‘without favour or affection, malice or ill will’

30 Apr

I have just been reading this impressive memorandum to a Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs into ‘Walking in towns and cities’ back in 2000 which included the following observation:

If pedestrians placed a chair on the carriageway it would be removed immediately, even though it would obstruct a smaller proportion of the road than when a car parks on the pavement. Cars could slow down and take care to avoid the chair, as pedestrians have to with parked cars. The Highways Act applies equally to the road and the footway. Pedestrians are being discriminated against.

He went on to suggest that the police were breaking the law by treating motorists and pedestrians differently quoting from the 1964 Police Act which requires every police officer to declare that they will discharge their duties ‘without favour or affection, malice or ill-will‘. (Police Act 1964 Schedule 2) The flowery wording he quotes has incidentally been updated subsequently by the Police Act 1996 (as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002) and now reads ‘with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality.‘ (section 29 and schedule 4)

He suggested that it would be illegal for the police to respond to the chair in the road but not the car on the pavement: ‘[ie prosecuting a pedestrian for obstructing vehicles by illegally leaving their possessions on the road but not prosecuting vehicle owners for illegally leaving their possessions (cars) on the footway.]’

So what happened? Well, the committee subsequently reported, and I quote, that: ‘walking has been made ever more unpleasant. Pedestrians have been treated with contempt’. That’s what I love about these cross-party select committees, they don’t hold back with their views! ‘Contempt’, that is a strong word but I suggest that it is accurate.

So… back to the police. Would it be fair and impartial for the police to allow motorists to leave their property (ie cars) on the pavement and to then prosecute a pedestrian for leaving objects of their choice on the carriageway? I am tempted to find out! What if there was an outbreak of chairs, sheds, planters and other interesting but unauthorised objects left on the carriageway for the convenience of their owners, to slow traffic or to beautify the area? Personally I favour planters or other useful objects.

What would happen if one responded to the inevitable approach from the police or from the council by politely reminding the police of their pledge to fairness and impartiality and the council of their duty to remove all ‘things’ left on the highway which constitute a danger to users of the highway (including a danger caused by obstructing the view) and and to stop being blind to vehicles which are also ‘things’ in the eyes of the law (Highways Act 1980 Sections 148149)

If they attempt to say that cars are different then one can challenge them and also start muttering about why bins left permanently on the pavement are so different. If they start talking about these new objects being a danger to traffic one would mutter about the requirement for drivers to drive appropriately for the conditions (including conditions where there are objects clearly visible in the carriageway) and to question the implied assumption that it is more safe for motorists to avoid pedestrians who are forced onto the carriageway that for drivers to avoid chairs/planters etc that don’t even move!

My only reservation is that I have great respect for my local police who are pulling their hair out over pavement parking and who are also offering me very visible support for this campaign. It is possible, of course, that they would understand the irony of the action and may even quietly be in support of it.

I will sign off with another observation by a parliamentary select committee from 2006 where they said: ‘We accept that the problem of vehicles obstructing footpaths country-wide is a large one and a major effort would be required to enforce the law. But the ‘do- nothing’ response of the Department is no longer a credible option’. Select Committee on Transport Seventh Report – Parking: para 261) and then that ‘The Government must grip the problem of pavement parking once and for all and ensure that it is outlawed throughout the country, and not just in London’ (para 262)

5 Responses to “‘without favour or affection, malice or ill will’”

  1. Graham Martin-Royle April 30, 2011 at 11:27 pm #

    If you check out your flickr photos you’ll see just why the police treat motorists and pedestrians differently.

  2. livinginabox May 1, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    I saw this the other day: http://i51.tinypic.com/308ccb7.jpg

    Mmmm, I wonder it counts as ‘any thing whatsoever’ under Highways Act 1980 Section 148?

    Scaled from another photograph, it was abandoned ~45 cm from the kerb. The occupants must have worked up a real sweat walking from the vehicle to the pavement, perhaps it’s their only exercise.

    • Peter Miller May 1, 2011 at 9:13 am #

      The 1980 Act includes this exact phrase ‘any thing whatsoever on a highway to the interruption of any user of the highway.’

      Separate sections mention ‘dung, compost or other material for dressing land, or any rubbish’ and ‘booth, stall or stand, or encamps’. The element of the Highway Act 1835 that is still in force says that one much not ‘tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be [on the footway]’. The original 1835 Act was a bit more expansive saying that one should also not pay “Timber, Stone, Hay, Straw, Dung, Manure, Lime, Soil, Ashes, Rubbish, or other Matter or Thing whatsoever upon such Highway, to the Injury of such Highway, or to the Injury, Interruption, or personal Danger of any Person travelling thereon ; or shall suffer any Filth, Dirt, Lime, or other offensive Matter or Thing whatsoever to run or flow into or upon any Highway from any House, Building, Erection, Lands, or Premises adjacent thereto; or shall in any Way wilfully obstruct the free Passage of any such Highway”.

      The 1980 Act also says that one should not erect a building or fence, or plants a hedge (S138), leave a skip on the highway without permission (S139), plant trees or bushes (S141) flagpoles (S144), projections from buildings (S152), ropes and wires (S162), scaffolding (S169)

      The Road Traffic Act 1988 mentions ‘vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to involve a danger of injury to other persons using the road.

      Of these, the one about ‘things on the highway’ seems the most useful to focus on, especially since it includes the word ‘nuisance’ within the definition and parliament has stated that parked cars do cause a nuisance to pedestrians.

  3. Si May 7, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    A thought from this article, but maybe not that related.

    If one can park a car on the road (yes, im talking legally on the road now, not pavement)… why couldn’t you park a bike up on the kerb side too… propped up with a pedal on the kerb.

    As long as a car has its legal documents (VED, MOT, Insurance) there is no reason for it to be considered abandoned if it was left static for months at a time.

    Thus, what would happen if you bought 20+ cheapo (and road legal) bicycles, and parked them all along a kerb in a line…?

    That would certainly stop pavement parkers, and you could even go further and get bikes with baskets on them and turn them into sly planters 😉

    • Peter Miller May 7, 2011 at 10:58 pm #

      What a nice idea! Possibly we should try it. How about a pair of bike welded together with a big planter between them? Could be worth a try. It would of course have to be heavy enough to give someone a hernia who tried to chuck it into the nearest hedge. Possibly it would need to be locked to a heavy bit of concrete provided for the purpose?

      Just to be clear about VED, MOT, Insurance on cars – it is illegal to use (or keep) a vehicle on the public highway without having those documents, but possession of them does not as far as I can see give the owner any preferential rights to store/park/leave a vehicle on the highway. A car is a thing in the eyes of the law as far as I can make out. It would be great to get a proper legal opinion on this though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: