Bizarrely, this is not illegal in England outside London.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Acceptable Law Breaking (and other morality questions)
- Thread starter whhistle
- Start date
- Status
Bizarrely, this is not illegal in England outside London.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I didn't realise! I thought not being allowed to drive on the pavement was universal. The railway bridge by West Allerton station is at the end of my road and one family park their car on the pavement in such a way that if an ambulance needed to get a stretcher to the houses they would need to carry it over the car.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It is indeed illegal to drive on the pavement. But it isn't illegal to push a car onto the pavement, and therefore unless a police officer witnesses you driving a car onto the pavement there is inadequate evidence that you did so (because you could have pushed it on, therefore "beyond reasonable doubt" is not satisified), and therefore you cannot be prosecuted.
If pavement parking was to be banned across the UK there would be a need for a mass programme of marking bays first. In my road, there is a particular bit of pavement that is parked all over; it fits about 7-8 cars. It goes absolutely nowhere and there is no reason for anyone to ever walk there other than to get in a car parked thereon. Such areas would need marking out as parking bays, as can be done in London, otherwise roads like mine would be chaos - either we'd be 8 cars short, or it would be impossible for those of us with driveways opposite it to get on and off the driveway.
We need less people using cars. We need to find a way to do it. Anyway, from what you said pavement parking is already banned unless you push your car on to the pavement. It would be hilarious to see it enforced.
Personally I would charge people for wherever they choose to leave their vehicle and they can decide how much they need it. Where I work hundreds of people get free parking and the car park dwarfs the size of the office .
Last edited:
It is only prohibited in London, not elsewhere.
From what I can see the highway code says you can't in London and shouldn't do elsewhere unless signs permit it.
...and what happens to your numbers when you start letting all cyclists pass red lights or make up their own rules.
Again that is irrelevant. They may come off physically worse but why should I be put in a potential position to be involved in an accident, have damage done to my vehicle or have the weight of seriously injuring or killing someone even when its not my fault. The laws are there for cyclists safety as much as it is anyone else.
Probably because cyclists are bad. Not all but percentage wise , most. For six and a half years I had a job that involved monitoring traffic. In that time I saw many , many motorists be bad , dangerous , indifferent , incompetent or downright dis corteous. Percentage wise though , it was miniscule. Out of six thousand cars a day , around 40 would drive through a no entry or an exit/one way and go into a restricted unauthorised area. The first 5 and a half year's 100 percent of cyclists went through the same area's. They also drove on the footpath that was not for cycling , no cars ever did . When we got a set of traffic lights installed , hundreds rode through. I once saw 20 in one go . I only witnessed six cars ever. Since I left and became a train driver I no longer have a car , and I walk everywhere. I got hit by three cyclists in three months last year , I have never been hit by a car. It would be much more , but I'm quite athletic and have managed to jump out of the way several times. Just last night three rode at me on the pedestrian path. I have driven cars , bikes and Lorrie's , I'm an ex cyclist and now a train driver , and so I don't favour one group over another.
"Lorrie's"? Lorrie's what, - and who or what is 'Lorrie'?
Indeed, shouldn’t being an advisory term, not backed up by any law. Else it would say must.
Parking on the pavement is not prohibited outside of London.
He was making light of your erroneous apostrophe which made the word possessive.
Thanks
It is very vague. If signs permit it you can and if they don't you can? May as well save money and just not have signs. Ha ha.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I think the bit I've bolded is the problem, because too often it doesn't work that way. There are lots of cases where the law requires cyclists to do something that many cyclists would feel puts themselves in danger, while the safe way to proceed is illegal. One example would be if you're compelled to cycle along a busy 70mph dual carriageway - or - worse - past a slip road or junction, but not allowed to cycle along the completely deserted footpath alongside it (To be fair that kind of situation is becoming rarer as more councils build cycle lanes - or at least paint cycle signs on what had been footpaths). Another example is with red lights: There are many places where, if you wait for the lights to turn green, you'll probably have a queue of cars behind you all anxious to overtake you but there isn't really enough room for them to safely overtake. But some cars will try it anyway. On the other hand, if you can cycle across several seconds before the lights turn green, you'll be beyond the junction and in a much safer position with the cars behind you - but that's illegal.
Remembering that this thread is about acceptable law breaking, not about cycling, I would say the law is inappropriate in those situations. And of course if people perceive that the law is inappropriate, they start breaking it. And I think one issue with some cyclists is that once they start breaking the law in one location where the law is inappropriate (a deserted footpath alongside a dangerous road), it becomes psychologically much easier for them to start breaking the same law where that law is actually appropriate (a busy footpath in a town with lots of pedestrians on it).
I would have thought it would be the other way round - "try before you buy" has long been normal practice when buying clothes, to save you buying something, taking it home and finding that it doesn't fit.
Some laws and byelaws are very difficult or almost impossible to enforce, although that doesn't necessarily mean it's acceptable to break them. Dropping litter and smoking under bus shelters are two classic examples of these, though they are both liable to annoy other people.
Other examples (which are less likely to annoy others) include using a litter bin on the street to dispose of domestic waste (though it can be difficult to define precisely when a piece of litter does count as domestic waste and when it doesn't) and using the wi-fi signal from a café, pub, restaurant, hotel, office building or other workplace or public building when you are just walking past in the street and not actually buying anything or doing anything there that would entitle you to use their wi-fi.
Other examples (which are less likely to annoy others) include using a litter bin on the street to dispose of domestic waste (though it can be difficult to define precisely when a piece of litter does count as domestic waste and when it doesn't) and using the wi-fi signal from a café, pub, restaurant, hotel, office building or other workplace or public building when you are just walking past in the street and not actually buying anything or doing anything there that would entitle you to use their wi-fi.
Nobody is compelled to cycle along a 70mph dual carriageway. 100% of the time it happens it is done voluntarily.
Using stray Wi-fi signals is not breaking any law unless it is being used for criminal purposes. An inadequate level of access security is the responsibility of the system operator. Indeed, if unauthorised users can perform criminal acts, an irresponsible system operator could be prosecuted for a lax attitude to internet access.
surly it would be theft or similar if you use a private wifi signal without permission??
in a place where you would reasonably expect there to be free wifi would you not be expected to check if its a private unsecured network rather a network someone is happy to share with others complying with there logging on and use requirements ??
No. Try having no locks on your house and seeing if your insurance company pays out of you get burgled.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
Re parking on pavements: I believe it's illegal if an obstruction is caused, so if someone claims they're obstructed then it's illegal. Sounds like a good fudge to me!
Gregory Straszkiewicz was charged with "dishonestly obtaining a communications service and related offences" which I suspect was because it was from an ordinary domestic connection and he was situated nearby in order to 'hack' into that connection. The original supposition in this thread was that "using the wi-fi signal from a café, pub, restaurant, hotel, office building or other workplace or public building when you are just walking past in the street etc." was a significant crime. The fact is that such a location would be operating in a commercial (or professional) context and as such has a responsibility to protect accidental or even casual intended connections froma walk by user. If it was that easy to obtain access, the organisation would probably be in its duty of data protection. There is presumption of a business or offical organisation to operate a system competently whereas a private individual is not obliged to.
The illegality of doing so depends on the bus shelter design. If it's enclosed, or substantially enclosed, then yes, it's illegal to smoke within. Otherwise it's not.
Illegal to smoke within:
(image of a four sided bus shelter with openings to enter/exit)
Not illegal to smoke under:
(image of a bus shelter with just a back glazed panel and roof)
I've seen no-smoking signs on shelters of the latter type with just a back glazed panel and roof (including some that say it is illegal to smoke in this shelter). I would guess that in this case it might really just be a courtesy thing and not actually have the force of law, though.
I've also seen people ignoring the smoking ban under both types of shelter.
Indeed. Signs may or may not be correct. Put there to discourage rather than necessarily being a true statement of the law.
- Status