Vehicular access to the countryside (including Cwmorthin)· Page 3

AndyC
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#41

Would that be an easy answer?

With 11 landowners involved it might be bit of a headache?

Been injured while at work and are not to blame?

Get over it.

ChrisJC
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#42

How about:

No need for translation. Understood by all drivers.

Chris.

SimplyExploring
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#43

"AndyC" wrote:
Would that be an easy answer?

With 11 landowners involved it might be bit of a headache?

Nail on head!

Nothing is simple when it comes to Cwmorthin.

Vanoord
54.4% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#44

"Colonel Mustard" wrote:
In the interests of fairness, sense & balance, the means by which stated permission could be obtained should surely also be clearly displayed? 😉

To be honest, I don't think fairness or balance need to be applied! 😉

If the landowners wish to keep vehicular access to a minimum, then it's their perogative to be as difficult to find as they can!

Chris has a very elegant solution - I think that's been used elsewhere?

Incidentally, my use of the wording 'Mechanically Propelled Vehicles' is intentional, as that seems to be the wording required to include all forms of transport: the word 'vehicles' is considered insufficient.

That and some words spelling out what you can't do would probably be as much as any landowner could reasonably be expected to do. Well, that and a machine-gun post to deal with the moto-crossers and the quad-bikers! 😮

Hello again darkness, my old friend...

SimplyExploring
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#45

"Vanoord" wrote:
that and a machine-gun post to deal with the moto-crossers and the quad-bikers! 😮

I can see a new weekend sport coming on :thumbsup:

Yes the the symbol and some wording would work well. Its clear to the plain eye.

Captain Scarlet
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#46

"AndyC" wrote:
Would that be an easy answer?

With 11 landowners involved it might be bit of a headache?

Not at all, but simplicity is not the goal, rather compliance. And if you deny access 'without permission' that would infer that permission is in fact available if sought. Not that anyone would bother to do, of course. If the gate is open, sign or no sign, the access track will be driven upon despite the protestations of landowners or their spokesman.

STANDBY FOR ACTION!!!!...

Vanoord
54.4% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#47

"Colonel Mustard" wrote:
Not at all, but simplicity is not the goal, rather compliance. And if you deny access 'without permission' that would infer that permission is in fact available if sought. ...

Indeed: but finding out how to get permission is the tricky bit!

And as you say, they won't bother anyway... ::)

Hello again darkness, my old friend...

jagman
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#48

"Colonel Mustard" wrote:

Personally speaking, regardless of what the 'faceless 11' say, I think its their problem, not the FOC's. The FOC is not responsible for how people travel to the Cwmorthin carpark, or indeed how they travel up the track, as I understand it, they police access only to Cwmorthin Mine itself. Maybe the FOC could clarify this, because I think they are being forced into a role that is not really in their brief.

The problem we have is that on a couple of occasions one of the farmers has tackled people driving up there only to be told that FoC had granted those drivers permision to be up there.
The biggest part of the problem is trail bike riders and the odd local playing in 4x4's on the tips. They are nothing to do with us and there is absolutely nothing we can do about them, we can only try to avoid causing grief by asking people not to drive up there to go into Cwmorthin.
Sadly its all part of the grief that goes with trying to keep Cwmorthin access as it is.

JohnnearCfon
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#49

"AndyC" wrote:

Back to the section 59. Now I hope I am right in this, but my assumption is that to have the car crushed, you have to reoffend in exactly the same way (i.e. for example trespass on the same piece of land). Am I right in saying you could theoretically accumulate multiple Section 59 warnings, without risking being crushed, by trespassing an many different landowner's land, but only once each?

My point is that if you were given a warning that if you repeat something you have done, there will be dire consequences, then it would be somewhat reckless to then repeat it anyway. Of course this would be totally unfair if there was not an initial warning of what would happen should you repeat the action.

I was wondering about that point too. Does the first warning mean if you are caught somewhere different you could still get your vehicle crushed? I am damned if I can make sense of all that legal lingo on that particular point.

SimplyExploring
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#50

From what I understand from the the people I know who have been given a section 59, is that if your caught any where your vehicle is crushed.

But I agree, this is not very clear to the average person

Captain Scarlet
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#51

Be smart, if you intend putting your vehicle in danger of being crushed do the following :

1/ Acquaint yourself with the appropriate legislation (assuming you can stay awake long enough to absorb all of the details)

2/ Consider a hire vehicle.

3/ Ponder on the limits of a compliant population.

STANDBY FOR ACTION!!!!...

AndyC
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#52

"SimplyExploring" wrote:
From what I understand from the the people I know who have been given a section 59, is that if your caught any where your vehicle is crushed.

But I agree, this is not very clear to the average person

Ah, so I totally misunderstood. :oops: If this is the case then I totally retract my earlier thoughts on it being fair.

Getting crushed after making another mistake, rather than repeating the earlier transgression, would indeed be just the same as getting crushed (or rather your vehicle crushed) after a second speeding offence.

:surrender:

Been injured while at work and are not to blame?

Get over it.

Moorebooks
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie Topic Starter

16 years ago

#53

I seem to remeber a similar debate about signs before and what words and in welsh . The best and simplest is using Chris Cowdreys sign that is obvious to all and I did suggest this at the time.

I still feel there may be some difficulty enforcing the law on what effectively is transport access to a former industrial site. I also wonder about wisdom of FOC getting too involved with this other than to protect their good name and stop vandalism of tips etc.

On point not mentioned is the number of break ins of cars at the parking point you can see why people would want to move away from there

Mike

JohnnearCfon
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#54

Didn't one mine explorer's car get hit by another car a short while ago when parked there? Fortunately the third party was honest enough to leave their contact details, some wouldn't! Also was it here, or another parking place in Blaenau where a car was torched a while back?

jagman
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#55

"Moorebooks" wrote:

I still feel there may be some difficulty enforcing the law on what effectively is transport access to a former industrial site. I also wonder about wisdom of FOC getting too involved with this other than to protect their good name and stop vandalism of tips etc.
Mike

FoC's only involvement is exactly that Mike.

Barney
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#56

It seems that 's59 warnings' are being completely misunderstood here. If people want to try and read a particular statute then you really need to know how it all works. Firstly, many key words have definitions. These need to be understood and have a bearing on the meaning of what is being read.

AndyC
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#57

I have parked my car a little further down outside the houses of Tanigrisiau - at least there are some houses overlooking your car then.

Now I am sure someone will tell me that both terraces are lived in by an extended family all nursing a hatred of anyone interested in Industrial Archaeology.

Been injured while at work and are not to blame?

Get over it.

Vanoord
54.4% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#58

"Barney" wrote:
It seems that 's59 warnings' are being completely misunderstood here. If people want to try and read a particular statute then you really need to know how it all works. Firstly, many key words have definitions. These need to be understood and have a bearing on the meaning of what is being read.

Some of those would be the very definitions I omitted when I cut'n'pasted S.59! :lol:

Hello again darkness, my old friend...

JohnnearCfon
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#59

I have just found this on the Lancashire Constabulary website.

Section 59 Notices
I have been given a s59 notice, what is it?

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 refers to vehicles being used in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. Where a vehicle is being used in this way, or in a way that otherwise amounts to careless or inconsiderate driving, a constable in uniform has the power to issue a warning to cease.

What powers does it give the officer?

The Act gives the officer the following power:

If the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
The power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
The power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
The power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs (a) to (c).

What happens if I receive another warning?

If a person receives 2-warnings within a 12-month period then the officer has the authority to seize and impound the vehicle.

My vehicle was seized how do I get it back.

You will have to pay the charges imposed by the Act. The current charges are £105.00 for the removal of the vehicle and £12.00 for each (or part) day the vehicle remains in storage. These costs are payable to the recovery operator.

What happens if I don’t pay?

If the vehicle is not recovered within 14-days then the operator has the power to either scrap or sell the vehicle.

Presumably the charges vary from area to area.

The way that reads is although your vehicle may be seized on your second offence in 12 months, it won't be crushed unless you don't pay up within 14 days. Still doesn't make it clear if it is two offences at same place or not.

Barney
50.2% (Neutral)
Newbie

16 years ago

#60

Not your fault John, but there are a few errors in there.

You will never get two warnings, one only then second offence will have the recovery wagon on its way, without warning.

In certain cases, the first offence can render your vehicle siezed.

Its not £105, its £125.

As for location, it does not matter. For example, person A is pulling handbrake turns on Asda carpark in Cardiff, causing annoyance to other members of the public. 59 paperwork is issued to the driver (not keeper/owner). This notice applies to the driver AND the vehicle. So then, if person A commits same offence in a DIFFERENT vehicle anywhere in England or Wales, then that vehicle will be siezed. If any person commits the offence in the same vehicle that was used in Cardiff then vehicle will be siezed and person warned (if it is his first offence) Of course, the time span still applies.