On 03/04/2025 22:33, John wrote:

A friend's son has received a letter through the post for an alleged
offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road
without due care and attention.

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside his
mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is seperated from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side road before continuing his journey.  As he edged out onto the side road, making sure there was no traffic, a police car came zooming from the main road to the side road and stopped him, leaving his vehicle half on the footpath and
half on the pavement.  The police officer tore him off a strip (quite rightly) but also called him a dick, to which the lad said "don't call me a dick".  The police said he would be hearing from them hence the letter.

I'm aware that it's an offence to drive on a pavement but perfectly legal
to park on a pavement as long as you don't cause an obstruction (he
didn't), so my question is this;  have the police charged him with the
wrong offence, given that he hadn't fully come out on to the side road, or
is having half the car on the road sufficient for the offence to stick?

'Pavement' and 'footpath' would both count as 'public road', if that is
your question. Presumably they think DCA is easier to prove than driving on
a footway / footpath / cyclepath.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/04/2025 22:33, John wrote:

A friend's son has received a letter through the post for an alleged
offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road
without due care and attention.

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside his
mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is
seperated from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side
road before continuing his journey.  As he edged out onto the side road, making sure there was no traffic, a police car came zooming from the
main road to the side road and stopped him, leaving his vehicle half on
the footpath and half on the pavement.  The police officer tore him off
a strip (quite rightly) but also called him a dick, to which the lad
said "don't call me a dick".  The police said he would be hearing from
them hence the letter.

I'm aware that it's an offence to drive on a pavement but perfectly
legal to park on a pavement as long as you don't cause an obstruction
(he didn't), so my question is this;  have the police charged him with
the wrong offence, given that he hadn't fully come out on to the side
road, or is having half the car on the road sufficient for the offence
to stick?

In the UK under the Highways Act 1980, a road in law, or highway,
extends to include the pavement, verges, and footway, so there's no
arguable distinction there. You can drive on any of those without due
care and attention, but you're committing an offence if you do.

As for the police calling him a dick, that's obviously career-ending for
the officer involved, even if thoroughly deserved.

As for answering back, which probably got your friend's son charged
rather than just let off with a lecture, he's got what he deserved, and
will hopefully learn a lesson.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3 Apr 2025 at 22:33:17 BST, "John" <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:

A friend's son has received a letter through the post for an alleged
offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road
without due care and attention.

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside his
mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is
seperated from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side
road before continuing his journey. As he edged out onto the side road, making sure there was no traffic, a police car came zooming from the
main road to the side road and stopped him, leaving his vehicle half on
the footpath and half on the pavement. The police officer tore him off
a strip (quite rightly) but also called him a dick, to which the lad
said "don't call me a dick". The police said he would be hearing from
them hence the letter.

I'm aware that it's an offence to drive on a pavement but perfectly
legal to park on a pavement as long as you don't cause an obstruction
(he didn't), so my question is this; have the police charged him with
the wrong offence, given that he hadn't fully come out on to the side
road, or is having half the car on the road sufficient for the offence
to stick?

I have no specific knowledge, but generally the footway and highway verges are part of the public highway, so I doubt if being partially or fully on the pavement is any impediment to a charge of careless driving.

--

Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/04/2025 12:45, John wrote:

On 04/04/2025 10:06, Norman Wells wrote:

As for the police calling him a dick, that's obviously career-ending
for the officer involved, even if thoroughly deserved.

From what I was told, they didn't have their body cameras's on, so it
would be difficult to prove, and to be honest, I would hate for an
officer to lose his career over it.

I assumed that Norman was joking.

Umm, he was joking? Surely?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/04/2025 06:31, John wrote:

On 04/04/2025 09:11, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 03/04/2025 22:33, John wrote:

A friend's son has received a letter through the post for an alleged
offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road
without due care and attention.

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside
his mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is
seperated from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side
road before continuing his journey.  As he edged out onto the side
road, making sure there was no traffic, a police car came zooming
from the main road to the side road and stopped him, leaving his
vehicle half on the footpath and half on the pavement.  The police
officer tore him off a strip (quite rightly) but also called him a
dick, to which the lad said "don't call me a dick".  The police said
he would be hearing from them hence the letter.

I'm aware that it's an offence to drive on a pavement but perfectly
legal to park on a pavement as long as you don't cause an obstruction
(he didn't), so my question is this;  have the police charged him
with the wrong offence, given that he hadn't fully come out on to the
side road, or is having half the car on the road sufficient for the
offence to stick?

  'Pavement' and 'footpath' would both count as 'public road', if that
is your question. Presumably they think DCA is easier to prove than
driving on a footway / footpath / cyclepath.

Interesting, soomething I never knew, thanks.

The description of the immediate area sounds to be of interest. Would
your son have been able to get his car from where it was parked onto the
side road or main road carriageway by any other route?

