Lets try and leave the racist opinions out of this thread as it doesn’t need it & I don’t like reading it.
Roymondo:
Chas:
There is no law stopping anyone from driving on a pavement, it is part of the highway & the highway stretches from boundary to boundary.Which law is it that you think stops us from driving on a pavement?
Section 72 Highways Act 1835 (it’s not exactly a recent addition…)
Which basically sets out a fine of 2 groats if you ride your horse, drive your country governess, or park your pig/cattle/sheep on the pavement.
It’s never been repealed & apparently it forms the legal basis of why it’s considered illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement !
72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ■■■, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ■■■, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;
F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.
Contraflow:
Chas:
Anyone remember this very similar incident?thisisnottingham.co.uk/Witne … z2dZfcBDaX
We had a thread on this also but I can’t find it.
Yes, I remember it very well.
That’s the one, thanks.
Anyone know if the driver involved was ever prosecuted?
I hope he’s OK.
Chas:
Which basically sets out a fine of 2 groats if you ride your horse, drive your country governess, or park your pig/cattle/sheep on the pavement.It’s never been repealed & apparently it forms the legal basis of why it’s considered illegal to ride a bicycle on the pavement !
72 Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ■■■, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ■■■, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;
F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.
Er - Level 2 on the standard scale is 500 quid, which is rather more than 2 groats. In fact as originally enacted the maximum fine under s72 was 40 shillings (i.e. £2), not 2 groats (which was 8d in old money). But that’s inflation for you 
Roymondo:
Er - Level 2 on the standard scale is 500 quid, which is rather more than 2 groats. In fact as originally enacted the maximum fine under s72 was 40 shillings (i.e. £2), not 2 groats (which was 8d in old money). But that’s inflation for you
Well, if you were around in them days then I’ll take your word for it 
.
40 shillings seems a lot of money for tying a goat up outside the pub tho’ !
Silver_Surfer:
Lets try and leave the racist opinions out of this thread as it doesn’t need it & I don’t like reading it.
Well don’t ■■■■■■■ read it then! Seems a bit of a coincidence to me that the white driver gets charged, but the asian one doesn’t - but hey, that makes me a racist, eh?
The Sarge:
Silver_Surfer:
Lets try and leave the racist opinions out of this thread as it doesn’t need it & I don’t like reading it.Well don’t [zb] read it then! Seems a bit of a coincidence to me that the white driver gets charged, but the asian one doesn’t - but hey, that makes me a racist, eh?
How is it racist? It’s stating a simple fact.
If the driver was Asian and a white driver wasn’t prosecuted would it be racist to point it out?
The Taliban remark and perhaps the Leicester comment are perhaps a bit harsh and pointless.
Why did the journalist have to mention the walking stick was black? Isn’t that racist? It is bound to get a stereotypical response, was it pointing to or away from the Middle east?
Would it be possible for the knuckledraggerz to start a new thread to discuss/argue the definition of what makes a racist ?
Lets use this one to discuss about & possibly learn a valuable lesson from the tragic death of a fellow human being that involved the one common thing that holds us all together, which is a truck !
Chas:
Would it be possible for the knuckledraggerz to start a new thread to discuss/argue the definition of what makes a racist ?Lets use this one to discuss about & possibly learn a valuable lesson from the tragic death of a fellow human being that involved the one common thing that holds us all together, which is a truck !
Or lets leave it to the court to decide a verdict as they have all the facts and witness reports. In the meantime I would describe it as a tragic accident until they find some clear CCTV footage or a suicide note
According to this case we can escape justice by running over a body in the road then say i did not expect it to be there.
Lets say the car nudged the old man over and behind the car a truck drives over the body who would make the headlines then.?
I can see the headline now “Thundering juggernaut driver Oap killer speeding through town gets 10 years jail.”
If any of us drive over a man in the road i wonder what the outcome would be.How become the car driver in this case did not see the man lying there.Distracted while driving.Im sure the police have checked the phone and if the driver deleted text and calls they can still find out that at forensics.
toby1234abc:
Members of the Jury or even the Judge should sit in a lorry cab and get somebody to walk in front of a cab.The case would be thrown out of court in one minute.
There is a potential that the Lgv driver will get a long term prison sentence for somebody doing a stupid thing walking in front of a truck that he knew would move at any time in busy traffic.
Mlost of us know we are looking out for cars when pulling off.
I am not sure if the old man that was killed was on a proper crossing for pedestrians or just taking a chance in the road.How does anybody know if the old man was suicidal and wanted to take his own life.?
The old man was not on a pedestrian crossing although he could have used one if he had walked 50 metres or so.
I know that stretch of Melton Road. I have queued along it many a time.
If you wish, you can see the precise location of the accident on ‘Google Street View’.
It was near to the junction with Lancashire Street.
You will be able to identify the ‘Hair Today’ barber’s shop in the photo.
Witness David Hills allegedly saw what happened from his Hair Today barber’s shop opposite.
In a statement read out, he said he knew Mr Shah, who was “quite frail”.
He said: "I saw Mr Shah on the pavement on the opposite side of the road to me.
That should help to fix the location.
Chas:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Derf:
given the definition of a road stretches from the boundary of a pavement with private property to the opposite boundary (the pavement is effectively classed as road) how does that work?So we can drive up the kerb and along the pavement can we?
Yes. I myself & lots of other drivers do it quite regularly.
There is no law stopping anyone from driving on a pavement, it is part of the highway & the highway stretches from boundary to boundary.
Which law is it that you think stops us from driving on a pavement?
So if there is stationary traffic and you want to turn left 100 yards ahead, you would mount the kerb and drive along the pavement along the high street would you?? And this is ok is it?
I’m sorry I don’t have any laws or websites to quote but I think you’re talking a load of rubbish.
They will find a way of prosecuting you anyway, whether it’s deemed driving without due care or whatever.
If cars have cameras to see in reverse when parking in a tight space then trucks can have a camera so a driver could see directly in front of the grille.
A sensor alarm that goes off to warn of any object in front of the truck.How many times a day do you see a lady push a pram in the road and only looks to check the road when the pram is in the road.
In heavy traffic i leave a gap if stopped before a pedestrian crossing in case the lights change to red and i would have blocked it by moving forward.
When my light is green pedestrians cross thinking i have left a gap and it is safe to cross when it is not.
Try driving through Cabots Circus in Bristol as it happens all the time there with shoppers that cross on a red light for them.
Chas:
There is no law stopping anyone from driving on a pavement, it is part of the highway & the highway stretches from boundary to boundary.
Why is it a test failure then?
dri-diddly-iver:
Chas:
There is no law stopping anyone from driving on a pavement, it is part of the highway & the highway stretches from boundary to boundary.Why is it a test failure then?
Failing to make adequate progress is a test failure too - but that’s not against the law…
Roymondo:
dri-diddly-iver:
Chas:
There is no law stopping anyone from driving on a pavement, it is part of the highway & the highway stretches from boundary to boundary.Why is it a test failure then?
Failing to make adequate progress is a test failure too - but that’s not against the law…
So it’s ok to do 30mph on a motorway is it?
I can’t believe we are actually having to discuss something this petty, ok so there may or may not be a specific law attributed to “driving on a pavement” but I’m almost certain you can’t drive from Guildford to Woking on the pavement without getting some sort of fine or points.
People need to start getting a grip in the real world.
First of this is a very sad tradergey a person has lost there life in an accident and it does need to be sorted out as to who if anyone is at fault like a lot of people commenting on this i agree why is the car driver not being prosecuted as her words say she was following close behind but she did not see him so it begs the question how close behind the truck was she as not to see this person.
Yes the truck driver knocked the man down that is clear the police officer said the driver would have seen the man three feet or about 1 meter in front of his truck try this when you are in the yard measure three feet in front of your truck then put a cone there i bet most of you don’t see the cone.
The man died it said from chest injuries the truck they say passed over him so the chest injuries in my opinion were caused by the neglegent car driver following to close as the car is a lot closer to the ground she should be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention and following in a dangerous manner ie ( too close ).
So while i think the truck driver does have a case to answer to i also think that the car driver is to blame for the chest injuries that this man sustained and that killed him he may have been seriously injured by the truck but i believe that the car driver killed him.
And the traffic officer needs to be re trained in accident investigation. 
i have just read this news, which car driver are they going to prosecute ■■
or might they find one of those horrid truck drivers to blame ■■
dri-diddly-iver:
Chas:
There is no law stopping anyone from driving on a pavement, it is part of the highway & the highway stretches from boundary to boundary.Why is it a test failure then?
When I did my last test (10yrs ago) it wasn’t.
If it was unavoidable, I was told to say “I’m aware that my wheels will be on the kerb/pavement”. Perhaps my instructor was wrong, but in certain circumstances where it was unavoidable it is allowed, because it isn’t illegal to drive on a pavement.
Think shop deliveries in pedestrianised areas.
Think drops with one sides wheels on the pavement to allow traffic to flow.
Think driving over the pavement to park a car on a driveway.
Think of the many 1000’s of vehicles parked on pavements outside homes & businesses.
None of them drove on the pavement illegally because there is no law specific to not driving on the pavement. The pavement is an inclusive part of the highway.
Did you know that any vehicle parked on the highway, whether the pavement or the road, is parked illegally with VERY few exceptions?
This is why a Constable can insist that any car be moved at any time.