Tractor pushes parked cars out of the way

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

irocfan said:

JimSuperSix said:

Semantic waffle. You can legally park on roads where there no double yellows or other restrictions. As half of these people probably had. And the only people with the legal right to push them aside would be emergency services on a call or suchlike.

So answer this - do you think the cars that arrived first and parked neatly on one side leaving plenty of space deserved to have their cars damaged?

are you seriously suggesting that every single road where you should really park has yellow lines painted on them or signage every 1/2 mile for the terminally stupid?

note the words you conveniently missed - "or other restrictions"....

So - double yellows and regular signage apart - what restrictions would you suggest were appropriate for a road like this, far from atypical in the area in question - or, indeed, around here...?

Was that the narrowest country road pic you could find?

That's utterly typical of a lot of places, you clueless townie.

This is Google streetview's car parked at the bottom of my drive...

JimSuperSix said:

And seeing as that road doesn't resemble the one they parked on, it's irrelevant.

Let me just remind you of your own words...

JimSuperSix said:

Semantic waffle. You can legally park on roads where there no double yellows or other restrictions.

So what "restrictions" (your word) should be in place there?

And please don't embarrass yourself by pointing to the cones. Next door put them there whilst working on that wall. They aren't there normally.

I covered it already , you can check my previous post on page 87 at 18:58 -

"Well if any parked vehicle is classed as obstructing the highway then it's utterly irrelevant to the argument as it's not illegal so long as it doesn't fall foul of certain conditions (such as those about parking restrictions and rules in the highway code) and is also unavoidable for millions of people all over the country who legally and responsibly park their cars on the road every day."

Note I mentioned parking restrictions AND the rules in the highway code. Therefore your rather silly question has already been answered - you can't park on that road as you would be breaking quite a few rules in the highway code, such as "anywhere you would prevent access for Emergency Services".

However, seeing as the road these people parked on had more than enough room for 1 row of parked cars , and only marginally not enough for 2 rows, your point remains irrelevant.

BTW did you reply about your hypocrisy from the fags thread yet? Ah no, you didn't did you

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

This seems to be the crux of singlecoils so-called argument - it seems he thinks any vehicle parked on the road is obstucting it

Indeed it is, and if you had been reading the thread with care you would have noted the truth of it from a judgment by Lord Parker

Red Devil said:

"Parking for five hours on a grass verge was held to cause an unnecessary obstruction in Worth v Brooks [1959] Crim. L.R. 885.
In Seekings v Clarke (1961) 59 L.G. 268 Lord Parker CJ said:
‘It is perfectly clear that anything which substantially prevents the public from having free access over the whole of the highway which is not purely temporary in nature is an unlawful obstruction’
I wouldn't class leaving vehicles badly parked for many hours as 'purely temporary'.

JimSuperSix said:

and is therefore fair game to damage...

Is just a piece of nonsense that you have made up.

So your entire point is that any vehicle parked on the road is technically classed as obstructing? You don't have any views on the actions of the farmer and the damage caused and suchlike, which was the main point of this thread?

[anonymous-user]

Mr2Mike said:

JimSuperSix said:

Was that the narrowest country road pic you could find?
And seeing as that road doesn't resemble the one they parked on, it's irrelevant.

According to your argument it would be perfectly legal to leave a car parked on this road as there are no yellow lines or signs prohibiting this. Do you continue to support this argument?

I feel compelled to add the since you appear to believe it means the argument preceding it is irrefutable.

See the answer to 2cvs above.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

JimSuperSix said:

So your entire point is that any vehicle parked on the road is technically classed as obstructing? You don't have any views on the actions of the farmer and the damage caused and suchlike, which was the main point of this thread?

My point is not only is it technically classed as obstruction, in this case it was physically obstruction.

It's not up to you to decide what the point of the thread is.

However, my view is that the farmer had no choice, no way of getting the cars moved within a reasonable timescale and acted with fairness is sharing the damage equally with the cars on both sides as he had no way of knowing who parked there first.

He obviously had choices, another poster described the best and sensible choice of action above.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

However, seeing as the road these people parked on had more than enough room for 1 row of parked cars , and only marginally not enough for 2 rows, your point remains irrelevant.

Exactly. There was not space to park as people did, and allow a perfectly legal-sized vehicle free passage.

I'm not quite sure what other definition of obstruction you're after.

Yes there was, but only on one side of the road. Hence 50% of the people being innocent of any wrong doing, whereas the farmer is entirely guilty of quite a lot.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

Yes there was, but only on one side of the road. Hence 50% of the people being innocent of any wrong doing, whereas the farmer is entirely guilty of quite a lot.

The police haven't charged any of the parked cars with anything, have they?

But we're getting away from the subject in hand, which was your assertion that all roads need to have double yellows or other restrictions, else they're fair game to park on.

