> On 11 Sep, 11:37, "Brimstone" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> Doug wrote:

>>> On 11 Sep, 08:43, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:

>>>> "Doug" riseup.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:3086d66c-8e76-4416-ba02-a93a509d3f95@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

>>>>> 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.

>>>> Not if, as in this case, they get spotted doing it by someone with
>>>> the power to take action, just like cyclists on the pavement. The
>>>> main difference is that the cyclists will be travelling along the
>>>> pavement for extended periods, often placing pedestrians in danger
>>>> by doing so, while these car drivers are driving across the pavement
>>>> in a quiet street, reducing the exposure to pedestrians to a minimum.

>>> That still doesn't answer the question, is it illegal? Also, cars left
>>> on pavements are a public nuisance, especially to the blind and people
>>> in wheelchairs..

>> So are bicycles and their trailers not an obstruction Doug?
>>

> Possibly, but one thing is clear, unlike cars bicycles on pavements do
> not cause damage to underlying pipes and cables.