It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the land registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your house/front garden.Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park
even if their is a public right to pass.
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park
even
if their is a public right to pass.
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip
hazard,
for example if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if
there is grit present or the channel becomes bent.
And who would be liable if someone is injured? The footway is (usually) public land.
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
On 17/07/2025 17:15, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present or the
channel becomes bent.
And who would be liable if someone is injured? The footway is (usually) public land.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Bound to happen, even if only by a few yards. Trailing cables.
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the land registry, butIs there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park even if their is
a public right to pass.
not the *public* carriageway outside your house/front garden.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
You can get a disabled bay put in outside your house, but any disabled
person can use it, not just the resident of that house. You could have a marked EV charging bay that anyone could in theory use for EV charging, but only the resident of that particular house is able to plug in and charge an EV. Anyone else parking there (EV or not) is not charging an EV and so
going against the conditions of the bay. The trouble with that idea is it prevent you parking your own ICE vehicle outside your house.
More pragmatically, I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where a householder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay them to charge using their electricity. If it all goes into some kind of community billing scheme (with a smartcard to enable charging or whatever) then the costs should all balance out (ie if I park outside your house and you park outside mine, it should make no difference compared with parking outside our respective houses).
On 17/07/2025 17:52, Theo wrote:
More pragmatically, I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where
a householder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay
them to charge using their electricity. If it all goes into some kind
of community billing scheme (with a smartcard to enable charging or whatever) then the costs should all balance out (ie if I park outside
your house and you park outside mine, it should make no difference
compared with parking outside our respective houses).
That householder may find running a business from their home will involve
a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
"Max Demian" wrote:The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present or the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable
and then asphalted over
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay
them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay
them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:15:14 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park
even
if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the land >registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your house/front
garden.
On 17/07/2025 05:06 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
Good point.
What surely cannot happen is for the parking space to become the
exclusive property of a particular household?
For which indeed there is no existing legislation. And would probably require some
fundamental changes to implement; either at national or local level, or both.
On 17/07/2025 17:45, billy bookcase wrote:
For which indeed there is no existing legislation. And would probably require some
fundamental changes to implement; either at national or local level, or both.
More fundamentally, the grid, if my sums were correct. needs 20% or more extra capacity to charge the 100%-EV fleet-to-be. Whatever the exact
figure, the PTB have been very quiet about the extra load on the grid.
In message <105b86f$1eme4$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:52 on Thu, 17 Jul
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the
land registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your
house/front garden.
Not true. Someone in my street has arranged to have a "Disabled" bay
painted outside their house, although it's mainly used by the carers,
which isn't strictly allowed (especially as they don't display a blue
badge). Of course anyone with a blur badge can use it, but would
probably draw complaints from the resident.
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors, Teachers,
and of course people with Residents' passes.
On 18/07/2025 00:59, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:06 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
Good point.
What surely cannot happen is for the parking space to become the
exclusive property of a particular household?
That is pretty much the Belgian model in dense inner city housing developments where there is not enough off street parking.
It supports a thriving tow away industry. If someone parks on your spot
or blocks your garage or the road and they are just a phone call away
(about 15 minutes response time - less in major cities).
It is much better than the useless UK system where the police pretty
much refuse to get involved unless the stupid badly parked car has
actually blocked the highway as opposed to a private drive. Then they do eventually come and sort it out (but don't hold your breath).
If you have a few big heavy men on each corner an obstructing car with handbrake engaged can be moved out of the way without the owner's
consent but it is not at all good for the shock absorbers.
Fire brigade in North Yorkshire have been complaining bitterly about bad
and inconsiderate parking blocking roads. Most recently:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d6y95j0yyo
I did wonder if they fixed it with the heavy blokes trick *after* taking
this photo. I first saw them do it to a car parked across the emergency vehicle access road for a block of flats. The other way in a fire engine
is engage lowest gear close the gap and nudge the thing out of the way -
this leaves flat spots on the tyres of the car being nudged (and
possible scratches on the bumper).
It is traditional to leave the moved car in such a position that the
driver will have to enter by the passenger side door when this happens.
On 17/07/2025 17:45, billy bookcase wrote:
For which indeed there is no existing legislation. And would probably >>require some
fundamental changes to implement; either at national or local level, or both.
More fundamentally, the grid, if my sums were correct. needs 20% or
more extra capacity to charge the 100%-EV fleet-to-be.
Whatever the exact figure, the PTB have been very quiet about the extra
load on the grid.
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay
them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
On 17/07/2025 05:49 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:15:14 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park >>> even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced
street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street.
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <105b86f$1eme4$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:52 on Thu, 17 Jul
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the
land registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your
house/front garden.
Not true. Someone in my street has arranged to have a "Disabled" bay
painted outside their house, although it's mainly used by the carers,
which isn't strictly allowed (especially as they don't display a blue
badge). Of course anyone with a blur badge can use it, but would
probably draw complaints from the resident.
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors, Teachers,
and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents of
that property only?
On 18/07/2025 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:49 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:15:14 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park >>>> even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced
street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street.
What is this 'right to park' ?
In message <mdumgqFi1g9U3@mid.individual.net>, at 11:38:18 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <105b86f$1eme4$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:52 on Thu, 17 Jul
2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the
land registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your
house/front garden.
Not true. Someone in my street has arranged to have a "Disabled" bay
painted outside their house, although it's mainly used by the carers,
which isn't strictly allowed (especially as they don't display a blue
badge). Of course anyone with a blur badge can use it, but would
probably draw complaints from the resident.
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors, Teachers, >>> and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents
of that property only?
Public ones, located at the kerbside.
On 18/07/2025 09:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:59, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:06 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other
than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
Good point.
What surely cannot happen is for the parking space to become the
exclusive property of a particular household?
That is pretty much the Belgian model in dense inner city housing
developments where there is not enough off street parking.
It supports a thriving tow away industry. If someone parks on your spot
or blocks your garage or the road and they are just a phone call away
(about 15 minutes response time - less in major cities).
Belgium, then, seems to operate a land-ownership system wherein parcels
of the highway can be in private ownership (or lease). I can see disadvantages for the many in that, as well advantages for the few.
A little similar in principle to the unjustified reservation of highway
land for parking only by nearby residents in some places.
It is much better than the useless UK system where the police pretty
much refuse to get involved unless the stupid badly parked car has
actually blocked the highway as opposed to a private drive. Then they do
eventually come and sort it out (but don't hold your breath).
Of course, in the UK, there is no such thing as ""your spot", so there's nothing for the police to do in such circumsatnces (unless the "spot" is
a disabled parking place OR the offending vehicle is not displaying a residents' parking permit).
If you have a few big heavy men on each corner an obstructing car with
handbrake engaged can be moved out of the way without the owner's
consent but it is not at all good for the shock absorbers.
In the UK: serious risk of criminal damage.
