Comment on Councils call for pavement parking to be banned across England

• ianovic69@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Ha, it gives that impression doesn’t it? But no, in this context that isn’t what should means. It’s like an also that extends the Must Not to the additional scenario, in this case outside of London.

  It’s true that a lot of these things aren’t enforced, and if they are it’s not consistent. The thing is, the law is there and it can be enforced. If you are caught breaking it, well, that’s no-one else’s fault.

  source

  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If that were true, the text could read “ You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement unless signs permit it. “

    source

    • ianovic69@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Definitely it should do, or something more clearly worded at least.

      I think it’s because of the distinction between London and elsewhere, which is also bollox. So it goes.

      source

      • rpin42@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Interesting that it mentions London specifically. How do they cope? There are loads of terraced streets. Do they pay for nearby parking lots or is it just that they, unlike everywhere else, kept their public transport network

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • theplanlessman@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The law is NOT there for “should” statements in the Highway Code. “Shoulds” are considered best practice, and can work against you in a careless/dangerous driving case if you didn’t follow them, but they are not themselves tied to any specific legislation. “Must” statements ARE backed up by legislation, and so can be enforced.

    The highway code is not law.

    source

    • ianovic69@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yes, best practice. There’s a lot of talk here about the law, which I never mentioned.

      You don’t get a criminal record when you receive a fine for a parking offence.

      source

      • echodot@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You also can’t get fined if you don’t break a law.

        source
  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Nope : rules in the Code which are legal requirements, and which you will be committing a criminal offense if you disobey, use the words “must/must not.” Violating other parts of the Code, which use the words “should/should not” or “do/do not”, can be used as evidence against you in Traffic Court, even if violating them is not an automatic criminal offense

    source

    • ianovic69@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m not sure which bit of my comment you are hoping?

      source
  • andthenthreemore@startrek.website ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Do you have something to back that up? It seems very odd that London would be named specially as must not then a second clause for the remainder of the country that sounds different. Surely it should either be “you must not park on the pavement” or if there’s some archaic reason that London needs specific wording “you must not park on the pavement in London, and you must not park on the pavement outside of London”

    source

    • ianovic69@feddit.uk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The Highway Code?

      source

      • andthenthreemore@startrek.website ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        No it doesn’t seem to be in there. According to the highway code

        Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

        Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

        No where does it say if an area is named specially as a must not, and another area is named as a should not in the same rule then the should not must be treated as a must not.

        Or is there some case law maybe that you’re referring to?

        source

        • -> View More Comments