Is it the custhom and practice of other residents to do the same thing?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/04/2025 04:07, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 3 Apr 2025 at 22:33:17 BST, "John" <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:

A friend's son has received a letter through the post for an alleged
offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road
without due care and attention.

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside his
mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is
seperated from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side
road before continuing his journey. As he edged out onto the side road,
making sure there was no traffic, a police car came zooming from the
main road to the side road and stopped him, leaving his vehicle half on
the footpath and half on the pavement. The police officer tore him off
a strip (quite rightly) but also called him a dick, to which the lad
said "don't call me a dick". The police said he would be hearing from
them hence the letter.

I'm aware that it's an offence to drive on a pavement but perfectly
legal to park on a pavement as long as you don't cause an obstruction
(he didn't), so my question is this; have the police charged him with
the wrong offence, given that he hadn't fully come out on to the side
road, or is having half the car on the road sufficient for the offence
to stick?

I have no specific knowledge, but generally the footway and highway verges are
part of the public highway, so I doubt if being partially or fully on the pavement is any impediment to a charge of careless driving.

...as long as the elements of the offence are made out.

But we cannot know whether they are.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/04/2025 22:33, John wrote:

A friend's son has received a letter through the post for an alleged
offence of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road
without due care and attention.

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside his
mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is
seperated from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side
road before continuing his journey.  As he edged out onto the side road, making sure there was no traffic, a police car came zooming from the
main road to the side road and stopped him, leaving his vehicle half on
the footpath and half on the pavement.  The police officer tore him off
a strip (quite rightly) but also called him a dick, to which the lad
said "don't call me a dick".  The police said he would be hearing from
them hence the letter.

I'm aware that it's an offence to drive on a pavement but perfectly
legal to park on a pavement as long as you don't cause an obstruction
(he didn't), so my question is this;  have the police charged him with
the wrong offence, given that he hadn't fully come out on to the side
road, or is having half the car on the road sufficient for the offence
to stick?

Driving without due care and attention means driving that falls well
short of what can be expected from a careful and competent driver. As
others have pointed out, the footway is usually part of the highway. I
would say that he is lucky not to have been charged with driving on that
part of the highway set apart for the use of pedestrians as well as
driving without due care and attention.

--
Colin Bignell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/04/2025 09:11, Nick Finnigan wrote:

<snip>

 'Pavement' and 'footpath' would both count as 'public road', if that
is your question. Presumably they think DCA is easier to prove than
driving on a footway / footpath / cyclepath.

Slightly confusing is that in civil engineering speak, the 'pavement'
usually refers to the roadway and not the footway.

[I spent some time programming a testing machine controller for the
'Pavement Testing and Design' department at TRRL. It was testing bits of
road.]

--
Cheers
Clive

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/04/2025 12:27, Colin Bignell wrote:

On 03/04/2025 22:33, John wrote:

The alleged offence occured after he parked on the pavement outside his
mum's house and drove down the short stretch of pavement (it is seperated
from the main road by a wide stretch of grass) to the side road before
continuing his journey.

Driving without due care and attention means driving that falls well short
of what can be expected from a careful and competent driver. As others have pointed out, the footway is usually part of the highway. I would say that
he is lucky not to have been charged with driving on that part of the
highway set apart for the use of pedestrians as well as driving without due care and attention.

If there is a long history of parking and driving on that highway, which
is well separated from a nearby carriageway, it might be hard to
demonstrate it is set apart for the use of pedestrians.

(Barton Road, Stretford is the sort of layout I am considering).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/04/2025 07:40, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 04/04/2025 09:11, Nick Finnigan wrote:

<snip>

  'Pavement' and 'footpath' would both count as 'public road', if that
is your question. Presumably they think DCA is easier to prove than
driving on a footway / footpath / cyclepath.

Slightly confusing is that in civil engineering speak, the 'pavement'
usually refers to the roadway and not the footway.

"Pavement" refers to any part of the highway which is paved, whether
reserved for pedestrians or open to all comers.

Distinguishing the "footway" and the "carriageway"vis much more precise
- and useful.

[I spent some time programming a testing machine controller for the
'Pavement Testing and Design' department at TRRL. It was testing bits of road.]

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 11:15:07 -0500, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:

On 05/04/2025 07:40, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 04/04/2025 09:11, Nick Finnigan wrote:

<snip>

  'Pavement' and 'footpath' would both count as 'public road', if that
is your question. Presumably they think DCA is easier to prove than
driving on a footway / footpath / cyclepath.

Slightly confusing is that in civil engineering speak, the 'pavement'
usually refers to the roadway and not the footway.

"Pavement" refers to any part of the highway which is paved, whether
reserved for pedestrians or open to all comers.

Distinguishing the "footway" and the "carriageway"vis much more precise
- and useful.

Legally, yes. There's also a distinction between a footway and a footpath -
the former being the part of an all-use highway that is set aside for pedestrians, and the latter being a highway that is for pedestrians only.

The reason why we call the footway the "pavement" is historical. Once upon a time, the footway was the only part of the highway that was paved - the carriageway was, typically, a rough macadam surface (gravel and grit), or
later tar-bound macadam (aka tarmac), while the footway was paved with
paving slabs. These days, both the carriageway and footway are typically asphalt (other than in posh places where block paving is used on one or
both), but the name "pavement" for the footway has stuck.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/04/2025 20:43, Mark Goodge wrote:

The reason why we call the footway the "pavement" is historical.

Around here, the locals used to call what we now call the
pavement the "causey" [as in "Geroff t'causey!" addressed to cyclists]. Allegedly, "causeway" is derived therefrom. I haven't heard it used
for several decades, though. In terms of loss of dialects, radio and
TV have much to answer for.

[Is "Dring" what your GP does?]

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bach,CPE

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/04/2025 16:01, Andy Walker wrote:

On 05/04/2025 20:43, Mark Goodge wrote:

The reason why we call the footway the "pavement" is historical.

    Around here, the locals used to call what we now call the
pavement the "causey" [as in "Geroff t'causey!" addressed to cyclists]. Allegedly, "causeway" is derived therefrom.

Probably the other way round, I'd say.

I haven't heard it used
for several decades, though.  In terms of loss of dialects, radio and
TV have much to answer for.

I'm sure I have seen "causeway" (within the phrase "causeway at the side
of a highway" as an early legal reference what is not propervly the footway.

    [Is "Dring" what your GP does?]

Reads like onomatopoeia for that prominent guitar chord towards the end
of Gene Pitney's "24 Hours From Tulsa".

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/04/2025 00:18, JNugent wrote:

On 05/04/2025 16:01, Andy Walker wrote:

On 05/04/2025 20:43, Mark Goodge wrote:

The reason why we call the footway the "pavement" is historical.

     Around here, the locals used to call what we now call the
pavement the "causey" [as in "Geroff t'causey!" addressed to cyclists].
Allegedly, "causeway" is derived therefrom.

Causeway is usually a raised way across wet land - I associate Nottingham with boulevards rather than swamps.

Probably the other way round, I'd say.

I haven't heard it used
for several decades, though.  In terms of loss of dialects, radio and
TV have much to answer for.

I'm sure I have seen "causeway" (within the phrase "causeway at the side of
a highway" as an early legal reference what is not propervly the footway.

"If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the
side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers ..." Highways Act 1835, one of 2 sections still in force.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72

Possibly a footpath (as now) was unmade, a casueway raised and paved.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/04/2025 10:07, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 06/04/2025 00:18, JNugent wrote:

On 05/04/2025 16:01, [I] wrote:

     Around here, the locals used to call what we now call the
pavement the "causey" [as in "Geroff t'causey!" addressed to cyclists].
Allegedly, "causeway" is derived therefrom.

Causeway is usually a raised way across wet land - I associate
Nottingham with boulevards rather than swamps.

How very 20thC of you! Nott'm had a Broadmarsh shopping centre [currently the Broadmarsh Demolition Site], and a Narrow Marsh slum. It
also has the Meadows area [the large tract between the old town and the
river Trent -- Nott'm was built on the river Leen rather than the Trent]
which was a huge swamp until developed into a huge slum. It did also
have a causeway across the Meadows between the town and Trent Bridge
[or Hethbeth Bridge as it was then known]. These days it indeed has
lots of Boulevards, and no significant swamps.

Probably the other way round, I'd say.

Do you equally think it likely that we had roadways, pathways,
railways and footways from which we derived roads, paths, rails and
feet?

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Rimsky-Korsakov

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/04/2025 22:33, John wrote:
....

I'm aware that it's ... perfectly legal to park on a pavement ...

Not in Greater London, unless specifically permitted.


--
Reentrant

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 05/04/2025 18:18, JNugent wrote:

On 05/04/2025 16:01, Andy Walker wrote:

On 05/04/2025 20:43, Mark Goodge wrote:

The reason why we call the footway the "pavement" is historical.

     Around here, the locals used to call what we now call the
pavement the "causey" [as in "Geroff t'causey!" addressed to cyclists].
Allegedly, "causeway" is derived therefrom.

Probably the other way round, I'd say.

I haven't heard it used
for several decades, though.  In terms of loss of dialects, radio and
TV have much to answer for.

I'm sure I have seen "causeway" (within the phrase "causeway at the side
of a highway" as an early legal reference what is not propervly the
footway.

Oops!

Should have been "now properly"

     [Is "Dring" what your GP does?]

Reads like onomatopoeia for that prominent guitar chord towards the end
of Gene Pitney's "24 Hours From Tulsa".

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)