils asked for at least 2 parking spaces sometimes including garage sometimes as well as a garage per dwelling + 1 visitor space per 3 dwellings, now, on one large development I have been working on, the planners have actually asked for gates to preclude the parking of a second car. Most properties have a garage and no extra parking. There are no visitor spaces and front gardens are minimal.
The "idea" is to push residents to public transport or I believe they were offering cheap bicycles.
Now most people still have the mindset that they need 2 cars so the second will be parked on the mews court fronting the house. So will the first car if the garage is full of the usual clutter. Now in the old days there was to be a minimum of 21m front to front on a new house. Not anymore, houses are being squeezed closer together (John Prescott's PP3 document). Result houses so close together that the only thing stopping your neighbour looking into your front room is the car parked in front of it!
PDV6. No that is a dedicated crossing point, assuming you have the necessary dropped kerbs or whatever.
I, and a few mates used to park on this piece of concrete, fronting the shops in Tynemouth, when we went to the pub of an evening. Used to cross the footway to get to it. local dignitory (i believe) wanted us off cos it was making the place look untidy.
We were stopped by police as we crossed the path to get back to the road. The guy at the back was a friend of the copper that was doing us and got warned to reverse off, into the back lane. (difficult to describe without picture.) He got away with it we got done. Me £5 on friday, a mate £10 on the following Monday. justice eh!
I, and a few mates used to park on this piece of concrete, fronting the shops in Tynemouth, when we went to the pub of an evening. Used to cross the footway to get to it. local dignitory (i believe) wanted us off cos it was making the place look untidy.
We were stopped by police as we crossed the path to get back to the road. The guy at the back was a friend of the copper that was doing us and got warned to reverse off, into the back lane. (difficult to describe without picture.) He got away with it we got done. Me £5 on friday, a mate £10 on the following Monday. justice eh!
I'll explain the senario a little better. It was the middle of the country side. The offical car park was full (except of cource for the disabled bay), the next nearest carpark is about 5 miles away and all of the laybys were full. It was possible to park on the road but it would have caused an obstruction and in my opinion would have been dangerous, so we, along with dozens of other cars parked on the really wide pavement and we all got tickets. It just seemed to me to be a good revenue earner and to piss of lots of much needed visitors to a deprived area of the country.
It wasn't in Snowdonia National Park was it ? there are some crazies in the Park Council (?) who have decided to try to ban the car from there - see www.abd.org.uk for links
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff