Ha, it gives that impression doesn’t it? But no, in this context that isn’t what should means. It’s like an also that extends the Must Not to the additional scenario, in this case outside of London.
It’s true that a lot of these things aren’t enforced, and if they are it’s not consistent. The thing is, the law is there and it can be enforced. If you are caught breaking it, well, that’s no-one else’s fault.
The law is NOT there for “should” statements in the Highway Code. “Shoulds” are considered best practice, and can work against you in a careless/dangerous driving case if you didn’t follow them, but they are not themselves tied to any specific legislation. “Must” statements ARE backed up by legislation, and so can be enforced.
Interesting that it mentions London specifically. How do they cope? There are loads of terraced streets. Do they pay for nearby parking lots or is it just that they, unlike everywhere else, kept their public transport network
So if, as a council, we want to ban pavement parking around a bunch of terraces… or even just seriously restrict it, like to one side, can we make sure that there are cycle paths and bus routes then ban it and work stepwise across the town? ‘asking for a friend (Cheltenham)’
Nope : rules in the Code which are legal requirements, and which you will be committing a criminal offense if you disobey, use the words “must/must not.” Violating other parts of the Code, which use the words “should/should not” or “do/do not”, can be used as evidence against you in Traffic Court, even if violating them is not an automatic criminal offense
Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be “you must not park on the pavement” or if there’s some archaic reason that London needs specific wording "you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement elsewhere "
No it doesn’t seem to be in there. According to the highway code
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
No where does it say if an area is named specially as a must not, and another area is named as a should not in the same rule then the should not must be treated as a must not.
Or is there some case law maybe that you’re referring to?
It’s how I read it. Because it starts out using must and cites London, it doesn’t make sense to then add elsewhere and use must again.
And now I’ve read your quote and written out the above, I’ve definitely misread the rule.
And I know why. Other replies to my comment alluded to it but it’s only now I understand. I didn’t begin with the term must as being anything to do with criminal prosecution.
To me, it says you can’t park on a pavement in London or when signposted else where, and you can be given a fine for doing so.
I don’t see how receiving a fine makes you a criminal so I didn’t consider it in those terms.
My mistake, but it’s poorly worded. For example -
Rule 130
Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so.
If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by solid white lines you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency.
That’s a much more clear distinction. But I don’t see anyone being made a criminal for the second part. It doesn’t describe an act that would have you arrested and prosecuted with the threat of prison.
I’ll be taking this up with them and I’ll use all these examples to see if we can get them to make the wording less confusing.
Because if I have to drive around constantly worried that I could go to prison for crossing a line, I’ll give up driving, sell my car and retire early. Fuck that.
Should not means you can. You’re just a very naughty boy.
Ha, it gives that impression doesn’t it? But no, in this context that isn’t what should means. It’s like an also that extends the Must Not to the additional scenario, in this case outside of London.
It’s true that a lot of these things aren’t enforced, and if they are it’s not consistent. The thing is, the law is there and it can be enforced. If you are caught breaking it, well, that’s no-one else’s fault.
The law is NOT there for “should” statements in the Highway Code. “Shoulds” are considered best practice, and can work against you in a careless/dangerous driving case if you didn’t follow them, but they are not themselves tied to any specific legislation. “Must” statements ARE backed up by legislation, and so can be enforced.
The highway code is not law.
Yes, best practice. There’s a lot of talk here about the law, which I never mentioned.
You don’t get a criminal record when you receive a fine for a parking offence.
deleted by creator
You also can’t get fined if you don’t break a law.
If that were true, the text could read “ You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it. “
Definitely it should do, or something more clearly worded at least.
I think it’s because of the distinction between London and elsewhere, which is also bollox. So it goes.
Interesting that it mentions London specifically. How do they cope? There are loads of terraced streets. Do they pay for nearby parking lots or is it just that they, unlike everywhere else, kept their public transport network
So if, as a council, we want to ban pavement parking around a bunch of terraces… or even just seriously restrict it, like to one side, can we make sure that there are cycle paths and bus routes then ban it and work stepwise across the town? ‘asking for a friend (Cheltenham)’
Nope : rules in the Code which are legal requirements, and which you will be committing a criminal offense if you disobey, use the words “must/must not.” Violating other parts of the Code, which use the words “should/should not” or “do/do not”, can be used as evidence against you in Traffic Court, even if violating them is not an automatic criminal offense
I’m not sure which bit of my comment you are noping?
Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be “you must not park on the pavement” or if there’s some archaic reason that London needs specific wording "you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement elsewhere "
The Highway Code?
No it doesn’t seem to be in there. According to the highway code
No where does it say if an area is named specially as a must not, and another area is named as a should not in the same rule then the should not must be treated as a must not.
Or is there some case law maybe that you’re referring to?
It’s how I read it.
Because it starts out using must and cites London, it doesn’t make sense to then add elsewhere and use must again.And now I’ve read your quote and written out the above, I’ve definitely misread the rule.
And I know why. Other replies to my comment alluded to it but it’s only now I understand. I didn’t begin with the term must as being anything to do with criminal prosecution.
To me, it says you can’t park on a pavement in London or when signposted else where, and you can be given a fine for doing so.
I don’t see how receiving a fine makes you a criminal so I didn’t consider it in those terms.
My mistake, but it’s poorly worded. For example -
That’s a much more clear distinction. But I don’t see anyone being made a criminal for the second part. It doesn’t describe an act that would have you arrested and prosecuted with the threat of prison.
I’ll be taking this up with them and I’ll use all these examples to see if we can get them to make the wording less confusing.
Because if I have to drive around constantly worried that I could go to prison for crossing a line, I’ll give up driving, sell my car and retire early. Fuck that.