OT: Another speed limit competitor

[Paul - xxx]

Richard came up with the following;:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> Richard came up with the following;:
>>
>>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
>>>>
>>>>> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> sd / msg
>>>>> <[email protected]> dtd Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:38:55 -0000:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Obstructing the highway is completely different to parking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why the post to which you originally replied said this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
>>>>> the highway and is a crime."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Instruction wouldn't be given on how to do it to pass the driving test
>>>> if it were illegal.
>>>
>>>
>>> The driving test includes (or included, when I did it), a "three-point
>>> turn". This is illegal in certain circumstances. Your argument holds
>>> no water.
>>
>>
>> "In some circumstances".
>>
>> It's also illegal to ride a bike 'in some circumstances'.
>
> True. So what?

Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Paul - *** wrote:
>Alan Braggins came up with the following;:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Paul - *** wrote:
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
>>>>
>>>> Which is why the post to which you originally replied said this:
>>>> "Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
>>>> the highway and is a crime."
[...]
>> My understanding is that causing an obstruction of any sort, including
>> by parking, is an offence,
>
>I quite agree, but that still doesn't make parking illegal. Parking is not
>necessarily causing an obstruction.

No, but parking _on the highway_ is.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Matt B wrote:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Geraint Jones wrote:
>>> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I understand that speed limits aren't applied to bikes. How is
>>>> this of interest to uk.rec.cycling?
>>>
>>> Ted's a cyclist, when he's not sofa-bound; and Beechcroft Road is
>>> a short rat-run about three of your mobile death greenhouse widths
>>> wide which customarily has death greenhouses immobile on each of its
>>> two sides, leaving little room for cyclists to dodge the alternate
>>> streams of death-greenouse plugs that come rushing at them from each
>>> end alternately.
>>
>> Suffice to say I posted that before I read that the link was
>> interesting.
>
> Were you incapable of deciding that the link was interesting for
> yourself?
>> It seems the person who wrote the OP isn't a cyclist.
>
> Upon which definition of the word "cyclist" do you base that
> conclusion?

No definition, rather that I can't recall you ever having posted anything
about bikes or cycling, whereas I occasionally do, and I still go somewhere
on a bike at least weekly, just not as often as I'd like.

>> That said, my bikes are finding themselves very sadly underused at
>> the minute.
>
> Do you claim to still be a cyclist yourself?

Not only that, but I'm easily visible as a cyclist when driving a car.
Yesterday on the M6, about 1 mile after a 40mph limit sign, an LGV pulled in
on me halfway through overtaking. Fortunately, as an occasional offroad
cyclist, I'm pretty good at picking a safe line instinctively, and I fit
into the gap he left between me and the kerb (no hard shoulder) with about
20 cm either side until he drifted right again. Surely these things only
happen to cyclists.

--
Ambrose

 

[Richard]

Paul - *** wrote:
> Richard came up with the following;:
>
>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>
>>> Richard came up with the following;:
>>>
>>>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> sd / msg
>>>>>> <[email protected]> dtd Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:38:55 -0000:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obstructing the highway is completely different to parking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why the post to which you originally replied said this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
>>>>>> the highway and is a crime."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instruction wouldn't be given on how to do it to pass the driving test
>>>>> if it were illegal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The driving test includes (or included, when I did it), a "three-point
>>>> turn". This is illegal in certain circumstances. Your argument holds
>>>> no water.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "In some circumstances".
>>>
>>> It's also illegal to ride a bike 'in some circumstances'.
>>
>>
>> True. So what?
>
>
> Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
> circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.

So what's it being part of the driving test got to do with its legality?

R.

 

[Matt B]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
> the highway and is a crime.

Does anyone fancy my chances in pursuing the local council, for its parking
meter activities, under the Proceeds of Crime Act?

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
> > the highway and is a crime.
>
> Does anyone fancy my chances in pursuing the local council, for its parking
> meter activities, under the Proceeds of Crime Act?

You'd probably find that the parking bays are no longer considered to
be part of the highway, but are on-street parking. There is a
distinction between highway, carriageway, and a few other terms.
Motorways are not highways and you cannot take motor vehicles on all
highways.

And of course, in Scotland there are different rules.


...d

 

[Paul - xxx]

Richard came up with the following;:
> Paul - *** wrote:

>> Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
>> circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.
>
> So what's it being part of the driving test got to do with its legality?

The government agency responsible would hardly make people practice and
become 'proficient' in an illegal act, would they ?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Paul - xxx]

Alan Braggins came up with the following;:
> In article <[email protected]>, Paul - *** wrote:
>> Alan Braggins came up with the following;:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Paul - *** wrote:
>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why the post to which you originally replied said this:
>>>>> "Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
>>>>> the highway and is a crime."
> [...]
>>> My understanding is that causing an obstruction of any sort, including
>>> by parking, is an offence,
>>
>> I quite agree, but that still doesn't make parking illegal. Parking is
>> not necessarily causing an obstruction.
>
> No, but parking _on the highway_ is.

Parking on the highway is neither, necessarily, causing an obstruction or
illegal.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Richard]

Paul - *** wrote:
>>> Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
>>> circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.
>>
>>
>> So what's it being part of the driving test got to do with its legality?
>
>
> The government agency responsible would hardly make people practice and
> become 'proficient' in an illegal act, would they ?

As has repeatedly been pointed out, the act they are practising for and
becoming proficient (or otherwise) in can be illegal or legal.

A bit like the Army training its troops how to kill people, really.

R.

 

[Al C-F]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

>
>
> Not only that, but I'm easily visible as a cyclist when driving a car.
> Yesterday on the M6, about 1 mile after a 40mph limit sign, an LGV
> pulled in on me halfway through overtaking.

Strangeley, I was left-hooked by WVM yesterday, despite being in the car.

I wasn't even wearing any lycra.

 

[Paul - xxx]

Richard came up with the following;:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>> Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
>>>> circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.
>>>
>>> So what's it being part of the driving test got to do with its legality?
>>
>> The government agency responsible would hardly make people practice and
>> become 'proficient' in an illegal act, would they ?
>
> As has repeatedly been pointed out, the act they are practising for and
> becoming proficient (or otherwise) in can be illegal or legal.

Nope, that hasn't been pointed out other than by myself. Everyone else
seems to think parking is illegal. The point I was arguing was, as was
kindly pointed out by Guy, that "Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other
vehicle can legally be parked on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on
any highway is obstructing the highway and is a crime." is plainly wrong,
and suggesting that it must be legal to park on the highway if those in
power are making _everyone_ who wishes to pass the driving test, learn how
to do so.

Now are you saying that parking on the highway can be legal ?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Al C-F wrote:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Not only that, but I'm easily visible as a cyclist when driving a
>> car. Yesterday on the M6, about 1 mile after a 40mph limit sign, an
>> LGV pulled in on me halfway through overtaking.
>
> Strangeley, I was left-hooked by WVM yesterday, despite being in the
> car.

It is funny how they can tell, isn't it?

--
Ambrose

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> sd / msg
<[email protected]> dtd Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:29:03 -0000:

>Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
>circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.

So you say. But the advice I was given was that /any/ vehicle
stationary on /any/ highway can be ticketed for obstruction.

No, I know my source had a vested interest and was not a known
authority (a police sergeant, to be exact). His suggestion is
supported by my reading of the relevant Acts of Parliament. What is
your evidence for claiming the reverse?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

"Paul - ***" <[email protected]> sd / msg
<[email protected]> dtd Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:55:26 -0000:

>The government agency responsible would hardly make people practice and
>become 'proficient' in an illegal act, would they ?

It's equally possible they want to minimise the level of obstruction
by ensuring that you can park up to the kerb and preferably without
doing too much damage to cars or pavements.

The chances of being done for obstruction would, I'm guessing,
increase substantially if you park four feet from the kerb.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Paul - xxx]

Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:
> "Paul - ***" <[email protected]> sd / msg
> <[email protected]> dtd Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:29:03 -0000:
>
>> Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in some
>> circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or illegal.
>
> So you say. But the advice I was given was that /any/ vehicle
> stationary on /any/ highway can be ticketed for obstruction.
>
> No, I know my source had a vested interest and was not a known
> authority (a police sergeant, to be exact). His suggestion is
> supported by my reading of the relevant Acts of Parliament. What is
> your evidence for claiming the reverse?

As has been said many times in the thread. If it were really illegal to
park on the highway, then _every_ driver bar none taking his driving test is
deliberately trained for and tested in their ability to perform an illegal
act then.

I guess it's as flimsy 'evidence' as yours is, but I've never been told that
parking on the highway is illegal. Indeed, why do so many police cars also
park on roads outside Police Stations when not on active duty? Why does the
highway code seek to train or guide people in how to do an illegal act?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

 

[Richard]

Paul - *** wrote:
> The point I was arguing was, as was
> kindly pointed out by Guy, that "Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other
> vehicle can legally be parked on the public highway. Parking any vehicle
> on any highway is obstructing the highway and is a crime." is plainly
> wrong,

So far so good. You and Guy disagree. I take no side in this
particular argument because I haven't read the particular acts of
parliament.

My point is slightly different and I think you're missing it. You claim
that it must be legal to do something because (in part) you are taught
how to do it by the government, and therefore if it wasn't legal to do
it, you wouldn't be taught it:

> it must be legal to park on the highway if
> those in power are making _everyone_ who wishes to pass the driving
> test, learn how to do so.

My point is that this argument, in support of your disagreement with
Guy, is invalid. There are many things officially taught which are
blanket illegal on public highways (excepting certain very special
circumstances out of the realm of the ordinary member of the public in
normal everyday life).

R.

 

[Danny Colyer]

Paul - *** wrote:
> As has been said many times in the thread. If it were really illegal to
> park on the highway, then _every_ driver bar none taking his driving test is
> deliberately trained for and tested in their ability to perform an illegal
> act then.

When I learnt to drive I was taught to do so at speeds of up to 70mph,
and during my test I was expected to demonstrate the ability to drive at
dual carriageway speeds even though to do so would be illegal in many
circumstances.

This was before the days of having to demonstrate the ability to park at
the side of the road, but it seems to set a precedent for being
deliberately trained for and tested in the ability to perform an illegal
act.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul - ***
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Richard came up with the following;:
>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>>> Parking might be illegal in some circumstances, but it is legal in
>>>>> some
>>>>> circumstances too. Parking is NOT always an obstruction or
>>>>> illegal.
>>>>
>>>> So what's it being part of the driving test got to do with its
>>>> legality?
>>>
>>> The government agency responsible would hardly make people practice
>>> and become 'proficient' in an illegal act, would they ?
>>
>> As has repeatedly been pointed out, the act they are practising for
>> and becoming proficient (or otherwise) in can be illegal or legal.
>
> Nope, that hasn't been pointed out other than by myself. Everyone else
> seems to think parking is illegal.

Only on the public highway. On private land, you're at liberty to park
provided you have the consent of the landowner.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:31:37 -0000, "Paul - ***"
<[email protected]> said in <[email protected]>:

>> No, I know my source had a vested interest and was not a known
>> authority (a police sergeant, to be exact). His suggestion is
>> supported by my reading of the relevant Acts of Parliament. What is
>> your evidence for claiming the reverse?

>As has been said many times in the thread. If it were really illegal to
>park on the highway, then _every_ driver bar none taking his driving test is
>deliberately trained for and tested in their ability to perform an illegal
>act then.

Congratulations on missing the point yet again.

Do you dispute that the offence of obstructing the highway exists? If
not, do you dispute that the definition of obstruction is primarily
situational? If not, do you dispute that circumstances will exist
where vehicles not violating any specific parking or waiting
restriction might be classed as causing an obstruction?

>I guess it's as flimsy 'evidence' as yours is

Ah, so the Road Traffic Act is flimsy now, is it? ;-)

Seriously, I think you are confusing two different arguments. The
case of the driving test is a misdirection, for example, the
Government officially sanctions driving at 60mph (something I did on
my driving test) but that does not mean that driving at 60mph in town
is legal. U turns and faked emergency stops are also regulated.

But what is being said is not that parking is always and necessarily
illegal, but that any parked vehicle may be classed as obstructing the
highway - the fact that most are not, or are not prosecuted, does not
change this. I have been ticketed for obstruction when parked
perfectly legally - this is my one and only ticket in over 20 years of
driving so I remember it quite well!

You are tested on the driving test on the ability to reverse park,
that does not mean it is legal to park anywhere. It is a test of
manoeuvring skill, and also designed to exclude those who are patently
unable to judge the size of their vehicle. Which invites the question
of why so many drivers lose this skill so soon after passing

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Paul - xxx]

Just zis Guy, you know? came up with the following;:

> Do you dispute that the offence of obstructing the highway exists?

Nope.

> If
> not, do you dispute that the definition of obstruction is primarily
> situational?

Nope.

> If not, do you dispute that circumstances will exist
> where vehicles not violating any specific parking or waiting
> restriction might be classed as causing an obstruction?

Nope.

I dispute that parking always causes an obstruction and is therefore always
illegal.

> But what is being said is not that parking is always and necessarily
> illegal

er ... "Actually neither a 4x4 nor any other vehicle can legally be parked
on the public highway. Parking any vehicle on any highway is obstructing
the highway and is a crime" .. seems to be saying exactly that.

> but that any parked vehicle may be classed as obstructing the
> highway - the fact that most are not, or are not prosecuted, does not
> change this. I have been ticketed for obstruction when parked
> perfectly legally - this is my one and only ticket in over 20 years of
> driving so I remember it quite well!

Anecdotal evidence, as you often point out in other arguments, means little
overall, and doesn't make a case for every situation. Maybe whoever
ticketted you had a different viewpoint and decided you were causing an
obstruction. Maybe they were simply having a bad day.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!