Re: Legality of chaining Bicycles to footway apparatus



Mark Hewitt wrote:

> "Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> [2] But coppers and new COWs (Community Officer Wardens - Some easy
>> name needed for these wonks) mistakenly believe that potential
>> obstruction equates to actual obstruction as their little eyes light
>> up with the thought of meeting their ticket target. It has to be
>> actual for the charge to stick so ignore any FP rubbish.

> What constitutes an obstruction of the pavement? Should there still
> be space for one person to walk past? Or sufficient space for a three
> wide buggy to get past?

Assuming the unobstructed footway to be wide enough for a Vicky
Pollard-style buggy, then IMHO, any unnecessary obstruction of the width of
the footway such that a three-sprog buggy *cannot* get past without going
into the road is an offence.

The poster who seeks to distinguish "potential" from "actual" obstruction is
talking drivel. On his basis, six Transit vans parked nose-to-tail across
the exit from a fire-station couldn't be booked for obstruction unless there
was an actual emergency call-out, because in the absence of the fire
brigade's actual need to gain egress from the station, the obstruction is
only "potential".