>> On 11 Sep, 07:30, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:>>> On 11 Sep, 07:18, Paul Weaver
isorox.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11 Sep, 07:10, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:>>>
>>>>> If so millions of motorists must be breaking this law too. And
>>>>> they have the barefaced cheek to criticise cyclists for
>>>>> lawbreaking!
>>>
>>>> Of course the non-motorists that criticise cyclists for law
>>>> breaking?
>>>
>>>>> "But the council was defiant, saying it was illegal to drive over
>>>>> a kerbed footway or verge and action was necessary."
>>>
>>>> The council installed the driveway without getting the correct
>>>> planning permission, or the planning office didn't do their job
>>>> properly -- it's not illegal to drive over a dropped kerb.
>>>
>>> You are missing the point. This is about non-dropped kerbs, over
>>> which many motorists drive on a daily basis and seem to be allowed
>>> to get away with it.
>>
>> But it was the incompetent council who put the driveway there in the
>> first place, they're the villains of the story, one might argue it's
>> entrapment.
>
> The problem with that argument is that there is no actual requirement
> for a dropped kerb in the legislation. There is only the ability of
> the council to impose reasonable conditions on the use of the
> vehicular crossing of the pavement. That allows them to make one
> decision 50 years ago and a different one today, provided it falls
> within the definition of reasonable and a dropped kerb is, today,
> viewed as not just reasonable, but as usual.
'scuse me Guv , but what's the definition of "reasonable"?