As someone else said, the fact that police can't be arsed to prosecute doesn't make the farmers actions right.
Your Q about parking on roads with no restrictions was answered above.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

Yes there was, but only on one side of the road. Hence 50% of the people being innocent of any wrong doing, whereas the farmer is entirely guilty of quite a lot.

Go back to the start of the thread and look at the pcture of the Skoda and BMW. You will see that both cars had wheels on the tarmac. The tarmac is a single track and the fact that one car had wheels on it means that a narrow road was reduced in width, then add another driver parking their car opposite also with a wheel on the tarmac means quite obviously that the road was severely narrowed by a pair of selfish individuals.

Once again, the people who were to blame took the brunt of the damage. In an ideal world the cars wouldn't have been on the road and the farmer could have taken his legal tractor and trailer along their minding his own business and got his sheep where they needed to be, but this wasn't the case. You still haven't come up with any alternative for the farmer when he has to keep to animal movement regulations never mind the practicalities of day.

Was yours the BMW?

Plenty of people including me have come up with plenty of alternatives to damaging other peoples property, so no matter how many times you claim there were no alternatives , you remain wrong.

[anonymous-user]

Mr2Mike said:

JimSuperSix said:

See the answer to 2cvs above.

You didn't give 2CVs an answer, just a load of evasive twaddle.

Do you believe you are entitled to park anywhere you want provided there are no yellow lines or signs to restrict parking? When you leave your car, do you ever consider if your parking has inconvenienced other people?

Funny isn't it, that 2cvs hasn't addressed the issue of his hypocrisy either...seeing as he's normally so quick with a come-back I wonder why he can't invent a situation that doesn't reveal him as a massive hypocrit?

As I've said, yellow lines and no other parking restrictions, highway code included. Not just yellow lines and signs. If there are no restrictions imposed by the law, you can park there.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

Funny isn't it, that 2cvs hasn't addressed the issue of his hypocrisy either...seeing as he's normally so quick with a come-back I wonder why he can't invent a situation that doesn't reveal him as a massive hypocrit?

As I've said, yellow lines and no other parking restrictions, highway code included. Not just yellow lines and signs. If there are no restrictions imposed by the law, you can park there.

You can't park there if you're causing an obstruction, even plain old common sense sees to that.

The cars were clearly causing an obstruction on a dead end road that leads to a farm when a perfectly legal farm tractor and trailer couldn't use get past. If there is no parking restrictions outside you house, would you like me to park my Claas Lexion 660 (large combine harvester on the biggest chassis they do) outside, she's a big old girl and takes up a fair bit of room, in your world it will be perfectly ok and we could do with some space in the buildings.

If you parked your vehicle outside my house and blocked my car in, whether you parked legally or blocked the road, would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

Yes there was, but only on one side of the road. Hence 50% of the people being innocent of any wrong doing, whereas the farmer is entirely guilty of quite a lot.

Go back to the start of the thread and look at the pcture of the Skoda and BMW. You will see that both cars had wheels on the tarmac. The tarmac is a single track and the fact that one car had wheels on it means that a narrow road was reduced in width, then add another driver parking their car opposite also with a wheel on the tarmac means quite obviously that the road was severely narrowed by a pair of selfish individuals.

Once again, the people who were to blame took the brunt of the damage. In an ideal world the cars wouldn't have been on the road and the farmer could have taken his legal tractor and trailer along their minding his own business and got his sheep where they needed to be, but this wasn't the case. You still haven't come up with any alternative for the farmer when he has to keep to animal movement regulations never mind the practicalities of day.

Was yours the BMW?

Plenty of people including me have come up with plenty of alternatives to damaging other peoples property, so no matter how many times you claim there were no alternatives , you remain wrong.

Remind me what those alternatives were. The vehicle couldn't go forward or backward so the road would have still been blocked, then sheep needed to be unloaded where they were supposed to be, there would have been a long line of communication between the tractor and a police officer assuming they would come out and even if they did could out they couldn't have done anything and in the meantime it wouldn't have got the sheep unloaded. Airlifting them out with a Chinook would have frightened the sheep.

You've answered your own question - seek police assistance. Being inconvenienced doesn't give you the right to damage property.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

If you parked your vehicle outside my house and blocked my car in, whether you parked legally or blocked the road, would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

If I parked my vehicle outside your house blocking you in and I came back to it to find it damaged I wouldn't be surprised or shocked, which I why I don't park like that and wouldn't park obstructing a narrow road.

You didn't answer the question - would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

You've answered your own question - seek police assistance. Being inconvenienced doesn't give you the right to damage property.

Do you know that the driver didn't seek assistance? They culd wel have told him to proceed but tyr to keep the damage to a minimum, which he did. Yours was the BMW, wasn't it?

Eye witnesses said he arrived, stopped for a few seconds, then proceeded to damage the cars. Doesn't sound like there was any time to do anything more than get increasingly angry.

Are you avoiding the question above?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

Eye witnesses said he arrived, stopped for a few seconds, then proceeded to damage the cars. Doesn't sound like there was any time to do anything more than get increasingly angry.

Except basic common sense also tells us that there's no way any "assistance" would arrive within a reasonable timescale, during which time the entire lane is gridlocked, and the farmer cannot work.

But we've done all this already. Several times.

We have, and it's still the case that being blocked from working is not grounds to damage peoples property.
Good job the farmer didn't drop a cigarette butt on the ground, you would probably implode in self-righteous confusion.

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

If you parked your vehicle outside my house and blocked my car in, whether you parked legally or blocked the road, would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

If I parked my vehicle outside your house blocking you in and I came back to it to find it damaged I wouldn't be surprised or shocked, which I why I don't park like that and wouldn't park obstructing a narrow road.

You didn't answer the question - would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

You would be justified in damaging it

So that's legally and morally no then.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Jim, I admire (but not in a good way) your persistence. However, you are not going to be able to change the reality of the situation no matter how hard you try.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the reality of the siuation, but it's just a discussion about various viewpoints on the issue. Besides I don't think anybody has ever changed their mind on an internet forum in the history of the world.

I'm off to vanquish a lemon chicken and rice now

[anonymous-user]

parabolica said:

JimSuperSix said:

Willy Nilly said:

JimSuperSix said:

If you parked your vehicle outside my house and blocked my car in, whether you parked legally or blocked the road, would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

If I parked my vehicle outside your house blocking you in and I came back to it to find it damaged I wouldn't be surprised or shocked, which I why I don't park like that and wouldn't park obstructing a narrow road.

You didn't answer the question - would I be legally or morally allowed to damage it?

I asked you that exact question 2 days ago (only using bodies instead of cars); now you're trying to use it to justify your position

I don't recall ready about bodies instead of cars, did I reply?

[anonymous-user]

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

Crackie said:

JimSuperSix said:

yeah you didn't take it seriously at all....

There was nothing in that post which suggested you weren't being serious. You can subsequently claim It wasn't a serious comment old chap if you wish.....

I already did, shame you didn't read it before posting and looking like a fool eh?

I explained yesterday that I'd seen your subsequent post. I said your " It wasn't a serious comment old chap" post was 'weasel words'....Shame you didn't read that post before your comments above and making yourself look like a fool eh?

Now it is quite possible that you are just a troll having some fun...in that case, fair play to you.

I suspect you are not a troll in which case you are a hypocrite or hard of thinking or lacking in basic English interpretation skills or deliberately being obtuse. Your posting history on the thread suggests a combination of all of these.

Bye Jim

Obviously it was posted as a joke, tbh I thought it was pretty obvious, I mean who uses the word vanquished in everyday speech? A Sith lord perhaps. Anyway, bye Crackie.

[anonymous-user]

ferrisbueller said:

TLDR (it's the same old st).

Has there been any more "vanquishing"?

Well I successfully vanquished my dinner, although it turned out to be fish and chips in the end and not lemon chicken, so I'm not sure that counts really.

[anonymous-user]

Ironically the farmer/National Trust has since put boulders all the way along the parking area adjacent to the farm, where cars would park in diagonally and not cause too much hassle. This leaves verge parking farther along the lane which is more likely to lead to blocked gates and badly parked cars blocking the main lane for wide vehicles.

Stinks of sour grapes.

[anonymous-user]

StanleyT said:

Stinks of sour grapes from poor parkers.

Or you could just park in the National Trust car park at Stonethwaite (which if you are at the Seatoller end of the Seathwaite Road anyway like you will be if you not in the first few cars which only adds 1/2 - 1 mile onto a walk up Great Gable / the Scafells, which if you struggle with an extra mile, you shouldn't be on the hills) like a responsible ethical walker / hill user and not block the local roads and give £3/4 quid back to the running of the Lake District?.

Parking probs happened in the Wasdale valley this year on Remembrance Sunday. A day when lots of unseasoned and unprepared people hit GG. So the Mountain Rescue usually have a presence. The parking issue and that farmer in the Wasdale was a bit more savvy, he got the local lads (work rumour from a colleague at the big industrial site near Wasdale was it was the Mounties but they aren't allowed to admit it) to practise their slinging and webbing and a couple of cars were moved out the tractors way no problem.

Llanberis have the right idea to manage selfish walkers. Ever seen the park and ride bus push a car on the double yellows out the way, they don't mess about!

StanT -
214 Wainwrights completed by 1987
100 Munros completed by 1992
500 Marylins completed by 2001
3 14,000ftrs completed Europe / Africa by 2002
8 14,000ftrs completed USA by 2005

Parking problems = 0.

Edited by StanleyT on Tuesday 1st January 20:57

I used to live in the lakes. The poor parkers are a nightmare. The grumpy farmers can be a nightmare. What happened here was out of order, however probably lacking in sufficient evidence to prove criminality.

For what it's worth, I pay a monthly family subscription to NT and avoid parking like a knob, as I know the lay of the land.

I support neither the crap parkers nor the farmer.