After a conversation last night on Twitter with a Police Officer who tweets under the pseudonym of "Constable Chaos" I am seriously confused.
(If you read the original "Inkyworld" blog you may remember he narrowly avoided sparking off a diplomatic incident with one of his blog posts during the London Olympics - he accused a Dutch Judoka of admitting to beating someone up when what she had actually said in a Dutch tweet was she had hit them. He was ready to arrest her until I pointed out what she had actually said in a correct translation.)
Please see below for the latest confusion.
Last week I was witness to an accident which could have had disasterous consequences for the people involved. That is what I am absolutely certain about. (Put it this way - attempting a u turn on Charles Street in Leicester without using your indicators - is a disaster waiting to happen.)
Luckily for the driver of the car which was hit, the vehicle which hit it was a car instead of a bus, and a slow moving car as well.
I had been under the impression that parking in a bus stop was illegal (as well as downright dangerous). Chaos informed me that the only thing which could be 100% proven about that statement was the fact about parking in a bus stop being downright dangerous. According to him bus stops themselves can be illegal. He muttered something about a "Traffic Revision Order" being needed to make a bus stop legal.
This "Traffic Revision Order" is a piece of paper which Councils need to get before they can say a bus stop is a legal no parking zone (let alone a legal bus stop).
Ah - yes - the Council. You mean the outfit I was told by the Chief Constable of my local Constabulary was responsible for dealing with parking in bus stops??? Apparently my local Constabulary are very interested in driving offences but not so much in parking offences. I find this very odd.
I admit it has been a very long time since I read the "Highway Code" but I seem to remember that there was a section for Pedestrians, a section for Cyclists, a section for Horses, and a section for Motorised Vehicles??? I have been trying to dig deep into my memory banks but I have failed to remember a section on "Driving" and a section on "Parking". Mainly due to the fact that - I could be wrong about this - I thought "Driving" and "Parking" were two sides of the same coin??? As in - if a car is not being driven (and it has its handbrake on and it is out of gear with or without the ignition off) it is parked??? Obviously if the brakes have failed and the car empty and it is rolling downhill it is not technically being driven nor is it technically parked.
Apparently - if I am run over as a result of having to walk in the road due to some idiot deciding to park with over three quarters of the underside of their vehicle covering the pavement - any witnesses should ring the following groups of people (if they are in Leicester anyway) - the ambulance, the Police, and the local council. The ambulance to convey me to hospital, the Police to report the accident to them as I ended up laying on the road, and the council to apprehend the idiot who caused me to be in the road in the first place.
I nearly had personal experience of exactly that happening to me on my way home this afternoon. Luckily the car was parked next to a very low wall so I could just about squeeze between them.
I do have a serious question though.
If I folded the wing mirrors of a car inwards so I could get past it which group of officers would prosecute me when the car alarm went off??? Police or Council???
||Add New Comment