Fire brigade in North Yorkshire have been complaining bitterly about badIt is quite bad in some of the residential street not far from here.
and inconsiderate parking blocking roads. Most recently:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d6y95j0yyo
I did wonder if they fixed it with the heavy blokes trick *after* taking
this photo. I first saw them do it to a car parked across the emergency
vehicle access road for a block of flats. The other way in a fire engine
is engage lowest gear close the gap and nudge the thing out of the way -
this leaves flat spots on the tyres of the car being nudged (and
possible scratches on the bumper).
It is traditional to leave the moved car in such a position that the
driver will have to enter by the passenger side door when this happens.
Cars parked offset from each other on opposite kerbs, but still not
enabling a delivery lorry of fire appliance through. Really, that needs
to be made a FPN offence (straightforward obstruction of the highway),
and unusually, though not uniquely, for a parking offence, three penalty points in view of the threat to life and property if a fire appliance
could not pass.
On 18/07/2025 05:39 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:49 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:15:14 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park >>>>> even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced
street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street.
What is this 'right to park' ?
I'm surprised you need to ask.
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking in
that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of the street for residents and visiting guests only).
On 18/07/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue
obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking in
that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of the
street for residents and visiting guests only).
You can, but what gives you that as a 'right' similar to 'right of way'?
What about non-motor vehicles and no driving licence? All highways,
including non-maintained ones?
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay
them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell
electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
I don't see how, since there's no tenancy agreement between neighbours.
If the property was a rental, it would be the resident tenant holding the electricity account not the landlord. So it would not be the landlord reselling electricity.
If it was a live-in landlord with a lodger I suppose they might not be allowed to let the lodger use the charger on the scheme, or need some mechanism to pay for it at cost price.
Theo
On 18/07/2025 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 09:37 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:59, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:06 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
It seems some LAs are allowing people to channel cables across the
footpath to charge their shiny new EV.
Striking by omission is the question of what happens if someone other >>>>> than the householder parks *on the public road* where the EV cable
emerges from the householders property ?
Is there (yet) any primary legislation that provides for the public
highway to be divvied up according to vehicle ownership ?
Good point.
What surely cannot happen is for the parking space to become the
exclusive property of a particular household?
That is pretty much the Belgian model in dense inner city housing
developments where there is not enough off street parking.
It supports a thriving tow away industry. If someone parks on your spot
or blocks your garage or the road and they are just a phone call away
(about 15 minutes response time - less in major cities).
Belgium, then, seems to operate a land-ownership system wherein
parcels of the highway can be in private ownership (or lease). I can
see disadvantages for the many in that, as well advantages for the few.
A little similar in principle to the unjustified reservation of
highway land for parking only by nearby residents in some places.
It is much better than the useless UK system where the police pretty
much refuse to get involved unless the stupid badly parked car has
actually blocked the highway as opposed to a private drive. Then they do >>> eventually come and sort it out (but don't hold your breath).
Of course, in the UK, there is no such thing as ""your spot", so
there's nothing for the police to do in such circumsatnces (unless the
"spot" is a disabled parking place OR the offending vehicle is not
displaying a residents' parking permit).
If you have a few big heavy men on each corner an obstructing car with
handbrake engaged can be moved out of the way without the owner's
consent but it is not at all good for the shock absorbers.
In the UK: serious risk of criminal damage.
Not to mention a few hernias. Modern cars seem to be much heavier than
the ones a few friends and I 'relocated' in this way - back in the days
of my youth.>>
Fire brigade in North Yorkshire have been complaining bitterly about bad >>> and inconsiderate parking blocking roads. Most recently:It is quite bad in some of the residential street not far from here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d6y95j0yyo
I did wonder if they fixed it with the heavy blokes trick *after* taking >>> this photo. I first saw them do it to a car parked across the emergency
vehicle access road for a block of flats. The other way in a fire engine >>> is engage lowest gear close the gap and nudge the thing out of the way - >>> this leaves flat spots on the tyres of the car being nudged (and
possible scratches on the bumper).
It is traditional to leave the moved car in such a position that the
driver will have to enter by the passenger side door when this happens.
Cars parked offset from each other on opposite kerbs, but still not
enabling a delivery lorry of fire appliance through. Really, that
needs to be made a FPN offence (straightforward obstruction of the
highway), and unusually, though not uniquely, for a parking offence,
three penalty points in view of the threat to life and property if a
fire appliance could not pass.
The first person to park did not cause an obstruction, and is not to blame. The second person (who parked offset, against the other kerb) did, and
does deserve blame.
How do you tell who parked last, and thus should get that FPN?
On 18/07/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 05:39 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:49 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:15:14 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to >>>>>> park
even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced >>>> street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street.
What is this 'right to park' ?
I'm surprised you need to ask.
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue
obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking
in that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of
the street for residents and visiting guests only).
You can, but what gives you that as a 'right' similar to 'right of
way'? What about non-motor vehicles and no driving licence? All
highways, including non-maintained ones?
On 18/07/2025 06:17 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdumgqFi1g9U3@mid.individual.net>, at 11:38:18 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <105b86f$1eme4$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:52 on Thu, 17 Jul >>>> 2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the
land registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your
house/front garden.
Not true. Someone in my street has arranged to have a "Disabled" bay
painted outside their house, although it's mainly used by the carers,
which isn't strictly allowed (especially as they don't display a blue
badge). Of course anyone with a blur badge can use it, but would
probably draw complaints from the resident.
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors, Teachers, >>>> and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents
of that property only?
Public ones, located at the kerbside.
Like petrol stations, shouldn't they be located off-street?
On 18/07/2025 05:39 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/07/2025 01:01, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 05:49 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 17:15:14 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to park >>>>> even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced
street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street.
What is this 'right to park' ?
I'm surprised you need to ask.
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue >obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking
in that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of
the street for residents and visiting guests only).
It's been like that for in excess of a century.
But... the question is whether one of these EV cable channels laid
between private property and the kerb will mean that only members of
that household with the EV charger will be able to park there.
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for
example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present or
the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable
and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where the charging
cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
In message <mdvgbgFm7snU1@mid.individual.net>, at 18:59:12 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 06:17 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdumgqFi1g9U3@mid.individual.net>, at 11:38:18 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <105b86f$1eme4$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:25:52 on Thu, 17 Jul >>>>> 2025, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> remarked:
Parking lots belonging to blocks of flats can be divvied up by the >>>>>> land registry, but not the *public* carriageway outside your
house/front garden.
Not true. Someone in my street has arranged to have a "Disabled" bay >>>>> painted outside their house, although it's mainly used by the carers, >>>>> which isn't strictly allowed (especially as they don't display a blue >>>>> badge). Of course anyone with a blur badge can use it, but would
probably draw complaints from the resident.
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors,
Teachers,
and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents
of that property only?
Public ones, located at the kerbside.
Like petrol stations, shouldn't they be located off-street?
There's not the available sites. It's bit like bus-stops. Some are off-street, congregated in things called bus stations, but the vast
majority are on-street.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to
park
even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced >>>> street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street.
What is this 'right to park' ?
I'm surprised you need to ask.
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue
obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking
in that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of
the street for residents and visiting guests only).
It's been like that for in excess of a century.
But... the question is whether one of these EV cable channels laid
between private property and the kerb will mean that only members of
that household with the EV charger will be able to park there.
You'd have to ask someone familiar with the wording of TROs. Is it
possible to have one which says "No parking, except residents of #23,
Railway Cuttings, East Cheam".
On 18 Jul 2025 at 17:34:52 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay >>>> them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell
electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
I don't see how, since there's no tenancy agreement between neighbours.
If the property was a rental, it would be the resident tenant holding the electricity account not the landlord. So it would not be the landlord reselling electricity.
If it was a live-in landlord with a lodger I suppose they might not be allowed to let the lodger use the charger on the scheme, or need some mechanism to pay for it at cost price.
Theo
The answer may be to administer the scheme through the electricity utilities who could know which customer to refund and which to charge by a card/card reader system on the charging controller.
On 18/07/2025 06:17 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdumgqFi1g9U3@mid.individual.net>, at 11:38:18 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors,
Teachers,
and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents
of that property only?
Public ones, located at the kerbside.
Like petrol stations, shouldn't they be located off-street?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 17:34:52 BST, "Theo" <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >> wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay >>>>>> them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell
electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
I don't see how, since there's no tenancy agreement between neighbours.
If the property was a rental, it would be the resident tenant holding the >>> electricity account not the landlord. So it would not be the landlord
reselling electricity.
If it was a live-in landlord with a lodger I suppose they might not be
allowed to let the lodger use the charger on the scheme, or need some
mechanism to pay for it at cost price.
Theo
The answer may be to administer the scheme through the electricity utilities >> who could know which customer to refund and which to charge by a card/card >> reader system on the charging controller.
It seems that KerboCharge (them of the pavement gullies mentioned upthread) are offering a scheme:
"Earn money when others use your supply
Use the Kerbo Charge app to make your supply available to others on your street or further afield.
Each time they use your supply you earn 4p/kWh. If someone used your supply twice per week you could halve your annual EV charging cost."
but I can't see any further details of how it works.
Theo
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:mdt8a7Faj2uU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for
example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present or
the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable >>> and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where the charging
cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
There appear to be a number of different solutions around.
Possibly in response to this.
quote:
The new guidance has been issued following the government's recent announcement of Ł25 million in funding for local authorities to install cross-pavement EV charging solutions across the country.
:unquote
( from a local website )
The mention of "funding" raises the distinct possibility that L.A's are simply dreaming up complex schemes involving lots of bureaucracy,
planning permission, licences etc in the hopes of securing these grants
while at the same time making them as unattractive as possible,
so nobody takes them up.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep channel cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 23:16:00 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue
obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking in >>> that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of the
street for residents and visiting guests only).
You can, but what gives you that as a 'right' similar to 'right of way'? >> What about non-motor vehicles and no driving licence? All highways,
including non-maintained ones?
It's a right in the sense that there is no law against it, and English law works on the principle that everything is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. Since public highways are provided for the use of the public, the public may use them for all purposes except those which are explicity prohibited.
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right is that of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there is an explicit exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives people the right to access property not belonging to them and without requiring permission from the landowner.
On 19/07/2025 09:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:mdt8a7Faj2uU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for
example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present or
the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable >>>> and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where the charging
cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
There appear to be a number of different solutions around.
Possibly in response to this.
quote:
The new guidance has been issued following the government's recent
announcement of L25 million in funding for local authorities to install
cross-pavement EV charging solutions across the country.
:unquote
( from a local website )
The mention of "funding" raises the distinct possibility that L.A's are
simply dreaming up complex schemes involving lots of bureaucracy,
planning permission, licences etc in the hopes of securing these grants
while at the same time making them as unattractive as possible,
so nobody takes them up.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep channel >> cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
Who puts the wire in? The council, or the house owner?
On 18/07/2025 18:59, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 06:17 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdumgqFi1g9U3@mid.individual.net>, at 11:38:18 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors,
Teachers, and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents
of that property only?
Public ones, located at the kerbside.
Like petrol stations, shouldn't they be located off-street?
Only if charging is as quick as filling a tank with petrol. Otherwise charging has to be combined with shopping/eating/working/sleeping &c.
On 19/07/2025 03:22 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/07/2025 18:59, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 06:17 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <mdumgqFi1g9U3@mid.individual.net>, at 11:38:18 on Fri, 18
Jul 2025, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
On 18/07/2025 03:50 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
There are bays in Cambridge allocated to EV chargers, Doctors,
Teachers, and of course people with Residents' passes.
*Public* EV chargers?
Or EV chargers located on domestic premises for the use of residents >>>>> of that property only?
Public ones, located at the kerbside.
Like petrol stations, shouldn't they be located off-street?
Only if charging is as quick as filling a tank with petrol. Otherwise
charging has to be combined with shopping/eating/working/sleeping &c.
Well, they have charging points on motorway service areas, I see.
But what you say graphically illustrates the relative uselessness of
eectric vehicles. I was offered a Tesla at a USA airport, but since I
wanted (among other things) to do a 1600 mile return journey though four states, I declined.
EVs are clearly useless for medium to long journeys, even if they were capable of doing 300 miles on a single charge.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:105g9gn$2p9pu$3@dont-email.me...
On 19/07/2025 09:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:mdt8a7Faj2uU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for
example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present or
the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable >>>>> and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where the charging
cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
There appear to be a number of different solutions around.
Possibly in response to this.
quote:
The new guidance has been issued following the government's recent
announcement of L25 million in funding for local authorities to install
cross-pavement EV charging solutions across the country.
:unquote
( from a local website )
The mention of "funding" raises the distinct possibility that L.A's are
simply dreaming up complex schemes involving lots of bureaucracy,
planning permission, licences etc in the hopes of securing these grants
while at the same time making them as unattractive as possible,
so nobody takes them up.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep channel >>> cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
Who puts the wire in? The council, or the house owner?
It's not there permanently.
As nobody is going to fall down a one inch wide channel cut in the
pavement the householder threads it out and drops it down the hole
each time.
And then afterwards lifts it out and threads it back onto the reel
This essentially is what people already do; except they put a plastic
cover "over" the cable which is lying on top of the pavement
Quite why anyone should require planning permission, 5 million
insurance, licences or fees just to carve a one inch channel in the
pavement to achieve the same objective is beyond me.
On 18/07/2025 09:26 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:24, JNugent wrote:
It is quite bad in some of the residential street not far from here.
Cars parked offset from each other on opposite kerbs, but still not
enabling a delivery lorry of fire appliance through. Really, that
needs to be made a FPN offence (straightforward obstruction of the
highway), and unusually, though not uniquely, for a parking offence,
three penalty points in view of the threat to life and property if a
fire appliance could not pass.
The first person to park did not cause an obstruction, and is not to
blame.
The second person (who parked offset, against the other kerb) did, and
does deserve blame.
How do you tell who parked last, and thus should get that FPN?
Both.
Who else?
The first to park (the "innocent" one) should immediately have moved the
car elsewhare when he/she saw the other vehicle park such that both
cause an unacceptable obstruction.
On 19/07/2025 03:50 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:105g9gn$2p9pu$3@dont-email.me...
On 19/07/2025 09:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:mdt8a7Faj2uU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for
example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present
or
the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable >>>>>> and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where the charging
cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
There appear to be a number of different solutions around.
Possibly in response to this.
quote:
The new guidance has been issued following the government's recent
announcement of L25 million in funding for local authorities to install >>>> cross-pavement EV charging solutions across the country.
:unquote
( from a local website )
The mention of "funding" raises the distinct possibility that L.A's are >>>> simply dreaming up complex schemes involving lots of bureaucracy,
planning permission, licences etc in the hopes of securing these grants >>>> while at the same time making them as unattractive as possible,
so nobody takes them up.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep channel
cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
Who puts the wire in? The council, or the house owner?
It's not there permanently.
As nobody is going to fall down a one inch wide channel cut in the
pavement the householder threads it out and drops it down the hole
each time.
And then afterwards lifts it out and threads it back onto the reel
This essentially is what people already do; except they put a plastic
cover "over" the cable which is lying on top of the pavement
Quite why anyone should require planning permission, 5 million
insurance, licences or fees just to carve a one inch channel in the
pavement to achieve the same objective is beyond me.
Wait until someone trips and breaks a leg, a collarbone and some ribs.
It won't be beyond you after that.
On 19/07/2025 11:10 AM, Theo wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 17:34:52 BST, "Theo"
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can pay >>>>>>> them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will
involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell
electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
I don't see how, since there's no tenancy agreement between neighbours. >>>>
If the property was a rental, it would be the resident tenant
holding the
electricity account not the landlord. So it would not be the landlord >>>> reselling electricity.
If it was a live-in landlord with a lodger I suppose they might not be >>>> allowed to let the lodger use the charger on the scheme, or need some
mechanism to pay for it at cost price.
Theo
The answer may be to administer the scheme through the electricity
utilities
who could know which customer to refund and which to charge by a
card/card
reader system on the charging controller.
It seems that KerboCharge (them of the pavement gullies mentioned
upthread)
are offering a scheme:
"Earn money when others use your supply
Use the Kerbo Charge app to make your supply available to others on your
street or further afield.
Each time they use your supply you earn 4p/kWh. If someone used your
supply
twice per week you could halve your annual EV charging cost."
but I can't see any further details of how it works.
What ahppens when the resident gets home from work and finds the space occupied by someone who has just started a three-hour charging session?
The mind boggles at the sveral very obvious drawbacks to this hare-
brained sscheme.
On 19/07/2025 03:50 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:105g9gn$2p9pu$3@dont-email.me...
On 19/07/2025 09:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:mdt8a7Faj2uU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip >>>>>>> hazard, for example if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy >>>>>>> to happen if there is grit present or the channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with >>>>>> cable and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement,
where the charging cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
There appear to be a number of different solutions around.
Possibly in response to this.
quote:
The new guidance has been issued following the government's recent
announcement of L25 million in funding for local authorities to
install cross-pavement EV charging solutions across the country.
:unquote
( from a local website )
The mention of "funding" raises the distinct possibility that L.A's
are simply dreaming up complex schemes involving lots of bureaucracy,
planning permission, licences etc in the hopes of securing these
grants while at the same time making them as unattractive as
possible,
so nobody takes them up.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep
channel cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
Who puts the wire in? The council, or the house owner?
It's not there permanently.
As nobody is going to fall down a one inch wide channel cut in the
pavement the householder threads it out and drops it down the hole each
time.
And then afterwards lifts it out and threads it back onto the reel
This essentially is what people already do; except they put a plastic
cover "over" the cable which is lying on top of the pavement
Quite why anyone should require planning permission, £5 million
insurance, licences or fees just to carve a one inch channel in the
pavement to achieve the same objective is beyond me.
Wait until someone trips and breaks a leg, a collarbone and some ribs.
It won't be beyond you after that.
What ahppens when the resident gets home from work and finds the space occupied by someone who has just started a three-hour charging session?
The mind boggles at the sveral very obvious drawbacks to this
hare-brained sscheme.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep channel >>> cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
Who puts the wire in? The council, or the house owner?
It's not there permanently.
As nobody is going to fall down a one inch wide channel cut in the
pavement the householder threads it out and drops it down the hole
each time.
And then afterwards lifts it out and threads it back onto the reel
On 19/07/2025 07:48 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
What is this 'right to park' ?It may be divvied up by land ownership, with no public right to >>>>>>> park
even if their is a public right to pass.
The scheme explicitly applies to houses with no private parking.
So what?
Does that supersede the right to pass and re-pass?
Or even the right to park in that space? After all, a typical terraced >>>>> street cannot accommodate even one car for every house in the street. >>>>
I'm surprised you need to ask.
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue
obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking
in that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of
the street for residents and visiting guests only).
It's been like that for in excess of a century.
But... the question is whether one of these EV cable channels laid
between private property and the kerb will mean that only members of
that household with the EV charger will be able to park there.
You'd have to ask someone familiar with the wording of TROs. Is it
possible to have one which says "No parking, except residents of #23,
Railway Cuttings, East Cheam".
That, of course, is what I'm asking.
Unless that space on the public is to be permanently arrogated to the
person or household paying for the cross-footway installation, there
wuld be little point in paying for it.
But as a scheme, it is highly unsatisfactory. If under those
arrangements, every inch of kerb space in a particular terraced street
were reserved for the sole use of an adjacent household, not only would
it have the effect of converting the street into a Resident Parking
Zone, but many of the residentss in that street wouldn't be able to use
it at all, since there could never be enough kerbside space for every
vehicle owned or used by all the residents. Some would be forced out of
the street (for parking purposes) and start encroaching onto streets
where fewer cross-footway channels were installed.
One inch is still enough to trip a person, or get a wheel of a pram or wheelchair stuck
in.
What do you do when it snows and gets filled up with ice?
Each time they use your supply you earn 4p/kWh. If someone used
your supply twice per week you could halve your annual EV charging >>>cost."
but I can't see any further details of how it works.
What ahppens when the resident gets home from work and finds the
space occupied by someone who has just started a three-hour charging >>session?
The mind boggles at the sveral very obvious drawbacks to this hare- >>brained sscheme.
Including HMRC?
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:5GmlV0TPdJfoFAkM@perry.uk...
One inch is still enough to trip a person, or get a wheel of a pram
or wheelchair stuck
in.
How many times would you wheel a pram or wheel chair directly
perpendicular to the edge of the pavement ?
While people are more likely to trip up over unven paving sones.
* Whereas if the channel were cut into extra thick paving stones
then the surface on either side of the channel would be guarenteed
to be level
What do you do when it snows and gets filled up with ice?
Now that *is* a good point. When everyone is finally driving around
in their EV's, powered by nuclear generated electricity, Global Warming
will indeed be a thing of the past; and so we can look forward to proper >winters again
On 19/07/2025 00:41, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 09:26 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 18/07/2025 15:24, JNugent wrote:
Phew! For a moment there I thought you were being serious.It is quite bad in some of the residential street not far from here.
Cars parked offset from each other on opposite kerbs, but still not
enabling a delivery lorry of fire appliance through. Really, that
needs to be made a FPN offence (straightforward obstruction of the
highway), and unusually, though not uniquely, for a parking offence,
three penalty points in view of the threat to life and property if a
fire appliance could not pass.
The first person to park did not cause an obstruction, and is not to
blame.
The second person (who parked offset, against the other kerb) did, and
does deserve blame.
How do you tell who parked last, and thus should get that FPN?
Both.
Who else?
The first to park (the "innocent" one) should immediately have moved
the car elsewhare when he/she saw the other vehicle park such that
both cause an unacceptable obstruction.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
What ahppens when the resident gets home from work and finds the space
occupied by someone who has just started a three-hour charging session?
The mind boggles at the sveral very obvious drawbacks to this
hare-brained sscheme.
They go and park somewhere else, just like if someone had parked any other car outside their house. They don't have a guaranteed parking space. When you live somewhere like that you learn to manage.
If charging is important (ie the car doesn't have enough juice for tomorrow) then they'll need to find an alternative charger. But most cars have enough battery for maybe a week of normal commuting type driving (20 miles there,
20 miles back kind of thing) so it's likely not to be the end of the world - such drivers can likely skip a few days with no problems. It's only if they have a big road trip tomorrow do they definitely need to top up and there will be local chargers they can do it with, just not necessarily in their street.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:me1r8cF3mtkU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/07/2025 03:50 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:105g9gn$2p9pu$3@dont-email.me...
On 19/07/2025 09:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:mdt8a7Faj2uU2@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" wrote:
Depending on the design of the channels there's bound to be a trip hazard, for
example
if the channel isn't replaced properly: easy to happen if there is grit present
or
the
channel becomes bent.
Hardly. It would be trunked and sunk into the ground, same as with cable
and then asphalted over
The ones I've seen have an openable "flap" across the pavement, where the charging
cable can be inserted or removed in 30 seconds
<https://www.kerbocharge.com/>
There appear to be a number of different solutions around.
Possibly in response to this.
quote:
The new guidance has been issued following the government's recent
announcement of L25 million in funding for local authorities to install >>>>> cross-pavement EV charging solutions across the country.
:unquote
( from a local website )
The mention of "funding" raises the distinct possibility that L.A's are >>>>> simply dreaming up complex schemes involving lots of bureaucracy,
planning permission, licences etc in the hopes of securing these grants >>>>> while at the same time making them as unattractive as possible,
so nobody takes them up.
When in reality all that's needed is a one inch wide, six inch deep channel
cut across the pavement.
Which for an amateur with an angle grinder and stone cutting discs
should be no more than a day's work. For paviors with the right
equipment maybe a quarter of that.
Forget the tarmac !
This looks like a real business opportunity going begging.
Possibly even franchising !
Who said reading UseNet was a waste of time ?
Who puts the wire in? The council, or the house owner?
It's not there permanently.
As nobody is going to fall down a one inch wide channel cut in the
pavement the householder threads it out and drops it down the hole
each time.
And then afterwards lifts it out and threads it back onto the reel
This essentially is what people already do; except they put a plastic
cover "over" the cable which is lying on top of the pavement
Quite why anyone should require planning permission, 5 million
insurance, licences or fees just to carve a one inch channel in the
pavement to achieve the same objective is beyond me.
Wait until someone trips and breaks a leg, a collarbone and some ribs.
Over a one inch channel in the pavement ? And as compared with the
present situation using plastic covers on "top" ?
And obviously I'm talking about the whole of the U.K. here.
Not just in Liverpool.
Where obviously they'll be tripping over the things and claiming
thousands in compensation, before they've even been installed.
So they will.
It won't be beyond you after that.
On 19/07/2025 14:01, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 11:10 AM, Theo wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Jul 2025 at 17:34:52 BST, "Theo"
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Sam Plusnet wrote:
Theo wrote:
I hope there will arise neighbourhood schemes where ahouseholder can mount a charger on their wall and neighbours can >>>>>>>> pay
them to
charge using their electricity.
That householder may find running a business from their home will >>>>>>> involve a hundred problems they hadn't bargained for.
ISTR that without separate metering e.g. landlords can only re-sell >>>>>> electricity at the same price they buy it at, would that apply to
letting your neighbour charge their cars?
I don't see how, since there's no tenancy agreement between
neighbours.
If the property was a rental, it would be the resident tenant
holding the
electricity account not the landlord. So it would not be the landlord >>>>> reselling electricity.
If it was a live-in landlord with a lodger I suppose they might not be >>>>> allowed to let the lodger use the charger on the scheme, or need some >>>>> mechanism to pay for it at cost price.
Theo
The answer may be to administer the scheme through the electricity
utilities
who could know which customer to refund and which to charge by a
card/card
reader system on the charging controller.
It seems that KerboCharge (them of the pavement gullies mentioned
upthread)
are offering a scheme:
"Earn money when others use your supply
Use the Kerbo Charge app to make your supply available to others on your >>> street or further afield.
Each time they use your supply you earn 4p/kWh. If someone used your
supply
twice per week you could halve your annual EV charging cost."
but I can't see any further details of how it works.
What ahppens when the resident gets home from work and finds the space
occupied by someone who has just started a three-hour charging session?
The mind boggles at the sveral very obvious drawbacks to this hare-
brained sscheme.
Including HMRC?
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car
and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
Andy Burns wrote:I'm not suggesting the person allowing neighbours to charge their cars
e.g. landlords can only re-sellelectricity at the same price they buy it at
I don't see how, since there's no tenancy agreement between neighbours.
But it's worse than that.
As well as not being able to take advantage of their own non-existent
right to park outside the house, they will be denied access to the
charging system whose installation they have paid for.
JNugent wrote:
But it's worse than that.
As well as not being able to take advantage of their own non-existent
right to park outside the house, they will be denied access to the
charging system whose installation they have paid for.
And they will be actually encouraging charger-less neighbours to park in "their" space.
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car
and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for
emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately
ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?
JNugent wrote:
But it's worse than that.
As well as not being able to take advantage of their own non-existent
right to park outside the house, they will be denied access to the
charging system whose installation they have paid for.
And they will be actually encouraging charger-less neighbours to park in "their" space.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
But it's worse than that.
As well as not being able to take advantage of their own non-existent
right to park outside the house, they will be denied access to the
charging system whose installation they have paid for.
And they will be actually encouraging charger-less neighbours to park in
"their" space.
For which they get paid extra. If they choose to invite people to use 'their' space to make revenue, they have to deal with it potentially being occupied more of the time. If they don't enroll in the system then they don't encourage anyone to use 'their' space, outside of normal contention
for the limited number of spaces.
Whether the revenue is worth it or not is a decision each individual has to make. But if you don't use your space very often (eg you don't have a car but installed it so visiting family can charge, or when you hire) then you could make some income by neighbours using it.
We don't have any more details of the scheme, but I'm presuming that if 'their' space is occupied they can park and charge in a neighbour's
charging space, and the neighbour will make revenue from them. But that means you don't have one charging bay available to you, you have N bays shared between all the neighbours who have joined the scheme. That means there's a higher chance of finding spaces (eg some percentage of those neighbours will be away).
Over a one inch channel in the pavement ? And as compared with the
present situation using plastic covers on "top" ?
Have you any knowledge of the number of cases of local authorities
being successfully sued for trip hazards on the pavement? And usually
for a quite minor unevenness (well under an inch)?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 23:16:00 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 18:11, JNugent wrote:
If you have a motor vehicle and a driving licence, you can leave that
vehicle on the highway, provided that doing so does not cause an undue
obstruction and that there is no specific prohibition against parking in >>> that particular place (eg, a yellow or red line or a reservation of the
street for residents and visiting guests only).
You can, but what gives you that as a 'right' similar to 'right of way'? >> What about non-motor vehicles and no driving licence? All highways,
including non-maintained ones?
It's a right in the sense that there is no law against it, and English law works on the principle that everything is permitted unless explicitly forbidden. Since public highways are provided for the use of the public, the public may use them for all purposes except those which are explicity prohibited.
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right is that of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there is an explicit exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives people the right to access property not belonging to them and without requiring permission from the landowner.
Quite why anyone should require planning permission, Ł5 million
insurance, licences or fees just to carve a one inch channel in the
pavement to achieve the same objective is beyond me.
On 18/07/2025 23:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's a right in the sense that there is no law against it, and English
law
works on the principle that everything is permitted unless explicitly
forbidden. Since public highways are provided for the use of the
public, the
public may use them for all purposes except those which are explicity
prohibited.
The 'get orff my land' view, from Regina v Pratt:
"I take it to be clear law that, if a man use the land over which there
is a right of way for any purpose, lawful or unlawful, other than that
of passing and repassing, he is a trespasser."
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right
is that
of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there is an
explicit
exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives people the right to
access property not belonging to them and without requiring permission
from
the landowner.
And when did 'access to property' include 'parking' without permission?
On 18/07/2025 23:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right is that >> of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there is an explicit >> exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives people the right to
access property not belonging to them and without requiring permission from >> the landowner.
And when did 'access to property' include 'parking' without permission?
How *wide* is a "right of way"? It could be infinitesimal, or enough for
a horse or road vehicle.
Are there different rights of way for
pedestrians (with or without a dog), bicycles, horses &c.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:35:00 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 23:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right is that
of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there is an explicit >>> exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives people the right to
access property not belonging to them and without requiring permission from >>> the landowner.
And when did 'access to property' include 'parking' without permission?
It doesn't. But that question only applies to a right of way over private property. A public highway is different; the right to use that includes parking on it provided that parking is not explicitly restricted.
Mark
On 21 Jul 2025 at 12:25:42 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:35:00 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>
On 18/07/2025 23:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right is that
of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there is an explicit
exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives people the right to >>>> access property not belonging to them and without requiring permission from
the landowner.
And when did 'access to property' include 'parking' without permission?
It doesn't. But that question only applies to a right of way over private
property. A public highway is different; the right to use that includes
parking on it provided that parking is not explicitly restricted.
As a matter of interest is that right documented in any way, or is it simply a >convention that parked cars are not "moved on" when they are not perceived as >obstructing the highway?
Again, if we're talking about a right of way over private property, then
yes, there are three classes of rights, which are hierarchical.
The first is a public right of way on foot (aka a public footpath),
which can only be used by pedestrians. Pedestrians may be accompanied
by a dog (or other animal),
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car
and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for
emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately
ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
It's worth bearing in mind that the law applicable to public rights of way over private property is complex and often non-intuitive. Much of it is
still common law, so there is no definitive statement in legislation. And it's also completely irrelevant to the topic in the title of this thread, which refers to public highways. The law governing public rights of way over private land is completely different to the law governing the use of public highways.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> remarked:
Over a one inch channel in the pavement ? And as compared with the
present situation using plastic covers on "top" ?
Have you any knowledge of the number of cases of local authorities
being successfully sued for trip hazards on the pavement? And usually
for a quite minor unevenness (well under an inch)?
There was a case in Ely about three years ago. Not just suing the
council, but they then spent a six-figure sum redoing that whole
several hundred yards of pavement, not just the few dodgy flagstones.
On 21/07/2025 09:35, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/07/2025 23:25, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's a right in the sense that there is no law against it, and
English law works on the principle that everything is permitted
unless explicitly forbidden. Since public highways are provided
for the use of the public, the public may use them for all
purposes except those which are explicity prohibited.
The 'get orff my land' view, from Regina v Pratt:
"I take it to be clear law that, if a man use the land over which
there is a right of way for any purpose, lawful or unlawful, other
than that of passing and repassing, he is a trespasser."
A "right of way" stems from the equivalent principle that a right is
absolute unless explicitly overridden. In this case, the basic right
is that of a landowner to forbid access to their property. But there
is an explicit exemption to that for a "right of way", which gives
people the right to access property not belonging to them and without
requiring permission from the landowner.
And when did 'access to property' include 'parking' without permission?
How *wide* is a "right of way"? It could be infinitesimal, or enough for
a horse or road vehicle. Are there different rights of way for
pedestrians (with or without a dog), bicycles, horses &c.
The second is a bridleway, which can be used by horse riders and cyclists as well as pedestrians. However, it cannot be used by any form of motorised vehicle (with, again, the same exception for mobility scooters or powered wheelchairs).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car >>>> and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for
emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately
ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary
while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away
in fact, at the time ?
On 21 Jul 2025 at 12:53:07 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
The second is a bridleway, which can be used by horse riders and cyclists as >> well as pedestrians. However, it cannot be used by any form of motorised
vehicle (with, again, the same exception for mobility scooters or powered
wheelchairs).
I thought electric pedal bikes were OK on bridleways?
And according to this:
https://electricbicyclecompany.co.uk/ultimate-guide-to-electric-bike-laws/
On 21/07/2025 12:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
It's worth bearing in mind that the law applicable to public rights of way >> over private property is complex and often non-intuitive. Much of it is
still common law, so there is no definitive statement in legislation. And
it's also completely irrelevant to the topic in the title of this thread,
which refers to public highways. The law governing public rights of way over >> private land is completely different to the law governing the use of public >> highways.
Could you clarify how Oxfordshire defines 'public highway' and why that
necessarily negates private ownership of property under the highway >maintained at public expense?
On 21 Jul 2025 at 12:53:07 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
The second is a bridleway, which can be used by horse riders and cyclists as >> well as pedestrians. However, it cannot be used by any form of motorised
vehicle (with, again, the same exception for mobility scooters or powered
wheelchairs).
I thought electric pedal bikes were OK on bridleways?
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car >>>>> and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for >>>>> emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately
ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary
while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away
in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary. ENDQUOTE
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car >>>>>> and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for >>>>>> emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately >>>>>> ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>>>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary
while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away
in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
ENDQUOTE
And so how exactly is Andy's question
" If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone else parks, do you say you have a duty?"
An evasion of the obvious truth ? As you claim.
What "evasion" of *what* truth
On 21/07/2025 06:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car >>>>>>> and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for >>>>>>> emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately >>>>>>> ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>>>>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary
while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away
in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most
relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
ENDQUOTE
And so how exactly is Andy's question
" If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?"
An evasion of the obvious truth ? As you claim.
It was an attempt to use an extreme case in an effort to not have to answer the
question asked (which was clear and straightforward).
On 20/07/2025 10:22 PM, Theo wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
But it's worse than that.
As well as not being able to take advantage of their own non-existent
right to park outside the house, they will be denied access to the
charging system whose installation they have paid for.
And they will be actually encouraging charger-less neighbours to park in >> "their" space.
For which they get paid extra. If they choose to invite people to use 'their' space to make revenue, they have to deal with it potentially being occupied more of the time. If they don't enroll in the system then they don't encourage anyone to use 'their' space, outside of normal contention for the limited number of spaces.
Whether the revenue is worth it or not is a decision each individual has to make. But if you don't use your space very often (eg you don't have a car but installed it so visiting family can charge, or when you hire) then you could make some income by neighbours using it.
We don't have any more details of the scheme, but I'm presuming that if 'their' space is occupied they can park and charge in a neighbour's charging space, and the neighbour will make revenue from them. But that means you don't have one charging bay available to you, you have N bays shared between all the neighbours who have joined the scheme. That means there's a higher chance of finding spaces (eg some percentage of those neighbours will be away).
Shangri-La.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:me7ob7F3g53U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 06:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car >>>>>>>> and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for >>>>>>>> emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately >>>>>>>> ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>>>>>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary >>>>> while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away >>>>> in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most
relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
ENDQUOTE
And so how exactly is Andy's question
" If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?"
An evasion of the obvious truth ? As you claim.
It was an attempt to use an extreme case in an effort to not have to answer the
question asked (which was clear and straightforward).
An "extreme" case ?
Most people are asleep in bed, for 8 hours every night;
when the're not going to be aware that another car has parked
opposite to theirs.
While even when they're awake, most people don't spend their entire time staring our of their front windows, possibly in shifts, checking
whether another car has parked opposite theirs.
Many people might leave their cars parked outside their houses, while
they go to work on the train.
The situation you envisiage - of "emerging from your house"
might take place once, or maybe twice a day.
And will take all of "two minutes" at most; assuming a person has
a particularly big front garden.
There are a total of 1440 minutes in a 24 hour day.
So that just to be clear ...
This "obvious truth" you're so concerned about, and wish to
share with the world, is something which might only ever apply
0.277 % of the time ( Leaving the house twice)
Whereas you choose to regard what happens in the other 99.72 %
of the time, when people are asleep, or not staring our of their
front windows, or on holiday, as "extreme"
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 10:22 PM, Theo wrote:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
But it's worse than that.
As well as not being able to take advantage of their own non-existent >>>>> right to park outside the house, they will be denied access to the
charging system whose installation they have paid for.
And they will be actually encouraging charger-less neighbours to park in >>>> "their" space.
For which they get paid extra. If they choose to invite people to use
'their' space to make revenue, they have to deal with it potentially being >>> occupied more of the time. If they don't enroll in the system then they >>> don't encourage anyone to use 'their' space, outside of normal contention >>> for the limited number of spaces.
Whether the revenue is worth it or not is a decision each individual has to >>> make. But if you don't use your space very often (eg you don't have a car >>> but installed it so visiting family can charge, or when you hire) then you >>> could make some income by neighbours using it.
We don't have any more details of the scheme, but I'm presuming that if
'their' space is occupied they can park and charge in a neighbour's
charging space, and the neighbour will make revenue from them. But that >>> means you don't have one charging bay available to you, you have N bays
shared between all the neighbours who have joined the scheme. That means >>> there's a higher chance of finding spaces (eg some percentage of those
neighbours will be away).
Shangri-La.
Exactly. It's not the problem you're making it out to be.
Should such a scheme take off then there are ways and means for it to work...
On 22/07/2025 08:42 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me7ob7F3g53U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 06:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car
and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for >>>>>>>>> emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately >>>>>>>>> ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary >>>>>> while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away >>>>>> in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most
relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
ENDQUOTE
And so how exactly is Andy's question
" If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?"
An evasion of the obvious truth ? As you claim.
It was an attempt to use an extreme case in an effort to not have to answer the
question asked (which was clear and straightforward).
An "extreme" case ?
Most people are asleep in bed, for 8 hours every night;
when the're not going to be aware that another car has parked
opposite to theirs.
While even when they're awake, most people don't spend their entire time
staring our of their front windows, possibly in shifts, checking
whether another car has parked opposite theirs.
Many people might leave their cars parked outside their houses, while
they go to work on the train.
The situation you envisiage - of "emerging from your house"
might take place once, or maybe twice a day.
And will take all of "two minutes" at most; assuming a person has
a particularly big front garden.
There are a total of 1440 minutes in a 24 hour day.
So that just to be clear ...
This "obvious truth" you're so concerned about, and wish to
share with the world, is something which might only ever apply
0.277 % of the time ( Leaving the house twice)
Whereas you choose to regard what happens in the other 99.72 %
of the time, when people are asleep, or not staring our of their
front windows, or on holiday, as "extreme"
You have snipped the question I asked YOU about what your reaction might be if a fire
appliance or ambulance coud not get to your home in an emergency because the road was
obstructed.
