Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,003
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
I am pretty sure that pavements count as carriageways, suspect verges would as well
Any barristers or someone who knows one?
- Thread starter kindai
- Start date
how many pavements had carriages riding alone them
Pathways are generally counted as part of the highway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,003
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Actually it was highway I mean't not carriageway. (I think)
Its nothing to do with what specifically uses any part of them, its how they are defined.
Edit, see Dis has said same thing but mentioned highway, which I think is correct.
The terms are used a bit interchangeably (wrongly), where i think carriageway is specificially the "paved" part for vehicles.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,662
TIL it applies to pavements too, I thought it was just roads, especially for the new powers which were specificly brought in to counter JSO sitting in the roads (I wonder if they'd blocked pavements instead, would the laws had been brought in?)
As far as I can see from the OP, ‘major transport works’ means:
(1) as described in A(I) and A(II); or
(2) as described in B.
So no, it doesn’t look like ‘major transport works’ needs to be as described in A(I) and A(II).
This is because it says “or” and not “and”.
(1) as described in A(I) and A(II); or
(2) as described in B.
So no, it doesn’t look like ‘major transport works’ needs to be as described in A(I) and A(II).
This is because it says “or” and not “and”.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,662
Hundreds of tractors block Westminster
Farmers from across the UK protesting in London against changes to inheritance tax.
www.bbc.co.uk
Seems it's okay for tax dodging Farmers to block the roads though
I think you might have skimmed and/or be reading OP wrong, please revisit/rebrain it to I can be sure I'm not mad.
OP said this:
The act says this:
So no, not everything in section (a) has to be met i.e. in the case that section (b) is fulfilled.
However, the full criteria to offence itself is set out in sub-section (1), which I haven’t looked at.
Last edited:
To try and reformat it into plain English:
Sorry that's as best as I can clean it up while cooking.
-------
In that case the police almost certainly acted correctly/lawfully.
It would depend on the exact circumstances and what the project was/etc but based off that description alone then yes the police were correct that such actions would constitute a violation of the POA 2023.
*EDIT*
Based of your listed location and the description given I would guess this is related to the felling of trees near the A38 as part of the project to add extra lanes to the A38? Itself an associated development of M42/M5 improvements. If so, yeah the police had the protestors 100% bang to rights I'm afraid.
Last edited:
What's the point of (i) even being mentioned then?OP said this:
The act says this:
So no, not everything in section (a) has to be met i.e. in the case that section (b) is fulfilled.
However, the full criteria to offence itself is set out in sub-section (1), which I haven’t looked at.
As in, (6)(a)(i)?
This clarifies that just because works in England and Wales are authorised by an act of parliament, as per (ii), this isn’t enough to make them ‘major transport works’. They also have to be ‘relating to transport infrastructure’, as per (i).
It’s common for requirements to be split out like this.
******
Just for funsies, I challenge you all to read (1)(b) of this and figure out what it means in one go:
…
Ahhh good times
*slaps knee*…. oh god I am so alone
The fact remains that we are only talking about a, b is irrelevant because the police aren't saying it has anything to do with that.
I don’t think the OP is clear on what the police have or haven’t said, hence the bulk of the replies all saying the same thing in respect of the specific piece of legislation quoted: ‘major transportation works’ under the Act mean either (A)(i)+(ii), or (B). It doesn’t have to be (A).
If the police have said it’s enough for it to simply be (A)(i) OR (A)(ii), then that doesn’t seem to be correct as its written.
Whether it’s either, both or neither is a matter of fact for the OP to solve. It’s worth noting that (B) is potentially quite wide as it covers anything issued by way of an Order - and is therefore very dependant on where this road is / isn’t.
Last edited:
Correct.
The police are saying that they moved people on because of (a)+(i).
We are saying it was illegal/wrong for them to do so because to move people on it should have to be (a)+(i)+(ii).
(b) doesnt apply/isnt relevant.
