"Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k8KdnZE46fH1OlbVRVnygwA@bt.com...>>> 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"?
"Reasonable" means whatever the Council reasonably, or otherwise, wish it to
mean. What may be "reasonable" for a Council, is not necessarily
"reasonable" for the plebs.
And, whatever the plebs consider "reasonable", one may reason that a Council
is likely to consider "unreasonable".
There. That should be reasonably simple to understand....
>
>