That was plainly evasive and I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post since
you plainly either don't believe that obstructive parking causes danger (it certainly
does. as any emergency service worker will tell you) or you didn't want to admit the
truth about your own reaction if an emergency vehicle could not reach you in an
emergency.
You are not interested in the subject under discussion. You are arguing against the
truth for the sake of it. As you do so often.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:me9krnFd1h9U3@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2025 08:42 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me7ob7F3g53U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 06:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car
and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for
emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately >>>>>>>>>> ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary >>>>>>> while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away >>>>>>> in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most
relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
ENDQUOTE
And so how exactly is Andy's question
" If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone >>>>> else parks, do you say you have a duty?"
An evasion of the obvious truth ? As you claim.
It was an attempt to use an extreme case in an effort to not have to answer the
question asked (which was clear and straightforward).
An "extreme" case ?
Most people are asleep in bed, for 8 hours every night;
when the're not going to be aware that another car has parked
opposite to theirs.
While even when they're awake, most people don't spend their entire time >>> staring our of their front windows, possibly in shifts, checking
whether another car has parked opposite theirs.
Many people might leave their cars parked outside their houses, while
they go to work on the train.
The situation you envisiage - of "emerging from your house"
might take place once, or maybe twice a day.
And will take all of "two minutes" at most; assuming a person has
a particularly big front garden.
There are a total of 1440 minutes in a 24 hour day.
So that just to be clear ...
This "obvious truth" you're so concerned about, and wish to
share with the world, is something which might only ever apply
0.277 % of the time ( Leaving the house twice)
Whereas you choose to regard what happens in the other 99.72 %
of the time, when people are asleep, or not staring our of their
front windows, or on holiday, as "extreme"
You have snipped the question I asked YOU about what your reaction might be if a fire
appliance or ambulance coud not get to your home in an emergency because the road was
obstructed.
But how could what my reaction might be, if a fire appliance or ambulance could not get to my home in an emergency because the road was obstructed, possibly affect the ACTUAL FACT that I might only ever know that my car
was now causing an obstruction, around 0.544%* of the time ?
Are you seriously suggesting that people living in such situations
should cancel all their holidays, and either keep their eyes glued
to CCTV monitors, or live and sleep in their front gardens ?
That was plainly evasive and I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post since
you plainly either don't believe that obstructive parking causes danger (it certainly
does. as any emergency service worker will tell you) or you didn't want to admit the
truth about your own reaction if an emergency vehicle could not reach you in an
emergency.
It was in no way evasive. Only a complete fool would ever view such a possibility with equanimity. However, that does not therefore imply
that people should cancel all ther holidays, and either keep their
eyes glued to CCTV monitors, or live and sleep in their front gardens;
just so as to be able to immediately forestall, any such possibilities.
Unless of course you have some other possible solutions; to what you
must clearly regard as such a pressing problem.
You are not interested in the subject under discussion. You are arguing against the
truth for the sake of it. As you do so often.
That inescapable truth being, that around 99.446* of the time a person
would have no idea that a car had newly arrived and parked directly
opposite to theirs.
bb
* These revised figures reflect thae fact that anyone "emerging from
their house", will presumably at some point, also "enter their house";
thus doubling their admittedly minesecule chances of noticing a newly
parked car
On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:06:45 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
On 21 Jul 2025 at 12:53:07 BST, Mark Goodge wrote:
The second is a bridleway, which can be used by horse riders and cyclists as
well as pedestrians. However, it cannot be used by any form of motorised >>> vehicle (with, again, the same exception for mobility scooters or powered >>> wheelchairs).
I thought electric pedal bikes were OK on bridleways?
That's because they're technically not motor vehicles, they're
power-assisted pedal cycles. Some might argue that this concept
unnecessarily blurs the line between motorised and non-motorised vehicles, and some might even have sympathy with that argument. However, the law is what it is.
In reality, of course, they are often unlawfully modified so as to be effectively motor vehicles. But that's a different issue.
On 22/07/2025 07:32 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me9krnFd1h9U3@mid.individual.net...
On 22/07/2025 08:42 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:me7ob7F3g53U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/07/2025 06:01 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 21/07/2025 10:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote
On 20/07/2025 05:30 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 20/07/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
If you emerge from your house and see that the combination of your car
and someone else's car across the road now constitute a roadblock for
emergency vehicles, do you say that you have no duty to immediately >>>>>>>>>>> ameliorate that situation, even if you were there first?
If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?
That's an evasion of the obvious truth.
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
But how can you see it to be necessary, if it only becomes necessary >>>>>>>> while you are away, possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away >>>>>>>> in fact, at the time ?
Re-read the above. Take it nice and slowly. Tell you what. I'll copy the most
relevant
bit to just below this. Here it is...
QUOTE:
You have a duty to do what you can see to be necessary, when it is necessary.
ENDQUOTE
And so how exactly is Andy's question
" If you leave your car outside your house when you are away, and someone
else parks, do you say you have a duty?"
An evasion of the obvious truth ? As you claim.
It was an attempt to use an extreme case in an effort to not have to answer the
question asked (which was clear and straightforward).
An "extreme" case ?
Most people are asleep in bed, for 8 hours every night;
when the're not going to be aware that another car has parked
opposite to theirs.
While even when they're awake, most people don't spend their entire time >>>> staring our of their front windows, possibly in shifts, checking
whether another car has parked opposite theirs.
Many people might leave their cars parked outside their houses, while
they go to work on the train.
The situation you envisiage - of "emerging from your house"
might take place once, or maybe twice a day.
And will take all of "two minutes" at most; assuming a person has
a particularly big front garden.
There are a total of 1440 minutes in a 24 hour day.
So that just to be clear ...
This "obvious truth" you're so concerned about, and wish to
share with the world, is something which might only ever apply
0.277 % of the time ( Leaving the house twice)
Whereas you choose to regard what happens in the other 99.72 %
of the time, when people are asleep, or not staring our of their
front windows, or on holiday, as "extreme"
You have snipped the question I asked YOU about what your reaction might be if a fire
appliance or ambulance coud not get to your home in an emergency because the road was
obstructed.
But how could what my reaction might be, if a fire appliance or ambulance
could not get to my home in an emergency because the road was obstructed,
possibly affect the ACTUAL FACT that I might only ever know that my car
was now causing an obstruction, around 0.544%* of the time ?
I a not going to engage on that unless and until you answer my question
which you snipped.
The point of that question was for you to say whether you regard highway obstruction so serious that an emergency vehicle cannot pass as being acceptable or unacceptable.
That you not only didn't provide a reply but tried to brush the question under the carpet does suggest that you do regard it as serious and unacceptable
but simply don't want to say so for fear of udermining yet another of your lengthy detours around the central issue.
It was in no way evasive. Only a complete fool would ever view such a
possibility with equanimity.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:48:44 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |