With the greatest of respect. You know not what you are talking about. In fact you are talking out of your rectum.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[News] Don't ban me from driving because....
- Thread starter Lankyseagull
- Start date
With the greatest of respect. You know not what you are talking about. In fact you are talking out of your rectum.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
If I was in her position I would get my butler to drive me
studio150
Well-known member
Which translates as I've made something up and have no desire to admit I was wrong.
Why some people bother to post stuff they know nothing about never ceases to amaze
RandyWanger
Je suis rôti de boeuf
Roads with restricted access are usually considered private. Restrictions can be put in place by erecting barriers such as a gate or fence or exhibiting a sign which prohibits the general public from accessing the road.
A defendant has no obligation to prove that a road has no public access. The heavy burden of proving that the public has access to a ‘road’ rests solely on the shoulders of the prosecution.
Not much, if anything, has changed since the court established this principle in the early 1930s. A raft of cases followed in the mid to late 70s which approved and applied this principle. A recent example of this principle being applied is the case involving someone, who was initially convicted of drink driving following a trial. He had argued, without success, that the road upon which he was driving was a ‘service road’ which was only used by him and other residents of the adjoining properties. It was also argued that there was no evidence of ‘public use’ of the road. Luckily, on appeal the High Court agreed with his assertions and his conviction was quashed.
In summary, she can drive on her 1/4 mile long drive in a car.
A defendant has no obligation to prove that a road has no public access. The heavy burden of proving that the public has access to a ‘road’ rests solely on the shoulders of the prosecution.
Not much, if anything, has changed since the court established this principle in the early 1930s. A raft of cases followed in the mid to late 70s which approved and applied this principle. A recent example of this principle being applied is the case involving someone, who was initially convicted of drink driving following a trial. He had argued, without success, that the road upon which he was driving was a ‘service road’ which was only used by him and other residents of the adjoining properties. It was also argued that there was no evidence of ‘public use’ of the road. Luckily, on appeal the High Court agreed with his assertions and his conviction was quashed.
In summary, she can drive on her 1/4 mile long drive in a car.
And she's had a lot of work done...
Balderdash sir! I raise you little kids on off road motorcycles........
Only if it has ever been registered for road use, you numptie!
The key here is 'off road' - statutary or not. If it's her car on her land, to which the public has no right of access, she can do what the hell she likes with it. With a licence or without. Drunk or sober.
A European Court ruling has shed some doubt on this - but only doubt - and it is not mandatory for individual states to implement it into their law. We haven't.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?sou....64.psy-ab..2.21.1525...0i131k1.0.E99JB26SjTs
AmexRuislip
Retired Spy 🕵️♂️
Corrected for you!
By the looks of her in the report, she could do a good turn as a horse jumping that gate
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
Utter crap, statutory off road notice or as we know it SORN only applies to vehicles on the public highway. "off road" or on private land licences insurance and road fund tax do not apply.
sams dad
I hate Palarse
Talking bollocks , as usual, Timmy. I thought you would have learned by now, to keep quiet regarding things you know nothing about.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Hence my signature.
It depends on what you mean by private land. If the land is accessible to the public then you need a licence and insurance. For example, a supermarket car park is private land but you are not allowed to drive on it (permission aside) because it is accessible to others. However, if you land that the public are not allowed on and have no access then you can drive without a licence. For example, your normal front drive is private property but is accessible to the public. If you own a field with gates and no public footpaths then you can drive what you want.
With regard to the post about a driving instructor allowing youngsters to drive, he would have had the necessary cover under his ADI insurance. The organizers of the event would also have insurance.
With regard to the post about a driving instructor allowing youngsters to drive, he would have had the necessary cover under his ADI insurance. The organizers of the event would also have insurance.
Yes - that's right. If a driveway on private land is also a public footpath, then legally it is classed as a public highway and if you are driving on it then you have to be 'road legal' (taxed, insured, etc).
You're asking him to never speak again.
And.........................?
Where do we sign?
studio150
Well-known member
It most cases this is correct.
S144A(1) requires a motor vehicle registered under the Motor Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994.
If the motor vehicle is registered under the Act (is it has a licence plate) then to be exempt from insurance requirements it must have SORN in place. There are a number if other exemptions for Army vehicles etc which are not relevant.
If the motor vehicle is not registered under the Motor Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994 then it does not need compulsory insurance providing that it is not being used on a road or other public place.