Tractor pushes parked cars out of the way

[anonymous-user]

Unless I'm mistaken, in the current UK society we have laws that say you can't just smash peoples property up because you are inconvenienced. Even if the cars were parked illegally, which it doesn't look like they are, you can't go around smashing them up because you are peeved. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool, because imagine what sort of society that leads to.

The farmer is clearly a giant tool with previous issues causing anger and resentment , and people suggesting it was "accidental" are deluding themselves. He knew exactly what he was doing and just drove through not caring what he hit.

Therefore he deserves to suffer for his actions. If the drivers parked illegally they should be prosecuted for that parking or obstruction , and the tractor driver should be prosecuted for the damage , leaving the accident etc...

Can't see why that's so hard to grasp.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

The service is on a remote hillside a fair trek away - that's simply the nearest road.

There's a great big car park at the top of Honister, which would take around 3 minutes longer to reach by car than the end of the Seathwaite road and the walk from there to the top of Great Gable isn't really any more onerous (it's certainly starting from a higher point).

I also like the argument that it can't be criminal damage, as if it was the farmer would have trashed every car in sight. Thank the lord for internet criminal psychologists, the clever sts!

[anonymous-user]

akirk said:

JimSuperSix said:

Unless I'm mistaken, in the current UK society we have laws that say you can't just smash peoples property up because you are inconvenienced. Even if the cars were parked illegally, which it doesn't look like they are, you can't go around smashing them up because you are peeved. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool, because imagine what sort of society that leads to.

The farmer is clearly a giant tool with previous issues causing anger and resentment , and people suggesting it was "accidental" are deluding themselves. He knew exactly what he was doing and just drove through not caring what he hit.

Therefore he deserves to suffer for his actions. If the drivers parked illegally they should be prosecuted for that parking or obstruction , and the tractor driver should be prosecuted for the damage , leaving the accident etc...

Can't see why that's so hard to grasp.

Blocking the highway = illegal

Farmer - how do you know what he was thinking? Maybe he assumed that no-one would be stupid enough to block the road, and so he assumed he would get through - by the time he hears the scraping he then has to either go forwards or backwards - either way, more damage will be done and there may be good farmerly reasons for not reversing! From all the discussion, the suggestion is that the trailer did the damage, which presumably means that the tractor got through - so no reason for him to initially think that he couldn't - looks very much like accidental damage... If the farmer had thought there was not enough space and wanted to move the cars he would have just shoved them over with the tractor and the damage would have been very different - more blunt push than sharp rip... so it is pretty clear that he thought he could get through - and sadly found out he couldn't...

Is the highway blocked? Those images don't show a blocked highway to me , as clearly cars have been able to pass by and park further up. Does the highway class as "blocked" if you can't get a large vehicle through? I doubt it. You couldn't get a tractor and trailer up many thousands of residential streets in UK cities , doesn't mean its illegal and it doesn't mean people should be congratulated for damaging cars trying to fit through.

As for the "accidental" damage - if you hit one car , why carry on forwards? Stop , reverse. Tractors have a reverse gear. HGV drivers manage to reverse with huge trailers. There's only one reason to just carry on and damage more cars , and its not "accidental".

[anonymous-user]

Algarve said:

JimSuperSix said:

As for the "accidental" damage - if you hit one car , why carry on forwards? Stop , reverse. Tractors have a reverse gear. HGV drivers manage to reverse with huge trailers. There's only one reason to just carry on and damage more cars , and its not "accidental".

I don't think you understand how reversing farm machinery with a trailer works. It'd be basically impossible to do for a long distance on roads like that with no real room for error on either side.

1. he shouldn't have driven in there then
and 2. who mentioned reversing for long distances? This is about stopping after hitting the first car, or reversing a few feet then checking out what he's damaged. I assume he should be capable of reversing a few feet with a trailer attached.

I believe the law still applies to tractor drivers? In which case he should be prosecuted the same as anyone else would be. As should the car drivers if what they did was illegal.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

Is the highway blocked? Those images don't show a blocked highway to me , as clearly cars have been able to pass by and park further up. Does the highway class as "blocked" if you can't get a large vehicle through? I doubt it. You couldn't get a tractor and trailer up many thousands of residential streets in UK cities , doesn't mean its illegal...