Any possibility of mentioning where this site actually is…? We’re a bit limited in helping you without that. Although all we’d really be doing is googling for you.
A38 Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme (BREP) | Worcestershire County Council
The A38 is one of Worcestershire's most important strategic transport routes.
www.worcestershire.gov.uk
It is related to the felling of trees near the A38 as part of the project to add extra lanes to the A38, Itself an associated development of M42/M5 improvements and so the police were justified under the POA.
It's sort of a moot point though really as even if they were wrong about (a) giving them the right to do it (b) gave them the right to do it anyway.
As mentioned before, (b) does apply and is relevant.
The project to add extra lanes to the A38 is itself an associated development of the M42/M5 improvements. As such the police had the protestors 100% bang to rights I'm afraid.
Last edited:
Aha - thanks @kindai.
I’ve spent about 20 mins having a look and here’s my thoughts, which isn’t going to cover every angle - I’m just a chump having a google.
First, the A38 = ****ing old road.
Searching briefly here (A38 / Bromsgrove) there doesn’t seem to be anything coming up that suggests there has been a recent Act / Order issued dealing with this specifically. But the A38 may have been built subject to ye old legislation / Act of Parliament.
The offence referred to in ss(1) does cover works that disrupt ‘maintenance’ which has a pretty wide definition IMO as set out in ss(9):
Now, this doesn’t expressly include “improve” which is the most major and widest sort of term that could be used. Could it cover these self described ‘improvement works’? Not sure!
^^^ I doubt this is what the po-po had in mind at the time, but it is possibly a route to legitimising shunting people onwards.
Finally, the whole thing seems to have the Department of Transport’s blessing and has been committed to, so that implies to me based on nothing but gut instinct that whatever red tape has or hasn’t been sorted, it ultimately would be sorted and they would get on with these works eventually regardless. I doubt there was much that could be done to permanently protect any wildlife, I’m afraid.
Whilst typing I’ve also just seen @ubersonic ‘s post re: M42/M5 - it’s possible these A38 works are considered ‘reasonably necessary’ in connection with that under s(1)(a)(3).
I doubt any of that was particularly helpful, but consider what the aim / desirable goals of taking this further is; if you’re happy with rattling cages then great, but I doubt they will abandon the whole thing if it’s part of wider schemes (including improvements necessary for housing etc.)
Good luck!!!
I’ve spent about 20 mins having a look and here’s my thoughts, which isn’t going to cover every angle - I’m just a chump having a google.
First, the A38 = ****ing old road.
Searching briefly here (A38 / Bromsgrove) there doesn’t seem to be anything coming up that suggests there has been a recent Act / Order issued dealing with this specifically. But the A38 may have been built subject to ye old legislation / Act of Parliament.
The offence referred to in ss(1) does cover works that disrupt ‘maintenance’ which has a pretty wide definition IMO as set out in ss(9):
Now, this doesn’t expressly include “improve” which is the most major and widest sort of term that could be used. Could it cover these self described ‘improvement works’? Not sure!
^^^ I doubt this is what the po-po had in mind at the time, but it is possibly a route to legitimising shunting people onwards.
Finally, the whole thing seems to have the Department of Transport’s blessing and has been committed to, so that implies to me based on nothing but gut instinct that whatever red tape has or hasn’t been sorted, it ultimately would be sorted and they would get on with these works eventually regardless. I doubt there was much that could be done to permanently protect any wildlife, I’m afraid.
Whilst typing I’ve also just seen @ubersonic ‘s post re: M42/M5 - it’s possible these A38 works are considered ‘reasonably necessary’ in connection with that under s(1)(a)(3).
I doubt any of that was particularly helpful, but consider what the aim / desirable goals of taking this further is; if you’re happy with rattling cages then great, but I doubt they will abandon the whole thing if it’s part of wider schemes (including improvements necessary for housing etc.)
Good luck!!!
Last edited: