Hi people,
I went to meadowhall today with my sister and on the way home I was going down a pavement and 2people were in front of me.

We then go to a part of pavement where someone had parked a car on the pavement (even thought there was plenty of room on road). Now I have always been brought up to think that if a car is parked on the pavement its not my fault if the car gets scratched.

Well the 2 people walked onto the road and I thought they were just walking round it, but as I was in my wheelchair I couldnt because of a big curb. So I took wheelchair through the gap and I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt, it scratched all down the side of the car.

The guy that was walkin infront shouted me and said "Hey ***** you just scratched the side of my car" so I turned round and said "Well Im sorry but if you dont want your car scratched dont park on the pavement".

Now did I do wrong?

Nice one, mf. If more people did that then perhaps the selfish oafs (or should that be oaves?) would get the message.

Certainly not.
How rude of him to swear at you!
It really annoys me when motorists think they can park where they like!
They always think that they can do as they please.
When there was a timed parking place outside the post office in Broomhill there were always several who thought that they were different and could stay parked when the 4.30 time limit was up.
When you have driven from near Barnsley through rush hour traffic every day on your way home from work you don't take kindly to idiots who block up the main highway by leaving their car parked and obstructing the traffic ( just nipping in to the post office etc)
Many a time I felt like reaching out and scratching the offending cars as I crawled through the tight squeeze to get home!!
People who block pavements are just as bad. Did he expect you to take your wheelchair off the pavement????

I forgot to add that he was parked right next to the Asda carpark which wasnt full

youve done nothing wrong at all!--cars should be parked on the road not on the pavement!!--where i live at firth park there are more cars on the pavement than the roads!!--it really does annoy me!!--some people also drive nearly up to the shop theyre going into and dont care if anyones in the way!!--selfish gets!!:loopy:

you did right and if something like this happens again do the same because i would!!!

Binsted Grove that leads down to my house is terrible, all the houses have garages and carports but people still feel the need to double park all the way down, often leaving their drives empty. Maybe they think parking where they should will obscure the view of their nice houses?
Fir Vale is the same, people around teatime are blocking an entire lane, but that's ok as they just switch on their 'park anywhere' lights ...
Not to mention when Wednesday play at home and people park on the pavements all the way down both sides of Herries Road, forcing pedestrians into the road in many cases. Coppers don't seem bothered, I'd love for one to walk up there and slap a ticket on each and every one of them!

Mainframe - good on you :D

Well, I guess that I'm one of the selfish oafs or oaves, either is correct ;) that are being discussed. Both myself and my neighbours each side of the road habitually park part-way onto the pavement, in fact tradesmen or visitors that don't do so cause an obstruction to passing traffic.

The road was laid-out over a hundred years ago and wasn't designed to cope with present-day motoring, obviously. Parking correctly and legally causes an alternate one-way traffic-flow.

I might add that we all leave ample space for pedestrians, prams, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, etc... We really don't have much choice in the matter of how we park, unfortunately. :(


EDIT:
Ruddy typo!

Does anyone know how Mainframe would have stood legally if this selfish bugger wanted to claim?

I think Mainframe was right, but is it right in the eyes of the law?

Originally posted by spyro2000
Does anyone know how Mainframe would have stood legally if this selfish bugger wanted to claim?

I think Mainframe was right, but is it right in the eyes of the law?
I suppose the guy could have tried making a civil claim via small claimes court but I think he would have lost since it's illegal to park on the kerb (IIRC).

Originally posted by Mainframe
Now did I do wrong?
Certainly not..... YOU WERE RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU DID... :clap: :clap: :clap:
I dont drive and understand how sometimes drivers must leave a clear access etc, but i cant stand where these people think they are gods gift and were born with petrol legs.... we have a public path to walk on the same as they have a road to drive and park on!

I have a habit of accidentally knocking wing mirrors on cars that park on the path near the footie ground on match days... 22,000 fans turf out of the ground and we cant walk on the paths the sod'in cars are parked on them we have to walk on the road.... what do we get when we walkers block the rd..? dirty little looks from the drivers.... because we are blocking the rd... what a pity.
:D

Mainframe, youve done nothing wrong at all!--cars should be parked on the road not on the pavement!! good on you!!

You were not in the wrong - if you couldn't get by, you had no choice! I think you were quite polite! I'd have had to shout back 'Oh no! Is my chair ok??'

However, Pseudonym - I don't think you are one of the selfish oafs mentioned. MF said that there was plenty of space to park on the road, where you have to park on the pavement, you say there is no choice.

When my leg is too bad to walk to the hospital, I have to drive but everyone that parks on the road parks partly on the pavement because otherwise ambulances can't get by. So I too do it, I don't know if there'd be room for a wheelchair, I'm ashamed to say I've never actually checked, but I figure it's important to make sure the delivery lorries and ambulances can get to the hospital easily.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Does anyone know how Mainframe would have stood legally if this selfish bugger wanted to claim?

I think Mainframe was right, but is it right in the eyes of the law?
If the selfish oaf had reported the incident to the police, would he have picked up a parking fine too for admitting to parking in such a fashion?

It really irritates me when people park on the pavement and block it. It's selfish and in most cases un-necessary.

I appreciate in some areas the roads were not built with the huge increase in traffic in mind. It can be difficult to find somewhere to park and that can be a nuisance. But to park on the pavement and not allow sufficient room for all pedestrians to pass is far worse IMHO. Equally, where-ever we park we must ensure there is sufficient space for fire-engines to pass.

As Mainframe said, this person did not need to park on the pavement, there was a car park very close by with spaces. If sticking to the pavement resulted in Mainframe scratching the car, well tough, that's the price to be paid ... better that than someone getting knocked down and killed.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Does anyone know how Mainframe would have stood legally if this selfish bugger wanted to claim?

I think Mainframe was right, but is it right in the eyes of the law?

yeh, he could sue mainframe and he'd win. he may pick up a parking fine but technically mainframe vandalised his property

you were not in the wrong people pay road tax so why an earth would they want to park on a kerb i certainly would want to get my moneys worth. WELL DONE MAINFRAME!!:thumbsup:

Originally posted by robbie
yeh, he could sue mainframe and he'd win. he may pick up a parking fine but technically mainframe vandalised his property
It would be an interesting case. Don't forget the standing that the disabled now have in society (and quite rightly so) - I'd be surprised if it wasn't thrown out of court

I'm not sure mainframe would be liable for 'vandalism' to property as the damage was un-intentional? And even if mainframe was found guilty of causing damage to property then the owner of the car could be liable for contributory negligence ensuring that if it came to an insurance claim, the owner would be liable for a given percentage of the costs.

So, if he's wise and makes a claim on his insurance, he probably just ought to deny all knowledge of how the car was scratched.

It isn't illegal to park on the footway :loopy:....








....but it is illegal to drive on the footway, which obviously the drive must have done to park there. :clap:

Nice one......it's his tough titty for blocking the footway. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Strix
It would be an interesting case. Don't forget the standing that the disabled now have in society (and quite rightly so) - I'd be surprised if it wasn't thrown out of court

to be honest the law is pretty clear. the car was parked and stationary and even if it was dumped in the middle of a motorway the owner wouldn't be liabkle for any damage caused.]

I think he got off lightly. Now I'm a pram driver I've noticed this more and more, particularly at shopping centres where drivers feel the need to be able to jump out of their door and into the shops and it really winds me up.

There are times when drivers need to park halfway on the path, but Meadowhall is certainly not one of them.

I usually give the wing mirror a good knock, purely accidental of course.

Its not allowed to park on a pathway where you are forcing pedestrians onto the road (causing unneccessary obstruction, and hazard). Yeah, he would get a ticket - but now he will also have to pay for his car to be resprayed.... tough s*it.

Originally posted by alchresearch

I usually give the wing mirror a good knock, purely accidental of course.

A man of my own heart.:thumbsup:

Especially when it's a choice between knocking the wing mirror or ripping the nipper's eye out on a privet branch.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen parents with pushchairs having to go around a car on our road because some divvie has dumped their car(s) on the path, when it would have been safer for the parent to just hammer the wing mirror out of the way. If I ever saw someone do that I'd turn a blind eye every time. Done it myself in the past.

Originally posted by Mainframe
Hi people,
I went to meadowhall today with my sister and on the way home I was going down a pavement and 2people were in front of me.

We then go to a part of pavement where someone had parked a car on the pavement (even thought there was plenty of room on road). Now I have always been brought up to think that if a car is parked on the pavement its not my fault if the car gets scratched.

Well the 2 people walked onto the road and I thought they were just walking round it, but as I was in my wheelchair I couldnt because of a big curb. So I took wheelchair through the gap and I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt, it scratched all down the side of the car.

The guy that was walkin infront shouted me and said "Hey prick you just scratched the side of my car" so I turned round and said "Well Im sorry but if you dont want your car scratched dont park on the pavement".

Now did I do wrong?

Whilst he shouldn't have been parked on the pavement, I can't help but feel that scratching all the way down the side of his car was a bit harsh. I'm not saying you did it deliberately, but you said yourself you knew it wouldn't go through easy and I'd bet you didn't pass through as carefully as you could due to your annoyance. Criminal damage in return for breaching a parking law seems a bit harsh to me.

Mainframe - had you been drinking the Vodka I bought you :hihi: If so then you should not of been in your wheel chair now should you!

Well done though - it does serve him right. :thumbsup:

Well mainframe, you had little choice by the sound of it.

However, I'm gobsmacked by the number of people on this thread who seem to get pleasure out of the malicious damage that they would enjoy causing.

Two wrongs don't make a right! Shame on you all! :nono:

The thing is, if this idiotic, inconsiderate, ignorant, idle prat is parked obstructing the pavement/ dropped kerbs, what DOES he expect folk like me, lotti and mainframe to do?

Should we engage our powers of dematerialisation, and pass through the vehicle? especially when they are obstructing the primary means of getting up and down the kerb.

or, perhaps we ought to do an "Inspector Gadget", and either send out the extendible legs, and step over the obstruction, or maybe fold ourseves in half in order to pass through the miniscule gap they leave?

FFS!!!!!!! (steam coming out of ears) dropped kerbs are there to assist folk in 'chairs, and parents with prams to get up and down the kerbs safely and easily.

They are NOT there, simply so that W****rs like him don't scratch the bottom of the car doors.

After 12 years of being reliant on a 'chair, and putting up with pavement/ drop kerb obstructions....I'll tell you my philosophy about drivers who park so that my 'chair can't get past...

If I can't get round you... I'm gonna have to go THROUGH you!

PT

Criminal Damage Act 1971 states the following:
'A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.'

Well there's no evidence of intent and even the recklessness would be a bit tenuos so don't think the driver would have any redress except through a civil court perhaps?

One thing that struck me is that if the car driver was on-hand to shout obscenities at Mainframe, it seems more than likely he watched the poor sod struggle to get past his carelessly parked car. Why didn't the inconsiderate w**ker move the bloody thing so Mainframe didn't have to struggle in the first place and his precious car wouldn't have been scratched? :confused:

He called you a *****?

He abandons his car on a public pavement and a wheelchair user scratches it. . .

Hmm. . .
Hello, Mr Pot!
Hi there, Mr Kettle. . .

Well done, I say. Gave a selfish ****an opportunity to see for himself that he's a bit of a ****!!

Ok, so this guy was parked illegally. But sadly not everyone does have common sense and he may not have been aware he was doing something wrong. Even if he was, it is not anyones right to take the law into their own hands. What Mainframe did, whether considered morally right by a lot of people, was criminal damage. Intent could be proved in a court of law because the entire side of the car was scratched. If only a short length, then that could be deemed accidental but you would be aware you wer scratching the car before travelling all the way down it?

Sorry twiggy, you are wrong. .

Just because someone is a bit hard of thinking, doesn't abstain them from responsability. Anyone with an ounce of sence (not necessarily common sence) can see that Road = Cars and Path = Pavements.

As for criminal damage, gee-ore wit de. . . what would you do, in that position, put yourself at risk, jump off the kerb, go round and think nothing of it and just accept that the fool in question is inherrently selfish.

Or, would you evaluate/calculate the situation and conclude that as the card shouldn't be there then this wouldn't be a problem, and carry on, as you were. If there are concequences, then these are all brought on by the car owner. . its that simple.

Originally posted by munky
Sorry twiggy, you are wrong. .

Just because someone is a bit hard of thinking, doesn't abstain them from responsability. Anyone with an ounce of sence (not necessarily common sence) can see that Road = Cars and Path = Pavements.

As for criminal damage, gee-ore wit de. . . what would you do, in that position, put yourself at risk, jump off the kerb, go round and think nothing of it and just accept that the fool in question is inherrently selfish.

Or, would you evaluate/calculate the situation and conclude that as the card shouldn't be there then this wouldn't be a problem, and carry on, as you were. If there are concequences, then these are all brought on by the car owner. . its that simple.

Jumping off the kerb isn't the only option. What if there were some other immovable obstruction? You'd go back to a dropped kerb, cross the road and go up the pavement on the other side. Just because the car shouldn't be there does not give someone the right to do something illegal in return. There is no question about if it was criminal damage or not, Mainframe has admitted he did it intentionally, whether it could be proved in court or not.

i think you did the right thing, why risk getting run over cus he cant park properly

Originally posted by Twiglet
Jumping off the kerb isn't the only option. What if there were some other immovable obstruction? You'd go back to a dropped kerb, cross the road and go up the pavement on the other side. Just because the car shouldn't be there does not give someone the right to do something illegal in return. There is no question about if it was criminal damage or not, Mainframe has admitted he did it intentionally, whether it could be proved in court or not.

Also, once he noticed the wheelchair was scratching the car, he could've placed an item of clothing or something on the point of the wheelchair that was doing the scratching, thus preventing further damage.

Originally posted by Twiglet
Ok, so this guy was parked illegally. But sadly not everyone does have common sense and he may not have been aware he was doing something wrong. Even if he was, it is not anyones right to take the law into their own hands. What Mainframe did, whether considered morally right by a lot of people, was criminal damage. Intent could be proved in a court of law because the entire side of the car was scratched. If only a short length, then that could be deemed accidental but you would be aware you wer scratching the car before travelling all the way down it?

I would argue the toss on this one, twiglet.

It may not necessarily be "intent".

Think about the fact that the space was tight for a wh/chair user to pass.

How does one get out of the small- space that the idiot left because he was so thick, he could not get his head round the fact that Pavement - pedestrians, and road= cars?

You cannot turn round, because the space is too small. So, the only option open to you is to go forward.

Therefore, the scratch may well end up having to be all along the length of the vehicle.

Trying to force one's chair backwards, once you have realised that the space is too tight is not necessarily an option one can use.

You might cause worse damage, if you cannot see where you are going, by going backwards, than going forward:- it is sometimes a case of the lesser of the two evils.

You have to make a stark choice:- choose... major damage, by going back, or damage, but to a lesser degree by continuing forwards.

(also, if the car is parked at an angle, it may not be immediately apparent that the space may become too narrowed)

It's still the driver's fauilt, IMO for parking inconsiderately.

Even an imbecile knows that, if they park across a drop kerb, they are obstructing the right of way, (and only means sometimes) for a wheelchair user to get up/ down a kerb, and off the highway.

I'd rather take my chances at scratching the paintwork of an illegally parked car, than take my chances, braving the traffic, especially how some maniacs drive!

PT

Originally posted by t020
Also, once he noticed the wheelchair was scratching the car, he could've placed an item of clothing or something on the point of the wheelchair that was doing the scratching, thus preventing further damage.

not necessarily t020...

there may not be enough room to get your hand between the wheelchair and the vehicle in question, to place some sort of a "buffer" there...

it all depends on how badly/ inconsiderately the prat in question parked their car...

PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
not necessarily t020...

there may not be enough room to get your hand between the wheelchair and the vehicle in question, to place some sort of a "buffer" there...

it all depends on how badly/ inconsiderately the prat in question parked their car...

PT

If there wasn't enough space, then he could've backed out (if he could get in then he could get back out the same way) and put something there as a "bufffer" before attempting again.

Originally posted by munky
Sorry twiggy, you are wrong. .

Just because someone is a bit hard of thinking, doesn't abstain them from responsability. Anyone with an ounce of sence (not necessarily common sence) can see that Road = Cars and Path = Pavements.

As for criminal damage, gee-ore wit de. . . what would you do, in that position, put yourself at risk, jump off the kerb, go round and think nothing of it and just accept that the fool in question is inherrently selfish.

Or, would you evaluate/calculate the situation and conclude that as the card shouldn't be there then this wouldn't be a problem, and carry on, as you were. If there are concequences, then these are all brought on by the car owner. . its that simple.

I see cars parked on the pavement all the time. Its very common - if they didnt do this it would not be possible to have two way traffic on many roads! So saying they are hard of thinking seems ridiculous when this is a standard thing most car owners do when neccessary.

Did it occur to anyone that he may have been parked on the pavement to allow more room for motorists on the road?

I think this is totally wrong, and if I'd have been in his shoes I'd have called you a p**** too!

Originally posted by Sidla
Did it occur to anyone that he may have been parked on the pavement to allow more room for motorists on the road?

I think this is totally wrong, and if I'd have been in his shoes I'd have called you a p**** too!

I completely agree. If the road is narrow there is not much choice but to do this.

Originally posted by nightrider
I see cars parked on the pavement all the time. Its very common - if they didnt do this it would not be possible to have two way traffic on many roads! So saying they are hard of thinking seems ridiculous when this is a standard thing most car owners do when neccessary.

But don't most car owners (the intelligent ones at least) who have to park on the kerb (whatever circumstances would make this necessary?) make sure that there is enough room for wheelchairs etc to get through? I do! And if there isn't enough room then I find somewhere else to park.

Case in point........the clowns who park on the pavements down Herries Rd whenever there's a match on. Surely it isn't a pedestrian's/wheelchair user's responsibility to avoid contact with some numpties lump of metal when it's been illegally dumped on the public FOOTpath.

Originally posted by nightrider
I completely agree. If the road is narrow there is not much choice but to do this.

Driving on the footway is illegal. If you are obstructing the carriageway by parking on a narrow road then don't park on the footway instead.......park elsewhere that isn't hindering pedestrians.

What were you supposed to do?

Wait for him to get back (could be hours) or get run over on the road?

Or..........


-Rich
---------------------------
http://aridmyth.blogspot.com

Originally posted by Sidla
Did it occur to anyone that he may have been parked on the pavement to allow more room for motorists on the road?

I think this is totally wrong, and if I'd have been in his shoes I'd have called you a p**** too!

But Mainframe said that it was directly next to the Asda car park (which wasn't full), point is he shouldn't have been parked there:(

Originally posted by munky
makes no odds if theres room on the road to park or not,



I disagree. It is quite common that people do this and as far as I can tell is an accepted practice (I dont see hordes of parking attendants writing tickets for this...).

Some areas can have very narrow roads and not enough car parks. People have to park somewhere (esepcially if they live round there!).

So, in your own roads, is it acceptable to break the law if it's an accepted social practice and "everyone does it". .

Lets apply your logic to cannabis.

It's still illegal, however, from what your saying, because loads of people use it, we should accept this and the law shouldn't be abided by, just cos "loads of people do it!"

Just because more people are doing it, doesn't make it any more acceptable/legal!

Can you not see the blatant hypocrasy here or is this an attempt to justify ones own selfish acts?

Originally posted by munky
So, in your own roads, is it acceptable to break the law if it's an accepted social practice and "everyone does it". .

Lets apply your logic to cannabis.

It's still illegal, however, from what your saying, because loads of people use it, we should accept this and the law shouldn't be abided by, just cos "loads of people do it!"

Just because more people are doing it, doesn't make it any more acceptable/legal!

Can you not see the blatant hypocrasy here or is this an attempt to justify ones own selfish acts?

So you dont support the person who scratched a car I take it? This is also blatantly illegal!

Not at all. .

I do not support illegal acts, with or without intent. I'm merely pointing out that the whole situation arose from the car being there in the first place,

If someone is pulled for possesion, it doesn't make a difference if its an eights or an ounce, the fact is they had it in the first place and if they didn't, the situation wouldn't be present.

Originally posted by Mainframe
The guy that was walkin infront shouted me and said "Hey ***** you just scratched the side of my car" so I turned round and said "Well Im sorry but if you dont want your car scratched dont park on the pavement".

Now did I do wrong?

I would have called you a ****ing tosser too, and be highly mad. I would also have called the police and informed them of criminal damage with intent, and be speaking to my solictor about sueing you. In the least I would have asked you to provide contact details of yourself where you could be contacted to obtain payment fix the car.

Now don't get me wrong I am very familiar with the use of wheelchairs, I used to push my mother around all the time, however I would not even contemplate criminal damage.

The saying goes two wrongs don't make a right

Right, For everyone who says I should back out I will tell you this. If you are going forward then stop and start going backwards, because of how the front wheels turn it makes the chair go to one side by about 10cm.

This means it would most lightly make a dint in the car.

Originally posted by nightrider
(I dont see hordes of parking attendants writing tickets for this...).


Thats because it isn't illegal. Its only illegal to drive on the footway.....I know its stupid but thats the way it is.

Originally posted by nightrider
I disagree. It is quite common that people do this and as far as I can tell is an accepted practice (I dont see hordes of parking attendants writing tickets for this...).
One street in Woodhouse where the residents had been parking like this for years got a nasty shock one morning when they all got up to find a ticket on their windscreen - and don't forget the council have recently taken over responsibility for clamping down on this practice, so we can expect more frequent ticketing sprees :thumbsup:

Originally posted by the_rudeboy
Thats because it isn't illegal. Its only illegal to drive on the footway.....I know its stupid but thats the way it is.

You're right. The law on this is confusing, and varies from council to council. However even in counties where pavement parking is banned, it is still permitted on narrow roads where parking wholly on the road would cause a traffic obstruction.

So, the driver probably did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law anyway, and yet sustained sigificant costs for repairing damage to his car that was not his fault. If the law says he can park on the pavement, it is not for other people to decide he was in the wrong and that he somehow 'deserved' it.

Originally posted by Mainframe
Right, For everyone who says I should back out I will tell you this. If you are going forward then stop and start going backwards, because of how the front wheels turn it makes the chair go to one side by about 10cm.

This means it would most lightly make a dint in the car.

Do you have very poor spatial awareness by any chance? As most people will be able to judge the size of the gap before they enter it.

Who you kidding, ofcourse you did wrong !

Your excuses is as dumb as someone who says 'I was bought up that if someone leaves their front door open, they are okay to rob !', or if a woman smiles at you 'shes fair game'.

you scratched someone's car !

The very least you can do is to apologise and not to justify it with your twisted logic !

and by the way, the law doesn't extend in the way you think to private car parks !

Originally posted by wolfman
Who you kidding, ofcourse you did wrong !

[snip]

The very least you can do is to apologise and not to justify it with your twisted logic !
I don't think that mainframe did in the the original post. A lot of other people have since though.

Does this mean its ok for me to run you over if youre crossing the road where you shouldnt be?

No. Of course not. Being inconvenienced is not licence to deliberately scratch a car. People get inconvenienced all the time. Its part of life, get over yourselves!

And for all you saying "you did right" what part of purposley scratching a car is 'right' exactly?

Floyd77 - I don't think Mainframe purposely as you put it, scratched the car, that I agree would be wrong and a bit excessive in trying to make a point - I would have left a abusive note on his windowscreen :hihi:

Mainframe scratched the car by accident and I am sure had the victim not reacted so immediately hostile, given the chance Mainframe would probably have apologised.

Originally posted by dawny1
Mainframe scratched the car by accident and I am sure had the victim not reacted so immediately hostile, given the chance Mainframe would probably have apologised.

I must be missing the accident bit.

quoted from the first post

So I took wheelchair through the gap and I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt, it scratched all down the side of the car.

How can it be an accident if you knowingly try to fit through a gap that is too small.

You did the right thing mate. I used to live in Hillsborough and as the roads are quit thin people on one side of the road would park half on the curb and half on the road. Fair enough, but some arse holes would park so far over you couldn't walk past without being cracking your goolies on the wing mirror!

I used to just barge into them and bend their mirrors back .. no damage but bloody annoying for the driver who would usually only notice as they where driving down the road :D

None of us were there to know the exact situation - if we were it would be very easy to judge.

To be honest, I've scratched someone's car, whilst in mine once when I tried to get out of a gap (otherwise I was stuck in a carpark) that was too small but I had no option but to try it.

Mainframe did say there was plenty of space on the road. If it had been a narrow road I would say this was different.

However, putting myself in the victim's position, although I wouldn't have called him a prick, I would have been pretty chuffed off!

I don't think it's right to scratch someone's car intentionally - and if Mainframe did it with intent, which is quite possible as I know it's frustrating being twice as wide as everyone else without being blocked in (I've run over many a person at meadowhall who wouldn't move!) then I would say it was very wrong.

However - if it was an accident I would say they were both to blame. Mainframe should have been more careful, but so should the driver!

However - I agree that it is sometimes necessary to park partially on the pavement to leave space for motorists. Like I said in a previous post, what if an ambulance/fire engine or other emergency service vehicle needed to get through? You must leave space and think about that one too! I always try to make sure that I'm parked to allow emergency vehicles to get through and pedestrians, but sometimes, it's not always possible and one has to go for the lesser of the two evils.

Can I just ask - I don't remember reading that the car was parked over a drop kerb, but people have said that - was it? In this case, the car really shouldn't have been parked there even if he was fully on the road as drop kerbs are there for a reason!

Originally posted by Lotti
........... Like I said in a previous post, what if an ambulance/fire engine or other emergency service vehicle needed to get through? You must leave space and think about that one too! I always try to make sure that I'm parked to allow emergency vehicles to get through and pedestrians, but sometimes, it's not always possible and one has to go for the lesser of the two evils.


Ugh, well its OBVIOUS what will happen if you get in the way of the fire service!

http://www.bmwworld.com/driving/signs/fire_hydrant.jpg

:D

lol thanks for that!

Originally posted by Mainframe
Hi people,
I went to meadowhall today with my sister and on the way home I was going down a pavement and 2people were in front of me.

We then go to a part of pavement where someone had parked a car on the pavement (even thought there was plenty of room on road). Now I have always been brought up to think that if a car is parked on the pavement its not my fault if the car gets scratched.

Well the 2 people walked onto the road and I thought they were just walking round it, but as I was in my wheelchair I couldnt because of a big curb. So I took wheelchair through the gap and I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt, it scratched all down the side of the car.

The guy that was walkin infront shouted me and said "Hey ***** you just scratched the side of my car" so I turned round and said "Well Im sorry but if you dont want your car scratched dont park on the pavement".

Now did I do wrong?
Yes you did..you scratched his car. Whilst the persons car in question may (in your opinion with no prior knowledge of why the person was actually parked there) it's still someone elses property.
Personally if it had been my car I'd have made you pay for it to be repaired.
In fact I'd be damn embarrassed to have posted this question as it seems flamin' obvious to me you did wrong. All those who applauded this persons actions should be ashamed of yourselves.

Originally posted by dawny1
Floyd77 - I don't think Mainframe purposely as you put it, scratched the car, that I agree would be wrong and a bit excessive in trying to make a point - I would have left a abusive note on his windowscreen :hihi:

Mainframe scratched the car by accident and I am sure had the victim not reacted so immediately hostile, given the chance Mainframe would probably have apologised.

He knew it wouldnt fit easily, but did it anyway - I dont see how that can be construed as accidental? :loopy: But when realising it wouldnt go through, continued to scratch all the way down the car - thats just malicious!

Did you do wrong? Yes - and were lucky to get away with being called a name.

The guy that was walkin infront shouted me and said "Hey ***** you just scratched the side of my car" so I turned round and said "Well Im sorry but if you dont want your car scratched dont park on the pavement".

"hey **** you just knocked out my front teeth"

"Well i'm sorry but if you want to keep your front teeth dont scratch all the way down my car"

How well does the argument hold up now???

Originally posted by t020
Whilst he shouldn't have been parked on the pavement, I can't help but feel that scratching all the way down the side of his car was a bit harsh. I'm not saying you did it deliberately, but you said yourself you knew it wouldn't go through easy and I'd bet you didn't pass through as carefully as you could due to your annoyance. Criminal damage in return for breaching a parking law seems a bit harsh to me.

I'm with you on this one, t020.

Originally posted by munky
So, in your own roads, is it acceptable to break the law if it's an accepted social practice and "everyone does it". .

Lets apply your logic to cannabis.

It's still illegal, however, from what your saying, because loads of people use it, we should accept this and the law shouldn't be abided by, just cos "loads of people do it!"

Just because more people are doing it, doesn't make it any more acceptable/legal!

Can you not see the blatant hypocrasy here or is this an attempt to justify ones own selfish acts?


when has parking on the pavement become illegal?

Originally posted by serapis
You did the right thing mate. I used to live in Hillsborough and as the roads are quit thin people on one side of the road would park half on the curb and half on the road. Fair enough, but some arse holes would park so far over you couldn't walk past without being cracking your goolies on the wing mirror!

I used to just barge into them and bend their mirrors back .. no damage but bloody annoying for the driver who would usually only notice as they where driving down the road :D

No, it was quite clearly the wrong thing.

Ever gone round meadowhall when people just keep getting in the way? What do you do then? Rip their clothes, burn their jacket, kick them in the shins?

I invite you to come down and knock the wing mirror off my car and I'll show you what a crack in the goolies really feels like. What wrong with all you people!?

I'm quite a large guy, but must say I've never seen a car parked so badly that I couldnt get past without injury. Even if I did, I might just consider WALKING AROUND first.

Might be more trouble for mainframe in his chair but can he seriously say there was no other way to get where he was going?

Originally posted by floyd77
I'm quite a large guy, but must say I've never seen a car parked so badly that I couldnt get past without injury. Even if I did, I might just consider WALKING AROUND first.

Why? Why should we be inconvenienced because of pure ignorance on the part of a driver. If I walk on the road and get knocked down, there would be plenty on here saying it was my own fault for not being on the pavement.

The complete facts are not known, we don't know how badly this 'scratch' actually is.

from the way the facts have been presented, I would suggest that had the motorist called the Police you would quite possibly have been arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage. The whys and wherefors of how the car was parked are immaterial.

Originally posted by daverity
But Mainframe said that it was directly next to the Asda car park (which wasn't full), point is he shouldn't have been parked there:(
You can't park in the Asda car park if you're not shopping there.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Why? Why should we be inconvenienced because of pure ignorance on the part of a driver. If I walk on the road and get knocked down, there would be plenty on here saying it was my own fault for not being on the pavement.

The complete facts are not known, we don't know how badly this 'scratch' actually is.

We know its 'all down the side of the car' from his own admission. And since when has 'inconveinience' been an excuse for criminal damage?

The post is titled 'Did I do wrong?' The answer is YES. I dont see how it can be anything else.

Its not much fun having to get about in a wheelchair, so why should you have to put up with these inconsiderate sods.He was causing an obstruction and I think any copper would have given HIM a ticket if he had called one.My wife gets about on a scooter,and the times when she has to go into the road to avoid these idiots..Also the soddin brain dead that park blocking the lowered pavements . She once asked a woman politely to move so she could get off the road and was bombarded with a mouth full of abuse.The disabled have as much right to be able to go about their business as anyone else.Lets face it we now live in a "everybody for themselves"society and dont give a s**t for the less fortunate.:rant: :rant: :rant:And it stinks:gag:

Originally posted by burnttoast
Its not much fun having to get about in a wheelchair, so why should you have to put up with these inconsiderate sods.

Cant you read? Its nothing to do with putting up with sods - Is it right to scratch the car because of it? Yes or No - I say no.

There is no doubt the driver parked inconsiderately, I think its inconsiderate when a car cuts me up on the road, when people walk right in front of me and get in my way, when my Mrs finishes the juice - I dont cause criminal damage because of it and try to justify it because I was inconveinienced!

Originally posted by willman
when has parking on the pavement become illegal?

Parking on the pavement has always been illegal

Parking on pavements

What are the problems of parking on the pavement?

* Parking on pavements can force pedestrians, wheelchair users and people with pushchairs onto the road where they are at risk of collision with motor vehicles.
* Parking on pavements causes particular problems for people with poor eyesight and/or people with mobility difficulties.
* Parking on pavements outside schools causes difficulties for children trying to see oncoming vehicles.
* Most pavements are not designed to carry vehicles and parking on them can cause damage which adds to maintenance costs.

Please park on the road NOT on the pavement

What can happen?

* Driving along the pavement is an offence for which you can be fined up to…..£1000
* Parking on a pavement is an offence under local by-laws in some areas and you could receive a fine.
* Parking on a pavement can cause an obstruction for which you can be issued with a fixed penalty notice.
* You can be charged for the costs of repairing damage to pavements and any services pipes or cables that result from your driving or parking on a pavement.

Mainframe seems to have decided to ask others what they think of him scratching the car

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17476871&page=1&pp=30

There is more sympathy on here than on the Overlockers UK forum. ;)

First of all, if someone is in a wheelchair then they cannot simply 'back up' - if Mainframe had done so then there would also have been dents/gouges in the car. The second thing is that until you have used a wheelchair you cannot comprehend the lack of choices that you have faced with a situation like this. If you can get into the road to go around, and that's a big 'if', you cannot run quickly by to avoid oncoming traffic, and you also take up a whole lot more room than a person would walking. The wheelchair user can't just be expected to sit there like a lemon if they might just get through the gap. What if someone blind had been walking down the pavement? The mirrors would have been knocked off in that case and that really would have been a mistake.

But. If this is done purely for malicious reasons - i.e. thinking you'll do this if there are other options to choose (e.g. getting assistance from someone with you), then it would be wrong. How many people post on here about parking problems and say they'll do this that and the other to people's cars? I've got mad about inconsiderate parking myself, but it's just red mist.

Looking at the situation as it stands, the guy whose car it was wouldn't stand much chance of claiming anything anyway. Yes, you can be fined for parking on the pavement - as the cops do you for driving on the pavement, which you have to do in order to park on it. This car owner will probably have to chalk it up to experience. But Mainframe is also lucky that said guy was not a nutter.

Originally posted by floyd77
Cant you read? Its nothing to do with putting up with sods - Is it right to scratch the car because of it? Yes or No - I say no.

There is no doubt the driver parked inconsiderately, I think its inconsiderate when a car cuts me up on the road, when people walk right in front of me and get in my way, when my Mrs finishes the juice - I dont cause criminal damage because of it and try to justify it because I was inconveinienced!

YES FORTUNATELY I CAN READ:rolleyes:My eye sight is perfectly good.But what about anyone who is blind or partially sighted..What if they bump into any car on the pavement and scratch it ?Should they be hung drawn and quartered?
And who said it was a deliberate act of vandalism.The pratt that parked there only has himself to blame.:cool:

Originally posted by burnttoast
YES FORTUNATELY I CAN READ......
.......And who said it was a deliberate act of vandalism.The pratt that parked there only has himself to blame.:cool:

You're doing a good job of proving yourself wrong. HE said it was deliberate
So I took wheelchair through the gap and I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt, it scratched all down the side of the car.
So not only did he deliberately go into a gap he know was too small, he then carried on after initially scratching it, to scratch 'all' down the side.

What we're talking about here is a pavement being blocked, and someone carrying out malicious vandalism (criminal damage) in revenge. What if someone had collapsed on the pavement blocking it, would he have ran over them in his wheel chair? What if a road is dug up - does he stab the workers? Cracked paving slabs - letter bomb the council perhaps?

Try thinking before posting next time.

Originally posted by Mathom
Looking at the situation as it stands, the guy whose car it was wouldn't stand much chance of claiming anything anyway. Yes, you can be fined for parking on the pavement - as the cops do you for driving on the pavement, which you have to do in order to park on it. This car owner will probably have to chalk it up to experience. But Mainframe is also lucky that said guy was not a nutter.

Mainframe is luck he wasnt a nutter, and that he didnt call the police - rather than chalking it up he could have him done for criminal damage.....as quoted from the forum bobby
had the motorist called the Police you would quite possibly have been arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage. The whys and wherefors of how the car was parked are immaterial.

Originally posted by owdlad
Mainframe seems to have decided to ask others what they think of him scratching the car

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17476871&page=1&pp=30

There is more sympathy on here than on the Overlockers UK forum. ;)


If so why do local councils state this on their website:

"If there are no waiting restrictions on the highway adjacent to the pavement, then the Council has no powers to take action and this should be taken up with the Police since it constitutes an obstruction"

or this from the dept of transport.

"In some areas pavement parking is prohibited by a local Act of Parliament, and it may be prohibited elsewhere in particular streets or parts of streets by traffic regulation orders. But enforcement may be a problem unless the local authority is able to take on the responsibility through the arrangements being developed under the Road Traffic Act 1991. "

they all say it is a hazrd etc. and some even mention illegal but it is relevant to the council..

selby council even encourage it.
"In narrow residential streets, drivers are sometimes instructed to park with two wheels on the kerb to make life easier for through traffic."

even london allows it:
"There are a number of streets in the Borough which are too narrow for drivers to safely park completely on the carriageway (road) without causing obstruction to the flow of traffic. In these situations parking is allowed on the footway (pavement) either partially (with 2 wheels on, 2 wheels off) or fully."

so i don't think it's as cut and dry as we think it is.

I am with floyd all the way here.

If it had been my car, you wouldn't have just got away with a mouthful of abuse. I think you have been very lucky in that respect, most people are nutters when it comes to criminal damage.

Originally posted by owdlad
Parking on the pavement has always been illegal

Parking on pavements

What are the problems of parking on the pavement?

* Parking on pavements can force pedestrians, wheelchair users and people with pushchairs onto the road where they are at risk of collision with motor vehicles.
* Parking on pavements causes particular problems for people with poor eyesight and/or people with mobility difficulties.
* Parking on pavements outside schools causes difficulties for children trying to see oncoming vehicles.
* Most pavements are not designed to carry vehicles and parking on them can cause damage which adds to maintenance costs.

Please park on the road NOT on the pavement

What can happen?

* Driving along the pavement is an offence for which you can be fined up to…..£1000
* Parking on a pavement is an offence under local by-laws in some areas and you could receive a fine.
* Parking on a pavement can cause an obstruction for which you can be issued with a fixed penalty notice.
* You can be charged for the costs of repairing damage to pavements and any services pipes or cables that result from your driving or parking on a pavement.

where did you find that?

It may be an offence under local by-laws, but in Sheffield it isn't.
It's clearly not an offense to drive across the pavement to get into a driveway as the council provide drop kerbs, so I doubt that parking on the pavement could be called driving on it.
If it is an obstruction then the police should be called, doing something that causes damage when you can see in advance that it will sounds pretty much like recklessness leading to criminal damage to me.

Originally posted by Mainframe

Now did I do wrong?

Hell No, right on there - you should however have run over his foot too ;)

I'm all for confronting this sort of P*ick - my wife when we lived at Firth Park a few years ago often used to run the pram down the side of cars if they were blocking the pathway, usually with a carrier bag with tins in swung off the side facing the vehicle.

Originally posted by Cyclone
where did you find that?

It may be an offence under local by-laws, but in Sheffield it isn't.
It's clearly not an offense to drive across the pavement to get into a driveway as the council provide drop kerbs, so I doubt that parking on the pavement could be called driving on it.
If it is an obstruction then the police should be called, doing something that causes damage when you can see in advance that it will sounds pretty much like recklessness leading to criminal damage to me.

I can't find the sodding link now:rant: but you are probably right in that it's not the actual parking that is seen as an offence, but obstructing the pavement is.

I can't believe so many people who might consider themselves to be middle class law abiding people are all for criminal damage? :confused:

What happened to respecting other peoples property?

Surely the most sensible answer if you do believe it was parked incosiderately is just to place a note on the windscreen asking them to think next time?

What a sad sad place society is nowadays!

If people didn't park on the pavement on my road, we'd all be shafted if there was a fire, as no body would be able to get through to put it out. We wouldn't have our bins emptied either.

I understand the frustration, but it was criminal damage that was unnecessary.

Originally posted by Internetowl
Hell No, right on there - you should however have run over his foot too ;)

I'm all for confronting this sort of P*ick - my wife when we lived at Firth Park a few years ago often used to run the pram down the side of cars if they were blocking the pathway, usually with a carrier bag with tins in swung off the side facing the vehicle.

WHAT??? :o

And you're admitting that?

Ok, yeah, it ****** me off too but a bit of bright lippy on the windscreen - lipstick is a bugger to get off - does the trick without causing 'real damage' just more inconvenience in my experience.

This is why there are kids hanging around causing criminal damage now because their parents taught them it was the way to go when they were nippers :rant:

Sorry but Mainframe was in the wrong if he did it intentionally, but at least a bit of T cut will probably sort it out (I hope) - what you're talking about it just plain ruthless vandalism!

Originally posted by Internetowl
Hell No, right on there - you should however have run over his foot too ;)

I'm all for confronting this sort of P*ick - my wife when we lived at Firth Park a few years ago often used to run the pram down the side of cars if they were blocking the pathway, usually with a carrier bag with tins in swung off the side facing the vehicle.
Who's the p***K exactly??
I feel sorry for people associated with a vindictive vandal like yourself.
What an example you set for your children. :loopy:

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I can't believe so many people who might consider themselves to be middle class law abiding people are all for criminal damage? :confused:

What happened to respecting other peoples property?

Surely the most sensible answer if you do believe it was parked incosiderately is just to place a note on the windscreen asking them to think next time?

What a sad sad place society is nowadays!

Indeed. I can't believe it took a few pages for someone (me) to dare to speak against the action either.

Legally there may be some dispute but you should not feel in the slightest bit guilty. Parking on the pavement is a blight on the world we live in and should be taken far more seriously by the parking powers that be.

Originally posted by t020
Indeed. I can't believe it took a few pages for someone (me) to dare to speak against the action either.

You should try following a blind person down a road littered with abandoned bins, parked cars and other street detritus. The damage outlined by the OP was to all intents and purposes accidental. Likening it to criminal damage is really not called for.

Originally posted by pete_jim
You should try following a blind person down a road littered with abandoned bins, parked cars and other street detritus. The damage outlined by the OP was to all intents and purposes accidental. Likening it to criminal damage is really not called for.

While posting without actually reading the entire post is just plain dumb.

He did it on purpose, he has admitted this. It was criminal damage. He is not blind, so it was not an accident. :loopy:

Originally posted by Sidla
Did it occur to anyone that he may have been parked on the pavement to allow more room for motorists on the road?

I think this is totally wrong, and if I'd have been in his shoes I'd have called you a p**** too!
So it's OK to block the pavement as long as it keeps traffic on the road from being inconvenienced? :loopy:

The most annoying thing about pavement parking is that it's so often unnecessary: so what if your parking reduces the road to one-way traffic, cars will still find a way through, and it's far preferable to reducing the pavement to no-way traffic.

Fortunately, I don't have to push a pushchair very often nowadays, but when I did, badly parked cars used to be a daily danger. I once wrote to our local councillor about it, but he wasn't much help (pavement parking isn't illegal, except in London; causing an obstruction is, but the police will rarely do anything about it, and anyway [the councillor said] it's only really a problem during University term time [!??!?]).

The worst place I have come across for this is the plumbers' merchants on Barber Road: there are often big lorries parked across the entire pavement outside, and I would have to take my chances (and put my kids at danger) by stepping into the busy road, unsighted by the oncoming traffic, which was often dangerously fast because the lorry-driver had very thoughtfully left lots of room so they didn't have to slow down.

Cant we just have a separate thread about how much everyone hates pavements being blocked by bad or inconsiderate parking (me included) and keep this one to whether it is good justification for vandalism?

Yes this thread is not about how much people hate pavement parking it is about taking the law into your own hands.


Now if Mainframe thinks it is okay to cause criminal damage to someones property because it has inconvienced them what is to stop me thinking it is okay to shoot the driver of the car in front because he inconvienced me by cutting me up.


No difference, two different extremes but the same principle.


I just still can't believe how many people would cause criminal damage. What if it was your car?

The problem is everyones interpretation of what the OP said. I believe having re-read it several times that it was a misjudgement of the gap available and the width of the wheelchair. It may have been wiser to err on the side of caution and to have allowed a greater margin for error but I still think it was more of a mistake than a calculated act of vandalism or even a criminal act.

Had the post have read "I saw a gap that I knew was to small but I thought sod it I'll scratch their car anyway" then I might have judged the poster differently. But it didn't.

Originally posted by Mainframe
I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt

What part of that reads like an accident?

it scratched all down the side of the car.

How exactly do you scratch all down the side of a car accidentally?

I fail to see how Mainframe couldn't, with the assistance of his sister, manoeuvre his wheelchair from the pavement into the road, around the car and back onto the pavement again (I'm assuming that his sister WAS capable of helping him to do this). I doubt that this course of action would be any more dangerous than crossing a road , given that the same help was available.

Had the pavement been blocked by work being carried out on it, then he would have been put to a similar inconvenience, without having the option of trying to squeeze through a gap that he realised in advance that he could not get through easily, i.e. without risking causing damage to the parked car.

I've never had to use a wheelchair but I can fully appreciate how annoying it must be to find your progress impeded needlessly by the stupidity of others and I can well imagine how he felt... In his particular case it appears to be an example of 'pavement-rage'!

I'm not saying that I too, wouldn't have done the same as he did under the same circumstances... and tried to squeeze through, justifying my actions by the fact that if I did cause damage, then the driver shouldn't have parked as they did and put their vehicle at risk... but that doesn't make it right!

As we know, Mainframe did take that risk with the property of someone else and as a result of doing so did cause damage to their property, whether intentionally or otherwise.

It would be difficult to claim that it was purely accidental as firstly, he knew that it wouldn't be easy to get through the gap and secondly, having once made contact, he continued to put a scratch "all down the side of the car". It's been said that once started, he had no option but to continue, as reversing a wheelchair causes it to move to one side (due to the castor action of the front wheels, I assume) but as he was accompanied by his sister, could she not have tilted the chair slightly backwards so that it was on only two wheels and withdrawn it from the gap?

As it wasn't committed with criminal intent, I doubt that it could be termed criminal damage, had he tried to rectify the situation by doing his utmost to back out as soon as the damage was apparent (even if it did cause further scratches), then it would probably be considered to be accidental damage. As he continued through the gap, causing further scratching, it would most likely be described as wilful damage to anothers' property... which is a greater offence than parking in such a way as to cause obstruction.

Whatever the offence, the fact remains that Mainframe caused damage to the property of another, for which he is both morally and legally responsible. The fact that the vehicle in question was obstructing his path was no justification for such action.

The above being all IMHO.

I would have to say, the fact that he had to ask "did I do wrong?" shows it wasn't accidental.

If it was an accident, he would have known he didn't do wrong, and wouldn't have asked.

There was a certain amount of 'I believe they are wrong, so will do what I please' about it, a kind of 'moral victory' as it were. He's trying to get confirmation he 'did the right thing'.

'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I just still can't believe how many people would cause criminal damage. What if it was your car?

If it was my car, maybe I'd park more considerately; not because I'd fear a pedestrian damaging my car accidentally or otherwise, but out of an inherent sense of common courtesy.

I think what's important here is the context. Firstly, if someone is a wheelchair user then they cannot choose the options that other people would have open to them. It is not a matter of inconvenience. If on your way home someone took your shoes away and then you had to walk through six feet of broken glass in order to get home, then you might be getting close to how it would feel to be in this situation.

But the context is also that someone else was there who may have been able to assist in getting up/down the kerb and around the vehicle, thus getting rid of the need to attempt the gap.

Now for a devil's advocate question: What if someone had nobody to help them get past and this was at the side of a very busy road? Should they have just stayed where they were until the driver decided to move his/her car? What takes priority? The safety of the person or the safety of the property? :confused:

Originally posted by Mathom
Now for a devil's advocate question: What if someone had nobody to help them get past and this was at the side of a very busy road? Should they have just stayed where they were until the driver decided to move his/her car? What takes priority? The safety of the person or the safety of the property? :confused:

Only one way in and out of Meadowhall is there? Sure it would have been very inconvenient to go in another entrance - still doesnt make it ok to vandalise the car because you have been inconvenienced!

Just out of interest - what type of wheelchair was this? All the manual ones I've been in (all two of them!) you need to push the wheels from rails on the outside of the wheels, meaning that you hands would touch the car first to let you know it wouldnt fit - but then he already know it wouldnt git - so doesnt really matter.

You're being very quiet Mainframe - what say you? Lots of speculation here, come on, confirm or deny something!

Meadowhall? I believe it was on a pavement near a branch of Asda that this happened?

Anyway, that doesn't answer my hypothetical question.

He does say Meadowhall, but then Asda later on.

I dunno :confused:

Still no excuse unless you're being chased by a pack of wolves at the time! :suspect:

Originally posted by floyd77
He does say Meadowhall, but then Asda later on.

I dunno :confused:

He says: "I went to meadowhall today with my sister and on the way home..."

"On the way home" doesn't mean the same thing as "at Meadowhall". To paraphrase somebody earlier on this thread, don't bother giving us your opinions unless you can be bothered to read what it is you're commenting on!

Regardless of whether the damage caused was intentional, unintentional, or not exactly intentional but not exactly avoided either, if the car was parked so far up the pavement that you can't get a wheelchair past then it was clearly causing an obstruction (which is against the law). He may not exactly have been "asking for it" but he's not in much of a position to complain either.

Personally if you had scratched my car I would have called you worse

Originally posted by DanSumption
Regardless of whether the damage caused was intentional, unintentional, or not exactly intentional but not exactly avoided either, if the car was parked so far up the pavement that you can't get a wheelchair past then it was clearly causing an obstruction (which is against the law). He may not exactly have been "asking for it" but he's not in much of a position to complain either.

This whole situation could have been avoided if the driver had used a parking bay in the first place. That's what they're there for.

Vandalism is also against the law

Originally posted by DanSumption
Regardless of whether the damage caused was intentional, unintentional, or not exactly intentional but not exactly avoided either, if the car was parked so far up the pavement that you can't get a wheelchair past then it was clearly causing an obstruction (which is against the law). He may not exactly have been "asking for it" but he's not in much of a position to complain either.

It matters not an ounce where the car was parked - the whole thread is about whether he was wrong. He was wrong.

NO MATTER WHERE THE CAR WAS PARKED

The fact that the car was poorly parked is another reason entirely and not a mitigating factor.

Consider:

Its obvious this was intentional - he knew he wouldnt fit, but went anyway. When it started to scratch he continued regardless. The fact this thread exists means even he considers that he may have done wrong. He had other options, even family to help.

If it is intentional, then it is criminal.

Are all you lot saying its ok to carry out criminal acts now? - this isn't just a wee misdemeanor, probably £100's worth of damage.

And thanks for the attempt at sarcasm Dan, but as you cannot tell where the hell he was, coming out of meadowhall, out of Asda, somewhere inbetween or wherever - thats why I said I didnt know where he was, nothing to do with not reading.

I completely agree with Floyd because carrying out acts of vandalism is not acceptable no matter what the circumstances. People call teenagers vandals, hooligans etc. But what people on this forum are permitting is vandalism, the motive of which was petty.
Just because somebody happens to be parked on the kerb, there were ways around the act and Mainframe could be sued for the cost of the repairs.

I also agree with floyd :clap:

Interesting that the thread started with everyone agreeing with Mainframe, but now seems to be everyone disagreeing, except me. I don't agree that it was vandalism - if you've got to get through, you've got to get through, and if something is obstructing your path then any cosmetic damage that occurs as a result is unfortunate but unavoidable.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Interesting that the thread started with everyone agreeing with Mainframe, but now seems to be everyone disagreeing, except me.

It only takes someone brave enough (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=632110#post632110) to say what they really think to swing a whole thread. :hihi:

Originally posted by DanSumption
I don't agree that it was vandalism - if you've got to get through, you've got to get through, and if something is obstructing your path then any cosmetic damage that occurs as a result is unfortunate but unavoidable.

So if you're in my way, and I want to get past, I can do what I want to get through?

Can I shout abuse at you to get you to move?
Can I push you out of the way?
Can I assault you?
Can I kill you?

Unfortunate, but unavoidable to get past at the speed I want to. Cant have me being inconvenienced.

Cosmetic damage is ok is it? What type of damage is not ok then? Next time im in Meadowhall I'll carry a can of spray paint and spray everyone that gets in my way - thats ok, only cosmetic damage.
Next time I have to que for the loo in the pub, if i'm really desparate I'll just beat up everyone in the queue - they might get a few cuts and bruises, but thats only cosmetic, and I really had to get through.
Next time a person, or even a kid steps out in the road without paying attention - I'll just run them over, they should have been looking where they were going, or crossed at the appropriate place. Unfortunate, but unavoidable?

Yeah right.

Interesting that the thread started with everyone agreeing with Mainframe, but now seems to be everyone disagreeing, except me.

Maybe everyone senses have come back to them? Maybe they realised that just because someone acts like a ****, doesnt justify you acting like a ****. Maybe I just didnt read the thread until there were a few posts in it?

Or maybe we were all just waiting for T020 to step in :suspect:

Originally posted by t020
It only takes someone brave enough (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=632110#post632110) to say what they really think to swing a whole thread. :hihi:
And perhaps someone egotistical enough to sing their own praises to explain why they are so often taunted?

Originally posted by Pseudonym
And perhaps someone egotistical enough to sing their own praises to explain why they are so often taunted?

Calm down, Squire, I was only joking.

Originally posted by t020
Calm down, Squire, I was only joking.
Then perhaps it's as well that you're now aware that such jokes may be misconstrued, my friend... :|

Originally posted by floyd77
So if you're in my way, and I want to get past, I can do what I want to get through?

Can I shout abuse at you to get you to move?
Can I push you out of the way?
Can I assault you?
Can I kill you?


There is an obvious difference (as I suspect you are really aware) between people being in your way when you are in a hurry and someone selfishly breaking the law by parking on the pavement and stopping someone passing safely.

Personally, if I was in Mainframe's position I think I would have done exactly the same. Too many car-owners seem to think they own the road AND the pavement.

Originally posted by floyd77
So if you're in my way, and I want to get past, I can do what I want to get through?

Can I shout abuse at you to get you to move?
Can I push you out of the way?
Can I assault you?
Can I kill you?

Unfortunate, but unavoidable to get past at the speed I want to. Cant have me being inconvenienced.

Cosmetic damage is ok is it? What type of damage is not ok then? Next time im in Meadowhall I'll carry a can of spray paint and spray everyone that gets in my way - thats ok, only cosmetic damage.
Next time I have to que for the loo in the pub, if i'm really desparate I'll just beat up everyone in the queue - they might get a few cuts and bruises, but thats only cosmetic, and I really had to get through.
Next time a person, or even a kid steps out in the road without paying attention - I'll just run them over, they should have been looking where they were going, or crossed at the appropriate place. Unfortunate, but unavoidable?

Yeah right.
Yeah, right.

There are blindingly obvious differences, and if you're daft enough not to see it then you too probably deserve a scratch down the side of your car.

If somebody is in your way, I suggest that you ask them to move before resorting to abuse and violence, I find that it usually works for me. :loopy:

Originally posted by pete_jim
Legally there may be some dispute but you should not feel in the slightest bit guilty. Parking on the pavement is a blight on the world we live in and should be taken far more seriously by the parking powers that be.

legally there is no dispute, it is criminal damage and worse its itentional so it could be construed as vandalism. i would have been onto the cops b4 you got passed me & into meadowhall.

Originally posted by willman
i would have been onto the cops b4 you got passed me & into meadowhall.
I hope you would give the cops better directions than that :rolleyes:

Originally posted by DanSumption
I hope you would give the cops better directions than that :rolleyes:

well i only had minimal information to start with but i'm sure i'd know where i was at the time of the incident officer.

Originally posted by floyd77
Its obvious this was intentional - he knew he wouldnt fit, but went anyway. When it started to scratch he continued regardless. The fact this thread exists means even he considers that he may have done wrong. He had other options, even family to help.

Yet again you are putting your interpretation of things as the only way of looking at this. You weren't there and you don't know what exactly happened. You don't know the width of the gap the type of wheelchair, how dangerous the situation might have been.

There are always two sides to every situation IMO. And, nothing you put forward will change MO that it was not a reckless act of vandalism. The fact that the OP felt upset enough to post about the incident gives some credence to my way of looking at it.

Originally posted by pete_jim
[QUOTE]Originally posted by floyd77
Its obvious this was intentional - he knew he wouldnt fit, but went anyway. When it started to scratch he continued regardless. The fact this thread exists means even he considers that he may have done wrong. He had other options, even family to help.

Yet again you are putting your interpretation of things as the only way of looking at this. You weren't there and you don't know what exactly happened. You don't know the width of the gap the type of wheelchair, how dangerous the situation might have been.

There are always two sides to every situation IMO. And, nothing you put forward will change MO that it was not a reckless act of vandalism. The fact that the OP felt upset enough to post about the incident gives some credence to my way of looking at it.

his opening statement on here makes it fairly clear that he knew the wheelchair would not fit and forced it through the gap deliberately.

There are two sides I suppose, a potentially illegaly parked car causing an obstruction, and someone causing criminal damage to that car. One does not cancel out the other.

Originally posted by DanSumption

If somebody is in your way, I suggest that you ask them to move before resorting to abuse and violence, I find that it usually works for me. :loopy:

So if its a person you ask them to move, or go around or find another solution before resorting to violence.
If its a car, do what you want.

As to interpretation - "I knew it wouldnt fit and it didnt" - pretty hard to misinterpret that. "It scratched all down the side of the car" Ditto.

There is no excuse for deliberately scratching a car - its wrong. By admission it was deliberate. How can anyone argue with that?

I could argue till the cows come home but I've stated my interpretation & opinion and have no intention of entering into further debate.

The car was poorly parked by the sound of things. Might it not have been possible to park round the corner and endure the 5 minute walk to the shop?
Typical attitude of many car drivers - 'cars can do what they want'. Perhaps the driver was being selfish parking so inconsideratly.

However - trying to force thru a gap that you state you know you couldn't fit through and damaging the car in the process was equally selfish.

Why can't we all just get along? ;)

(everyone) Try to think of how your actions will affect other people and the world will be a happier place!

Originally posted by floyd77
So if its a person you ask them to move, or go around or find another solution before resorting to violence.
If its a car, do what you want.
Again, you're twisting what I said. If it's a car that's illegally parked and the only way to get past involves damaging it then I certainly wouldn't shed any tears over the scratch.

Originally posted by floyd77
As to interpretation - "I knew it wouldnt fit and it didnt" - pretty hard to misinterpret that.
It's also pretty hard to mis-quote "I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt" but somehow you seem to have managed it :loopy: and as a result it seems that other people are now taking a dimmer view of the original poster's actions.

Originally posted by floyd77
"It scratched all down the side of the car" Ditto.
What's the point of only scratching halfway down the car and not getting through? If you're causing damage to the car, you might as well do it for a good reason (to get past)

Originally posted by floyd77
There is no excuse for deliberately scratching a car - its wrong.
As bad as deliberately misquoting somebody to make them look worse than they really are?

Mainframe said "I knew it wouldn't go easy" - which can also suggest that it might have gone through, that there was a chance. If you read the post, it is also not at all clear whether Mainframe's sister was there or not - it is quite possible that he/she had no-one to assist.

As I've said before, what could you do in such a situation? Are people seriously suggesting that Mainframe should have sat in his/her chair at the side of the road until such a time as this driver decided to move their car? I'm having visions of some poor beggar sat there at the side of the road for hours on end in the pouring rain waiting for the driver to finish his shopping/drinking session/day at work.

If there was another option available to Mainframe then to scratch the car was wrong. If not, then while it's not right, it's the only option.

There really is no comparison at all with a situation where a person/animal is in your way. A car is an object, a person is not.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Again, you're twisting what I said. If it's a car that's illegally What's the point of only scratching halfway down the car and not getting through? If you're causing damage to the car, you might as well do it for a good reason (to get past)

Well you could try stopping when it first scratched then reversing out. A (potential) 10 foot scratch would only be done consciously all the way down 4 body panels.

It would be nice to hear mainframes take on this all at this stage.

Originally posted by Tony
Well you could try stopping when it first scratched then reversing out.
And then sit and wait for the car to move? Once the damage is done, it's done, and if it's the only way through then you might as well carry on.

USER NOTE:

Just out of interest, how come we can't discuss illegal processes like downloading music and films, and we aren't allowed to encourage that behaviour, and yet we can have a thread where people encourage criminal damage... including a mod (I realise giving a personal opinion, but still doesn't look good)?

Originally posted by DanSumption
[B]
It's also pretty hard to mis-quote "I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt" but somehow you seem to have managed it

Ok - I got that wrong. Though "I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt" sounds exactly the same to me. So he knew he would scratch it. So he did it on purpose.

Maybe Mainframe can explain his way out of this - and I would love to hear what he has to say about it.

How can anyone seriouslt say that the only other option was to sit for potentially hours until the car moved? Thats ridiculous. He couldnt turn around, cross over somewhere, get assistance? Sure they are all very incovenient, not denying that - but being inconvienenced is not licence to scratch a car causing possibly £££'s of damge! Wheelchair or not!

You know what - I'm that bored of this thread, I shall retire now. You all know where I stand, I cant convince anyone I'm right if they dont agree - so will leave it at that.

Happy arguing everyone!

Originally posted by Snook
USER NOTE:

Just out of interest, how come we can't discuss illegal processes like downloading music and films, and we aren't allowed to encourage that behaviour, and yet we can have a thread where people encourage criminal damage... including a mod (I realise giving a personal opinion, but still doesn't look good)?

Its a private website and the owners/mod can have any rules they like as far as I understand.

and more importantly the "Car Scratchees Protection Society" aren't likely to start throwing their weight around and taking people to court.

Should add though, we can discuss the topic of filesharing, what we can't do is recommend products with the intention of assisting each other to break copyright laws, if you want to do that use PMs.

Originally posted by nightrider
Its a private website and the owners/mod can have any rules they like as far as I understand.
Its not the rules as such that are being questioned..more the hypocrisy.

Originally posted by wibbles
Its not the rules as such that are being questioned..more the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy at all, I'm sure a thread which went along the lines of "I downloaded X piece of music from website Y, is this legal?" would be allowed on here.

Originally posted by DanSumption
No hypocrisy at all, I'm sure a thread which went along the lines of "I downloaded X piece of music from website Y, is this legal?" would be allowed on here.

Yes its usually just threads like 'where can i download music illegally' or 'where can I buy some crack' that aren't allowed, because they incriminate the forum.

Geoff is hardly going to get prosecuted for mainframe scratching a car.

That's about the size of it. There is no aiding and abetting going on in this thread. There is where illegal file sharing or pirate software is being discussed.

Originally posted by floyd77
Ok - I got that wrong. Though "I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt" sounds exactly the same to me. So he knew he would scratch it. So he did it on purpose.

Maybe Mainframe can explain his way out of this - and I would love to hear what he has to say about it.

How can anyone seriouslt say that the only other option was to sit for potentially hours until the car moved? Thats ridiculous. He couldnt turn around, cross over somewhere, get assistance? Sure they are all very incovenient, not denying that - but being inconvienenced is not licence to scratch a car causing possibly £££'s of damge! Wheelchair or not!

im supporting floyd77, mf should be locked up & throw away the key for good measure. vandalism of some poor geezers shiney pride & Joy, you should be ashamed.
perhaps we'll all support wheelie bins being tipped up in the street after all they're causing a hazard as well.

Originally posted by DanSumption
And then sit and wait for the car to move? Once the damage is done, it's done, and if it's the only way through then you might as well carry on.

Damage to 1 panel is a lot cheaper to repair than damage down the whole side of a car to 4 panels.

Originally posted by willman
perhaps we'll all support wheelie bins being tipped up in the street after all they're causing a hazard as well.
Funny you should mention that, I had to push a couple into the street today so I could get the pram past.

Originally posted by Patchy
Personally, if I was in Mainframe's position I think I would have done exactly the same. Too many car-owners seem to think they own the road AND the pavement.

The car may have been parked slightly on the pavement to allow other cars to pass. As this thread is saying the kerb..i take it that is only slightly on the pavement.

This is classed as an act of vandalism. How can people say that 14-16 year olds (just an age group i have heard people talk about) are bad and vandals and go on about how much we ruin things for others when half a forum of people who "should know better" are permitting vandalism among the older age groups? If I had scratched a car it would have been "Kids these days, no respect for other people's property" or something along the lines of that. Why do the rules change for Mainframe?

Originally posted by DanSumption
It's also pretty hard to mis-quote "I knew it wouldnt go easy and it didnt" but somehow you seem to have managed it :loopy: and as a result it seems that other people are now taking a dimmer view of the original poster's actions.

a). It meant the same thing as what the poster acctually said. Does it matter so much how it is phrased - a simple mistake to make.

b). You really shouldn't make assumptions over why people disagree. Not everybody is a sheep who follows what everyone else thinks, we do acctually have our own opinions and I for one completely disagree with the posters actions anyway.

Originally posted by FilthFan
a). It meant the same thing as what the poster acctually said. Does it matter so much how it is phrased - a simple mistake to make.

b). You really shouldn't make assumptions over why people disagree. Not everybody is a sheep who follows what everyone else thinks, we do acctually have our own opinions and I for one completely disagree with the posters actions anyway.

Off topic but only briefly - may I just say, FF, what a pleasure it is to read your post without having to guess at what the txtspk means? I understand at a glance what you're saying! On behalf of all the "pedants" (those who rather like reading in a language we can understand!), thank you....

:)

Originally posted by FilthFan
The car may have been parked slightly on the pavement to allow other cars to pass. As this thread is saying the kerb..i take it that is only slightly on the pavement.
If the car was parked "slightly on the pavement" then it wouldn't have been blocking the pavement, it wouldn't have been scratched by a wheelchair passing it, and this thread would never have happened. You are being almost as disingenuous as floyd77.

Originally posted by FilthFan
a). It meant the same thing as what the poster acctually said. Does it matter so much how it is phrased - a simple mistake to make.
"wouldn't fit" means the same thing as "wouldn't go easy"? I suggest you get a new dictionary. You're saying that "it's impossible" means the same thing as "it's not easy". Any five year-old could tell you otherwise.

The fact is that floyd77 managed to get the quote word-perfect except for that one bit which altered the entire semantics, and from that it is clear to me that he deliberately altered the quote so as to alter the meaning, which was a very low-down thing to do.

Originally posted by FilthFan
b). You really shouldn't make assumptions over why people disagree. Not everybody is a sheep who follows what everyone else thinks, we do acctually have our own opinions and I for one completely disagree with the posters actions anyway.
I've no idea what you mean by this. Have I been making assumptions? It's certainly something I try not to do, and I'm not aware of having done it here.

Originally posted by DanSumption
"wouldn't fit" means the same thing as "wouldn't go easy"? I suggest you get a new dictionary. You're saying that "it's impossible" means the same thing as "it's not easy". Any five year-old could tell you otherwise.

The fact is that floyd77 managed to get the quote word-perfect except for that one bit which altered the entire semantics, and from that it is clear to me that he deliberately altered the quote so as to alter the meaning, which was a very low-down thing to do.


I've no idea what you mean by this. Have I been making assumptions? It's certainly something I try not to do, and I'm not aware of having done it here.

What I mean by saying you are making assumptions is that you said that since Floyd said what he did it has dimmed people's views of the posters actions. Perhaps people have their opinions and have voiced them as they find appropriate rather than it being floyd's fault.
Also I suggest that if you are expecting respect, do not be rude to people as I certainly wouldn't respect anyone who was rude to me.

Originally posted by DanSumption
If the car was parked "slightly on the pavement" then it wouldn't have been blocking the pavement, it wouldn't have been scratched by a wheelchair passing it, and this thread would never have happened. You are being almost as disingenuous as floyd77.

Dan..in order for the car to have been parked on the kerb..it must have been slightly on the pavement. I do not know any streets in which the pavement is smaller than the kerb. I do apologise if you can name such a street.

Originally posted by FilthFan
What I mean by saying you are making assumptions is that you said that since Floyd said what he did it has dimmed people's views of the posters actions. Perhaps people have their opinions and have voiced them as they find appropriate rather than it being floyd's fault.
Also I suggest that if you are expecting respect, do not be rude to people as I certainly wouldn't respect anyone who was rude to me.
Floyd posted his doctored quote, then 2 posts later dafoot said "trying to force thru a gap that you state you know you couldn't fit through and damaging the car in the process was equally selfish". I don't think it's too bold assumption to say that Floyd's mis-quote "I knew it wouldn't fit" led dafoot to say "trying to force thru a gap that you state you know you couldn't fit through and damaging the car in the process was equally selfish".

Neither do I expect respect. I demand it.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Dan..in order for the car to have been parked on the kerb..it must have been slightly on the pavement. I do not know any streets in which the pavement is smaller than the kerb. I do apologise if you can name such a street.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Who mentioned kerbs? What has the relative sizes of kerb and pavement to do with the price of bananas? Are you trying to confuse me by talking gibberish? If so, it worked.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Neither do I expect respect. I demand it.

Do you get respect that way then?

"Did I do wrong?" - yes, you did, end of chat. It's *that* simple. Why is this thread going on so much?

Originally posted by t020
"Did I do wrong?" - yes, you did, end of chat. It's *that* simple. Why is this thread going on so much?

:rolleyes: some dilluted people. :D Them, not you. Anyone would be p*ssed if their car got scratched, know I would.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I have no idea what you are talking about. Who mentioned kerbs? What has the relative sizes of kerb and pavement to do with the price of bananas? Are you trying to confuse me by talking gibberish? If so, it worked.

I am not talking gibberish earlier in this thread I'm pretty sure you told somebody they should read threads before commenting if they cant get their information right...maybe you should practice what you preach? Sorry if it wasn't you that said that but it has been said by MF that the car was parked on the kerb.
Do not talk down to me DanSumption I am not thick.

Whoa Nelly! In this context...

Wouldn't fit - No chance of it fitting.
Wouldnt go easy - No chance of it fitting, without leaving a scratch.

No, they dont mean the same thing, but not a million miles apart. Argue the semantics, both phrases mean he still knew it would scratch.
The fact is that floyd77 managed to get the quote word-perfect except for that one bit which altered the entire semantics, and from that it is clear to me that he deliberately altered the quote so as to alter the meaning, which was a very low-down thing to do.

Sorry Cap'n - was a genuine mistake. Neither here nor there really as both meaning are so very close

Back to retirement for me, may pop back to defend myself from cheap shots though.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Neither do I expect respect. I demand it.

In fear of turning this thread in to personal insults. That did make me laugh :hihi:

I am sorry but I have no respect or admiration for you, for one you don't condone criminal activities and two you purposely cause road obstructions which could result in serious RTA's :loopy:

Originally posted by FilthFan

Do not talk down to me DanSumption I am not thick.

Condescending is his middle name.

Originally posted by FilthFan
I am not talking gibberish earlier in this thread I'm pretty sure you told somebody they should read threads before commenting if they cant get their information right...maybe you should practice what you preach? Sorry if it wasn't you that said that but it has been said by MF that the car was parked on the kerb.
Do not talk down to me DanSumption I am not thick.
Actually I think what I said was more along the lines of "somebody else said people should read the thread before posting, perhaps you should follow that advice". But, going against my own advice, I can't be bothered to check what I actually said, I do remember that I said it with tongue slightly in cheek though.

I did check the original post several times though and MF definitely doesn't say there that the car was parked on the kerb, he says it was on the pavement. DaBouncer later referred to it as being parked on the kerb, and perhaps that's where the confusion arose, but again I'm not going to scan the entire thread to check. I would have thought it's pretty obvious that the car was not parked on the kerb, as otherwise there'd be no problem with getting a wheelchair past.

Sorry about the talking down but, like t020, it's what I do best and I'm damned if I'm going to give it up.

Acctually Dan there can be trouble getting a wheelchair past as not all of the pavements are wide enough.
If it's ok to cause havoc to whatever stands in the way of the person and their destination then I feel sorry for the wheelie bins.

Also I am liable to take offence if you carry on treating me like I'm stupid as yes ok I'm only 15 but that does not qualify you to talk down to me. So whether it is what you do best or not I would advise you not to carry on.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
In fear of turning this thread in to personal insults. That did make me laugh :hihi:

I am sorry but I have no respect or admiration for you, for one you don't condone criminal activities and two you purposely cause road obstructions which could result in serious RTA's :loopy:
Glad you appreciate my sense of humour even if you don't respect or admire me. Perhaps it's just me but the rest of your post confused me even more than FF's. You don't respect me because I don't condone criminal activities? Err... well I won't lose any sleep over that, nor will I start condoning criminal activities in an attempt to impress you.

Neither do I "purposely cause road obstructions", not sure where you got that from to be honest, what I prefer to do it "purposely remove pavement obstructions". I can only imagine you're talking about the dustbins I mentioned earlier, in which case you cause even worse road obstructions each time you park your car anywhere other than on a pavement. (i.e. the dustbins were moved to the edge of the road, in between two parked cars, where the only way they could cause a "serious" RTA is if the driver of one of the parked cars decided to mount a rocket on the back and drive it full pelt into the other parked car a metre away. But I think that if that were the case, the accident would be unavoidable and my dustbins wouldn't greatly alter the course of history, other than to provide a bit of cushioning from the impact).

The most annoying thing when I am on my way to school is having to climb over, pick up and collect rubbish from the floor in order to get there. Knocking over dustbins is somehting many blame on teenagers have "a laugh" now we know the truth....

Originally posted by DanSumption
Funny you should mention that, I had to push a couple into the street today so I could get the pram past.

its also local bye law to leave the bins on the footpath not on the road - so legally they were in the right not you.
they can only be placed on the road if the footpath is less then 900mm wide.
(i only know 'cos i refused to move them initially & measured the footpath to see if we could leave them on our driveway - to stop nutters tipping them over)

Originally posted by FilthFan
Acctually Dan there can be trouble getting a wheelchair past as not all of the pavements are wide enough.
If it's ok to cause havoc to whatever stands in the way of the person and their destination then I feel sorry for the wheelie bins.
Yes, you're right there are pavements which are not wide enough. They are few and far between and, from the tone of the original post (and the fact that MF mentioned there was plenty of room on the road - narrow pavements usually go with narrow roads) I'd assumed this was not the case, but I concede it could have been. I still think it very unlikely, but I admit there's nothing said so far that could confirm either way. Sorry for causing offence.

I think again that "it's ok to cause havoc to whatever stands in the way of the person" is overstating what I believe. But I know from experience that there are some very inconsiderate car owners (and wheelie bin owners) out there who have little consideration for road users, and going by my many years of experience with various pushchairs, prams and wheelchairs I would judge it highly likely that the scenario involved somebody parked uneccesarily far up a pavement on a more-than-wide-enough road, not somebody with their tyres a couple of inches onto the kerb of a liliputian pavement.

Hopefully some good will come of it, in that the driver is likely to think more carefully about where he parks next time.

Originally posted by willman
its also local bye law to leave the bins on the footpath not on the road - so legally they were in the right not you.
they can only be placed on the road if the footpath is less then 900mm wide.
(i only know 'cos i refused to move them initially & measured the footpath to see if we could leave them on our driveway - to stop nutters tipping them over)
It is also required by the council that you take them back into your garden after they have been emptied (not sure whether it's a bye law, but they do put stickers on the bins to emphasise your responsibility). These were on the pavement today, a Wednesday. The bins are emptied on a Friday.

I'd like to point out that I did not tip the bins over, which would certainly be irresponsible, counter-productive and dangerous, I merely moved them off the pavement and into the roadway in the gap between two parked cars, so that I could get the pram up the street. To quote MF... "did I do wrong"?

Originally posted by DanSumption
To quote MF... "did I do wrong"?

you most certainly might not have done, could have but i can't be sure.
ok no you didn't.

Acctually there are many wide roads with narrow pavements but this is against the point. I have been told that Mainframe does not drive. If this is the case then not being a driver how would he know how much room was needed?

Apology accepted just dont do it again.

Originally posted by DanSumption
It is also required by the council that you take them back into your garden after they have been emptied (not sure whether it's a bye law, but they do put stickers on the bins to emphasise your responsibility). These were on the pavement today, a Wednesday. The bins are emptied on a Friday.

I'd like to point out that I did not tip the bins over, which would certainly be irresponsible, counter-productive and dangerous, I merely moved them off the pavement and into the roadway in the gap between two parked cars, so that I could get the pram up the street. To quote MF... "did I do wrong"?

We leave our bin out all day for the simple reason that nobody has the time to waste bringing it in after it has been emptied. We move it at the end of the day when we get home.

This was 5 days later FF, not the same day. Dan said that the bins are taken on a friday and this was a wednesday. It's acceptable to leave it out until you're home, 5 days later isn't.

Wilf

Originally posted by DanSumption
Glad you appreciate my sense of humour even if you don't respect or admire me. Perhaps it's just me but the rest of your post confused me even more than FF's. You don't respect me because I don't condone criminal activities? Err... well I won't lose any sleep over that, nor will I start condoning criminal activities in an attempt to impress you..

I wasn't laughing with you, I was laughing at you.

and yes sorry for confusing you, I meant to say I don't respect you because you condone/disregard criminal offences. However I am sure you realised what I meant in the first place.

Fact: Mainframe committed a criminal offence

Fact: He was in the wrong.

