Highways Act of 1980 ;section 137

[marronier]

Why is this not prosecuted anymore ?

[robbelg]

The details of that section have slipped from my memory. Can you remind me?

Rob

[Laughton]

"If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50. (2)A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he sees committing an offence against this section."

Presumably an someone has deemed the costs far outweigh the "income".

[didds]

A chum of mine was prosecuted for this in ~1985.

ISR his total "fine" was £400 including costs ... this was a long time ago mind and my memory isnt what it used to be...

[UncleEbenezer]

"If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.

Ah, yes.

It's always seemed to me stupid that, while they'll charge penalties to motorists who overstay a parking ticket in a perfectly legitimate space, they rarely do anything to drivers who park in totally non-legitimate places causing serious obstruction and sometimes danger.

[88V8]

"If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.

....they rarely do anything to drivers who park in totally non-legitimate places causing serious obstruction and sometimes danger.

Or people carrying placards and walking very slowly in the road.

V8

[didds]

....they rarely do anything to drivers who park in totally non-legitimate places causing serious obstruction and sometimes danger.

Or people carrying placards and walking very slowly in the road.

V8

My chum was done for standing with his back to a plate glass supermarket window on a pavement that has/had to be 20 feet wide! [1]

didds






[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bairs ... ?entry=ttu

[DrFfybes]

My chum was done for standing with his back to a plate glass supermarket window on a pavement that has/had to be 20 feet wide! [1]

Was he wearing any trousers?

[Lootman]

"If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £50.

Ah, yes. It's always seemed to me stupid that, while they'll charge penalties to motorists who overstay a parking ticket in a perfectly legitimate space, they rarely do anything to drivers who park in totally non-legitimate places causing serious obstruction and sometimes danger.

If you park in an illegal spot then any meter maid or meter man can give you a ticket.

But if you park dangerously in the road then only a cop (or "constable" in the dated phrasing of the law given here) can give you a ticket. And there are fewer of them and they have many other things to do.

So it is a logical, if inconsiderate, decision by a driver to park in (say) a bike lane rather than a proper parking space.

I did once get a ticket for double parking whilst picking up my dry cleaning. But it was no worse than a parking ticket - no points on my license. So it seems that the law can actually encourage drivers to park dangerously rather than merely illegally.

[UncleEbenezer]

....they rarely do anything to drivers who park in totally non-legitimate places causing serious obstruction and sometimes danger.

Or people carrying placards and walking very slowly in the road.

V8

I thought we welcomed those lollipop men and ladies

[Mike4]

But if you park dangerously in the road then only a cop (or "constable" in the dated phrasing of the law given here) can give you a ticket. And there are fewer of them and they have many other things to do.

I thought persecuting motorists was an easy 'win' for the fuzz so generally considered 'a priority' by them.

(Well someone had to say it! )

[UncleEbenezer]

But if you park dangerously in the road then only a cop (or "constable" in the dated phrasing of the law given here) can give you a ticket. And there are fewer of them and they have many other things to do.

I thought persecuting motorists was an easy 'win' for the fuzz so generally considered 'a priority' by them.

(Well someone had to say it! )

Don't spoil it. I was enjoying a (relatively) rare moment of full agreement with Looty's analysis.

[Mike4]

I thought persecuting motorists was an easy 'win' for the fuzz so generally considered 'a priority' by them.

(Well someone had to say it! )

Don't spoil it. I was enjoying a (relatively) rare moment of full agreement with Looty's analysis.

Sorry!

To make a more serious point, I think there is some sort of over-arching requirement on the fuzz to only prosecute offences when it is deemed to be in the public interest to prosecute.

TPTB may be of the opinion it is not in the public interest to prosecute the slow-walking JSO protesters.