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.
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.