Yes, actually, it does...

They might look all scary big and tall and pointy and scary - but they're not actually wider than Sainsbury's delivery vans (or ambulances). Or bin wagons (or fire engines). They can't be - by law.

Fine then prosecute them too. It doesn't make the tractor drivers actions acceptable in any way.

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

Seesure said:

eccles said:

A nice description of the drivers blocking the road, couldn't have put it better myself!

And if you had opened your eyes you would see that road is not actually blocked... vehicular access is still available albeit with narrow pinch points.

sorry to get a little personal but are you really that blinkered?

Nothing but a dirty little troll I suspect.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

Go on, find me a photo...

https://www.fginsight.com/vip/vip/know-your-limits-tractor-and-trailer-regulations-19004

Up to 2.9m without any sort of special permission or modification required. Plenty wider than a sainso's box van. And you can go a fair bit wider still if your speed is (further) limited.

I used to drive much wider than that as a youth but we had no hedges or ditches on the farm roads so if anything came the other way I could just off road past them. Not to mention the only thing coming the other way would be army on manoeuvres and they needed no excuse to charge across the fields. Tossers.

Edited by OpulentBob on Wednesday 15th November 20:02

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

1. he shouldn't have driven in there then

It's a mile and a bit long, that's near the end - which is where his farm is. There is no other route.

JimSuperSix said:

2. who mentioned reversing for long distances? This is about stopping after hitting the first car, or reversing a few feet then checking out what he's damaged. I assume he should be capable of reversing a few feet with a trailer attached.

He clipped the Jag whilst trying to get the back end around the bend without hitting anything else. So he backs a foot or two. Then what?

That's his problem to sort out, its no excuse to damage the property of other people. Following your "logic" , if i drive into a dead-end street, it's perfectly OK for me to hit various vehicles while doing a 3-point turn? Or just if I am in a tractor? If a truck driver follows his satnav into a cull-de-sac, is it acceptable for him to drive across peoples gardens or smash through their driveways? He got himself there, he needs to grow up and act like an adult, not a petulant child.

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

JimSuperSix said:

TooMany2cvs said:

JimSuperSix said:

1. he shouldn't have driven in there then

It's a mile and a bit long, that's near the end - which is where his farm is. There is no other route.

JimSuperSix said:

2. who mentioned reversing for long distances? This is about stopping after hitting the first car, or reversing a few feet then checking out what he's damaged. I assume he should be capable of reversing a few feet with a trailer attached.

He clipped the Jag whilst trying to get the back end around the bend without hitting anything else. So he backs a foot or two. Then what?

That's his problem to sort out, its no excuse to damage the property of other people. Following your "logic" , if i drive into a dead-end street, it's perfectly OK for me to hit various vehicles while doing a 3-point turn? Or just if I am in a tractor? If a truck driver follows his satnav into a cull-de-sac, is it acceptable for him to drive across peoples gardens or smash through their driveways? He got himself there, he needs to grow up and act like an adult, not a petulant child.

You'll have him telling you two wrongs don't make a right in one thread where it suits his purposes, then this nonsense in another.
To be fair there is very little consistency where a lot are concerned if what gets posted on here is representative.

True enough

[anonymous-user]

XDA said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Yes, actually, it does...

They might look all scary big and tall and pointy and scary - but they're not actually wider than Sainsbury's delivery vans (or ambulances). Or bin wagons (or fire engines). They can't be - by law.

Utter rubbish.

Bin wagon is about 2.5M wide. A tractor and trailer could be as much as 3-3.5M wide.

he's spot on as usual

[anonymous-user]

Jim1556 said:

OpulentBob said:

Not to mention the only thing coming the other way would be army on manoeuvres and they needed no excuse to charge across the fields. Tossers.

Who is? The Army?

Blokes that were probably training to defend the country and lay down their lives? Oh dear...

Back at ya. Family are in, I have no truck with forces, I have worked with and for the army. These were MCTC naughty boy tossers taking a short cut to the shooting area. The farm I worked on bordered red flag areas and they would cut through to save a 5 mile detour along the roads they should have taken. There was a perfectly good road, these fkwits were just lazy.

[anonymous-user]

The NT could do what they've done elsewhere in the Lakes; make a car park where they charge £5 a pop and put bloody big boulders all over the existing parking spots by the roadside, giving people little choice.

[anonymous-user]

Jim1556 said:

OpulentBob said:

Back at ya. Family are in, I have no truck with forces, I have worked with and for the army. These were MCTC naughty boy tossers taking a short cut to the shooting area. The farm I worked on bordered red flag areas and they would cut through to save a 5 mile detour along the roads they should have taken. There was a perfectly good road, these fkwits were just lazy.

Fair enough. A complaint would've (should've) seen them dealt with.

To be fair to them, they would do the milk/post/paper rounds when we got snowed in, and they did a wonderful job of opening the village after the big storm in 88(?) so it was a nuisance we put up with.

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

Seesure said:

eccles said:

A nice description of the drivers blocking the road, couldn't have put it better myself!

And if you had opened your eyes you would see that road is not actually blocked... vehicular access is still available albeit with narrow pinch points.

sorry to get a little personal but are you really that blinkered?

Nothing but a dirty little troll I suspect.

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

Or ' Police notice: Vehicles parked here may be considered an obstruction and towed away', as seen on road signs dotting numerous lanes around here as there is already ample parking which the public don't like to use. Amazingly Depressingly the vast unwashed still park where they please - blocking access to people's houses, farms etc - and vehicles are towed away every weekend. Police have released pictures of cars later towed actually parked directly underneath the '....may be considered an obstruction' sign.

People get what they deserve.

There is a precedent close by to Seathwaite. There is a dead end road from Patterdale that encompasses one of the most popular walking routes up Helvellyn, That road has double yellows and the signs you describe. Having said that, there really is no place to park on that road.

[anonymous-user]

James TiT said:

Implements towed by tractors CAN be wider than the tractor though.

Indeed. Like if it's towing an E91 BMW and an F-Type.

[anonymous-user]

yellowjack said:

janesmith1950 said:

The NT could do what they've done elsewhere in the Lakes; make a car park where they charge £5 a pop and put bloody big boulders all over the existing parking spots by the roadside, giving people little choice.

Alternatively...

janesmith1950 could and perhaps should have said:

The NT could do what they've done elsewhere in the Lakes; make a car park where they charge £5 a pop and put bloody big boulders all over the existing parking spots by the roadside verges alongside the carriageway, giving people little choice meaning visibility is better for drivers, and the verges are available for walkers to get off the live carriageway.

Right of way. Look it up. It conveys to you the right to pass and repass along a public highway. It conveys no 'right' at all to park where the hell you please.

FYI: Single person membership of the National trust is £64.80 for a single adult. Or £48.60 for a "senior" member. If only one person in the party holds membership you can park for free. Either because you have a current sticker in the window, or, as more and more car parks are converted, you scan your card in the ticket machine and get a free P&D ticket.

You could also accept that parking on verges damages them, and consider the impact of your actions on others.

The countryside does NOT get to look like it does by being left to it's own devices. It needs constant maintenance and management, which in many cases is the duty of the National Trust. So being a cheapskate wker and blocking the rights of way of other road users in order to "park for free" is pretty much a 's trick. As a paying member of the National Trust, you might be able to guess why I have little sympathy for dheads like those in this tractor-damage saga. If you are visiting an area managed by the National Trust (or another such body) then you should be ready and willing to pay to park as a way of supporting the works they do. The result of which work is exactly what drew you to visit the area in the first place. Much of the work that makes places like National Parks look so attractive is done by landowners or tenant farmers too. It's enough to make you

Wow.

I'm a long standing member of the National Trust (family membership).

I grew up around the Lakes.

The parking area by the road at the end of the Seathwaite road is 'off road' and not verge. It is laid out, surfaced and suitable for parking.

I don't park on verges.

I try to avoid being quite as angry and assumptive as others.

[anonymous-user]

ferrisbueller said:

I think you know that erecting signs and painting double yellow lines on all such roads isn't a feasible action and nor should it be. Putting the costs and aesthetic penalties to one side, there is a point at which common sense has to kick in and it's not possible to cater for the lowest denomination of the human race who may be bereft of that sense.

Roads around the lakes, dales etc have evolved greatly over recent times with improvements made, nanny state speed limits all over the place and signage etc updated but there are some limitations here. They are not designed to accommodate the size of modern vehicles, be they SUVs or motor homes and they can't be modernised (someone above suggesting they should be widened?!). People need to take into consideration where they are be they driving or parking.

Agreed. It's a solution rather than the solution. Disagree that it's unfeasible to paint some lines and erect some signs at Seathwaite, though. I'd rather the didn't, however it will be in some Local Authority people's minds as we speak.

If the pressure raises up to the point farmers are left damaging property to go about their daily business, the question needs to be asked; has leaving it to common sense failed and does it need something more concrete (not literally!), whatever that might be?

[anonymous-user]

Seesure said:

As regards the rest of the people supporting the farmer - it's clear some of you have no respect for personal property and just because he found his way restricted it still gives him no right to damage and possibly destroy someones else's property regardless of how he found the road conditions in front of him.

What else do you suggest he should do in the circumstances? Wait all day for the walkers to (perhaps) turn up, perhaps not? Phone the police/council who simply wouldn't be bothered?

Come on, rather than slinging accusations lets hear your practical solution here? What would you have done if you were the farmer?

Seesure said:

I'm also sure most people posting on this topic would be up in arms if they came back to find their car had been hit whilst parked up - the amount of topics we see about door dings, keying of paint work and scratches and dents being done by 3rd parties supports this.

Why would they be up in arms? If I'd blocked a public road, I'd expect at the very least for my car to be towed away by someone. When I park I always allow enough room for passing traffic, partly because it's common sense - partly because I value my vehicles and have the good sense to make allowances for others who may not have the same level of care and attention.

Seesure said:

Personally I think this is more about certain people disliking a certain lifestyle...

i.e. a dislike to those people exercising their right to enjoying the countryside and supporting the poor beleaguered farming who is working seven days a week, 24 hours a day to earn a crust... and driving something that may have cost more than all the cars he damaged... oh the poor man...

Oh get over yourself please, it's about common sense and having some basic consideration for people who live and work in the area you choose to park, that's all.

Seesure said:

The point still remains he has no right what so ever to act in the way he did, he deliberately chose to damage other people's property and it is for this I hope he has the book thrown at him....

What solid evidence do you have that the farmer's actions was deliberate? The selfish parking was certainly deliberate that's for sure.

[anonymous-user]

Seesure said:

The reality is that for most traffic the road was still passable, but the farmer, who we presume is used to driving large farm equipment, looked ahead of him and thought that he could get through the pinch points without causing damage. If he couldn't get that judgement right then he's clearly not safe to be on the road.

So various drivers turn up and park, most probably on one side (as we seem to have a lemming mentality in this country) - others turn later and find parking is limited so copy what others have done but end up parking on the other side but still leaving a route through...

They didn't park selfishly at all, they probably thought they had been careful, they probably didn't think that they'd be causing any issues as it was Sunday and for them a non working day.

So your hero who decides he's moving livestock, on what could be reasonably expected to be a busy day, finds the road width restricted but in his professional view it's still wide enough to get through... however he hits one vehicle, perhaps he didn't notice as it's BIG tractor, hits a second vehicle and again doesn't notice and then continues in damaging a 3rd and 4th vehicle each more serious than the previous and still happens not to notice...

Of course (I forgot) our farmer wasn't using his mirrors (or are you going to say he didn't have any?) or looking over his shoulder as to what's happening behind him which is contrary to the way my farmer friends tend to deal with pulling large items of equipment behind them on the public highways especially when they are traversing narrow twisty lanes...

In my experience drivers of farm equipment, HGVs and the like are normally bloody good at judging road widths, gate widths and turning circles.

Common get a grip, do you actually think he didn't do it deliberately as well as having had a right to do this?

That explanation is all well and good but all it is is just a load of wild assumptions on your part. What PROOF do you have that the farmer has deliberately done this?