lee79 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I hate it too. There seems to be a lot of them where I live. When we go out we usually have 2 young children and maybe a push chair with us and we try our best to move everyone to one side when others are also trying to get past. It doesn't always go to plan but at least the other path users appreciate we're installing manners into our children and not letting them think the paths are there for their sole use. Another good thing the locals are good at is exiting the class room where the door opens out and then once closed stepping back and then talking to their friends despite the fact that there are still plenty of parents that need to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regatta Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 People can't just go round scratching cars because they are parked in the way, it's simple, just go and find the owner and ask him to shift it as it is causing an obstruction, what if someone is trying to leave a shop and a pram with a kid in it was in the way, you wouldn't scratch the kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 No, it's called criminal damage and if you got caught then the owner would be making you pay for the respray. Two wrongs do not make a right and the cost of a respray will far outweigh that of a parking ticket. No, it's not criminal damage if a car gets scratched by a wheelcahir or pram squeezing through due to the driver having parked illegally on a footpath. In the extremely unlikely event of it going to court, the legal system would investigate the facts and come to a judgement. Obviously, if a yob runs down the side of a parked car with a knife and damages the paintwork- that would be criminal damage. Equally clearly, if a pram user scratches a car accidently, by choosing to exercise her/his legal right of way on what is, at the end of the day, a footpath, rather than risk their babies life by going into a busy road, then it's a safe bet that it would not be judged to be criminal damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 No, it's not criminal damage if a car gets scratched by a wheelcahir or pram squeezing through due to the driver having parked illegally on a footpath. In the extremely unlikely event of it going to court, the legal system would investigate the facts and come to a judgement. Obviously, if a yob runs down the side of a parked car with a knife and damages the paintwork- that would be criminal damage. Equally clearly, if a pram user scratches a car accidently, by choosing to exercise her/his legal right of way on what is, at the end of the day, a footpath, rather than risk their babies life by going into a busy road, then it's a safe bet that it would not be judged to be criminal damage. Oh I'm certain it would be criminal damage. You might want to read the statue on it.... (1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. (criminal damage act 1971) It says nothing about being permitted to cause damage whilst excercising a legal right. You don't even have to intend to cause the damage, if you are just reckless with regard to if it's caused or not you are guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinetic Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Oh I'm certain it would be criminal damage. You might want to read the statue on it.... (1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. (criminal damage act 1971) It says nothing about being permitted to cause damage whilst excercising a legal right. You don't even have to intend to cause the damage, if you are just reckless with regard to if it's caused or not you are guilty. R v G and Another [2003] UKHL 50 - (defining recklessness) "(i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."" I would argue that it was perfectly reasonable to take the risk, as a child's life (or the life of a wheelchair owner) was in potential danger due to the fact that the owner of the car had recklessly endangered the life of footpath users, by illegally parking on the pavement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWOL Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 People can't just go round scratching cars because they are parked in the way, it's simple, just go and find the owner and ask him to shift it as it is causing an obstruction, what if someone is trying to leave a shop and a pram with a kid in it was in the way, you wouldn't scratch the kid. Some here would scratch the kid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cressida Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 This thread should be re-titled the sociopaths support group ooh chavtastic wot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Oh I'm certain it would be criminal damage. You might want to read the statue on it.... (1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. (criminal damage act 1971) It says nothing about being permitted to cause damage whilst excercising a legal right. You don't even have to intend to cause the damage, if you are just reckless with regard to if it's caused or not you are guilty. The bit in bold is the relevant part- as the alternative is to endanger life by going into the road, there would exist a perfectly lawful and reasonable excuse to squeeze through. Plus of course, there would not be any intention to damage or destroy: hence 2 reasons why it would not be criminal damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Overall Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 What annoys me is if I'm walking with my stick, (Athritis 65 yrs old dead giveaway I would think..) they try and get me to walk faster by nearly perching on my shoulder. If I could I wouldn't need the bliddy STICK!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWOL Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 What annoys me is if I'm walking with my stick, (Athritis 65 yrs old dead giveaway I would think..) they try and get me to walk faster by nearly perching on my shoulder. If I could I wouldn't need the bliddy STICK!!!! Do they ram your ankles with their prams:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.