I don't see how people can justify his actions :confused:

Originally posted by FilthFan
Acctually there are many wide roads with narrow pavements but this is against the point. I have been told that Mainframe does not drive. If this is the case then not being a driver how would he know how much room was needed?
I dunno, piece of string perhaps? :)

He did say "there was plenty of room on road" which implies that the gap was so wide, even a non-driver could judge it. To be honest, most drivers in Sheffield seem to have zero spatial awareness so I wouldn't be too quick to attribute any special "car width judging powers" to drivers over non-drivers. Whenever I drive down Crookesmoor Road there are cars waiting in the gaps between parked cars until I have passed, even though there is room for two vans to pass between cards parked on either side with about 6" to spare.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I wasn't laughing with you, I was laughing at you.
You were laughing at me for making a joke? Ouch, that hurts! Stop being so mean.

I wouldn't say I was condoning illegal behaviour so much as cheerfully accepting that sometimes accidents are inevitable. If you want to see people condoning illegal behaviour, I suggest you check out the speed camera thread.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I dunno, piece of string perhaps? :)

He did say "there was plenty of room on road" which implies that the gap was so wide, even a non-driver could judge it. To be honest, most drivers in Sheffield seem to have zero spatial awareness so I wouldn't be too quick to attribute any special "car width judging powers" to drivers over non-drivers. Whenever I drive down Crookesmoor Road there are cars waiting in the gaps between parked cars until I have passed, even though there is room for two vans to pass between cards parked on either side with about 6" to spare.

Well I live just down the road and use that route to school quite alot and crookesmoor road is no way wide enough for two vans at the same time especially if it is parked up.

Originally posted by DanSumption
You were laughing at me for making a joke? Ouch, that hurts! Stop being so mean.

I wouldn't say I was condoning illegal behaviour so much as cheerfully accepting that sometimes accidents are inevitable. If you want to see people condoning illegal behaviour, I suggest you check out the speed camera thread.

Sorry but I agree, granted its not just you but people are condoning illegal behaviour by excusing what MF did to that car.

As I have said before, if it was a teenager it would have been "Kids these days, no respect for other people's property" same applies to MF I'm afraid.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Sorry but I agree, granted its not just you but people are condoning illegal behaviour by excusing what MF did to that car.

As I have said before, if it was a teenager it would have been "Kids these days, no respect for other people's property" same applies to MF I'm afraid.

But can't you see the difference between a pedestrian forcefully using his right to use the pavement against an illegally parked car, and someone commiting uncalled for vandalism for the sake of it?

Should wheel-chair users have to go out into the road and risk getting hit by traffic in order to make their way around cars parked on the pavement? If a car owner doesn't want his or her car damaged by pedestrians, then they shouldn't cause an illegal obstruction.

Sorry to interupt..... but i just realised that MF stood for Mainframe :hihi:

Originally posted by Patchy
But can't you see the difference between a pedestrian forcefully using his right to use the pavement against an illegally parked car, and someone commiting uncalled for vandalism for the sake of it?

Should wheel-chair users have to go out into the road and risk getting hit by traffic in order to make their way around cars parked on the pavement? If a car owner doesn't want his or her car damaged by pedestrians, then they shouldn't cause an illegal obstruction.

can you point out where in English law one illegal act makes another one okay?

Originally posted by Cyclone
can you point out where in English law one illegal act makes another one okay?

I agree, wow...cyclone and I have agreed on something!

As I have said in other posts, Kids would b condemned for such behaviour and as with the wheelie bin thing..it is so annoying for the other pedestrians who have to go around picking the bin up and risking being late for school in order to acctually get through when people have pushed them over.

Originally posted by Cyclone
can you point out where in English law one illegal act makes another one okay?

I'm not sure if it is illegal to scratch an illegally-parked car in order to get past it safely without having to go on the road to pass it.

Anyway, haven't you said in other threads that you think we should break laws that we see as wrong?

Originally posted by FilthFan
I agree, wow...cyclone and I have agreed on something!

As I have said in other posts, Kids would b condemned for such behaviour and as with the wheelie bin thing..it is so annoying for the other pedestrians who have to go around picking the bin up and risking being late for school in order to acctually get through when people have pushed them over.

To be honest with you FilthFan, I don't know Mainframe and for all I know he may be a "kid". There are "kids" who need to get past cars selfishly parked on pavements, and I would prefer them to risk damaging a car to get past it on the pavement, than for them to have to walk in the middle of the road to get past it.

Originally posted by Patchy
To be honest with you FilthFan, I don't know Mainframe and for all I know he may be a "kid". There are "kids" who need to get past cars selfishly parked on pavements, and I would prefer them to risk damaging a car to get past it on the pavement, than for them to have to walk in the middle of the road to get past it.

What I meant Patchy is that many youths suffer alot of comments about being hooligans..
Also I still do not see how two wrongs make a right.
I know kids need to get past selfishly parked cars on pavements and yes it is annoying but knowingly damaging somebody else's property is illegal no matter what the reason. It is known as vandalism.

Originally posted by Patchy
I'm not sure if it is illegal to scratch an illegally-parked car in order to get past it safely without having to go on the road to pass it.

Anyway, haven't you said in other threads that you think we should break laws that we see as wrong?

it's quite simply criminal damage. Unless he really thought that he'd cause no damage, which I don't believe for a second if he then scratched all the way down the side.

And yes you are correct, but I happen to believe that the laws covering protection and ownership of property are fairly just and so shouldn't be broken.
If MF doesn't agree then he wouldn't have minded if the guy had come over and put a few dints in his wheelchair in recompense.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it's quite simply criminal damage. Unless he really thought that he'd cause no damage, which I don't believe for a second if he then scratched all the way down the side.

And yes you are correct, but I happen to believe that the laws covering protection and ownership of property are fairly just and so shouldn't be broken.
If MF doesn't agree then he wouldn't have minded if the guy had come over and put a few dints in his wheelchair in recompense.

Totally agree Cyclone. I've not posted on this thread yet but it is unjust to damage somone property just because he or she is selfish. Yes there are selfish drivers but it doesn't mean we are right to damage property.

I expect that MF the original poster didn't intend to do the damage and wasn't expecting to do so.

Even so. MF did say he knew it wouldn't go easy and it didn't - this makes me think he did it on purpose.
Also resorting to vandalism is wrong in any case.
Plus if MF didn't mean to do it then surely he would have stopped and gone back so as not to scratch the entire side of the car. Also if I had done this I would have offered to pay the damage.

Originally posted by Cyclone

If MF doesn't agree then he wouldn't have minded if the guy had come over and put a few dints in his wheelchair in recompense.

If MF had parked his wheelchair illegally and selfishly, say in front of this guy's driveway, then I think the guy would be quite justified in putting more than a few dints in the wheelchair. But that isn't the case.

What do you think MF should have done? Should he have sat and waited for possibly hours until the driver came and moved the car, or should he have gone out into the road and got hit by a car? Or maybe he should have just turned round and gone back home?:confused:

Originally posted by FilthFan
Plus if MF didn't mean to do it then surely he would have stopped and gone back so as not to scratch the entire side of the car.

Stopped and gone back to where? Do you mean he should have gone back home, just because someone had parked a car across the pavement?

Originally posted by Patchy
Stopped and gone back to where? Do you mean he should have gone back home, just because someone had parked a car across the pavement?

Erm no Patchy I don't mean that. I mean when he started to scratch the car he should have stopped and gone back. I'm not so stupid that I would suggest going home just because somehting was blocking his way.

Originally posted by Patchy
If MF had parked his wheelchair illegally and selfishly, say in front of this guy's driveway

or, oh I dont know, put a big scratch in his car on purpose???

So as not to be accused of throwing around personal insults - some people are morons.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Erm no Patchy I don't mean that. I mean when he started to scratch the car he should have stopped and gone back. I'm not so stupid that I would suggest going home just because somehting was blocking his way.

But where should he have gone to then? The only options seem to be to go back home or go back and go out onto the road and risk getting hit by a car? That option seems to me to be saying it you would prefer him to risk getting hit by a car than to make a scratch on an illegally parked car.

If he had gone out onto the road to avoid the car on the pavement, and he had got hit by a car and seriously injured, should he have been able to claim compensation from the tosser who blocked the pavement?

Originally posted by Patchy
But where should he have gone to then? The only options seem to be to go back home or go back and go out onto the road and risk getting hit by a car? That option seems to me to be saying it you would prefer him to risk getting hit by a car than to make a scratch on an illegally parked car.

If he had gone out onto the road to avoid the car on the pavement, and he had got hit by a car and seriously injured, should he have been able to claim compensation from the tosser who blocked the pavement?

Surely you are not trying to tell me MF never ever crosses roads?

Originally posted by FilthFan
Surely you are not trying to tell me MF never ever crosses roads?

I don't know MF. But I think it would be unreasonable to expect someone to keep turning round and going back to a crossing just so people can use the pavement as a car park.

What should MF do if you were parked on one pavement, and he went back to a crossing only to find Cyclone parked on the opposite pavement?

Originally posted by FilthFan
Surely you are not trying to tell me MF never ever crosses roads?

Sorry for someone reason that comment has just made me come out in a fit of giggles. Hilarious :lol:

Why use me and Cyclone as examples. Are you therefore implying that Cyclone and I are selfish and deserve to have our cars scratched?

Originally posted by FilthFan
Surely you are not trying to tell me MF never ever crosses roads?

Yes - basically they're patronising MainFrame because he's in a wheelchair. If it was an able bodied person with a shopping trolley that wouldn't fit, there'd be a unanimous outrage on here that the person just went ahead and scratched the whole side of the car instead of pushing the trolley around it.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Why use me and Cyclone as examples. Are you therefore implying that Cyclone and I are selfish and deserve to have our cars scratched?

Not at all. Just using you as examples as you two seem to me to be more outraged at a scratch on an illegally and selfishly parked car, than at a wheelchair-bound pedestrian being unable to use the pavement.

Originally posted by t020
Yes - basically they're patronising MainFrame because he's in a wheelchair. If it was an able bodied person with a shopping trolley that wouldn't fit, there'd be a unanimous outrage on here that the person just went ahead and scratched the whole side of the car instead of pushing the trolley around it.

What a load of baloney. I would have the same view in the case of an able bodied person with a shopping trolley. The pavement is there for pedestrians to use, supposedly without having to compete with cars using them as a cheap alternative to a car park.

Patchy. You seem to be patronising MainFrame and making out he is unable to do anything. Sorry if this is not the case. I'm sure there were ways around it and also I am outraged about that yes because it is vandalism.

And please don't start on about how disabled people find it hard to get around because I already know about that.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Patchy. You seem to be patronising MainFrame and making out he is unable to do anything. Sorry if this is not the case. I'm sure there were ways around it and also I am outraged about that yes because it is vandalism.

And please don't start on about how disabled people find it hard to get around because I already know about that.

You don't seem to be able to think for yourself, as you keep copying or agreeing with what other people suggest.

I am not patronising MainFrame. As I have already said, I would feel the same way if the thread had been started by someone walking with a shopping trolley who was unable to get past a car parked on the pavement.

Originally posted by Patchy
What a load of baloney. I would have the same view in the case of an able bodied person with a shopping trolley. The pavement is there for pedestrians to use, supposedly without having to compete with cars using them as a cheap alternative to a car park.

Also I'm sure the car wasn't acctually parked directly on the pavement. This post makes out like it was acctually parked fully on the pavement :confused:

Originally posted by Patchy
You don't seem to be able to think for yourself, as you keep copying or agreeing with what other people suggest.

I am not patronising MainFrame. As I have already said, I would feel the same way if the thread had been started by someone walking with a shopping trolley who was unable to get past a car parked on the pavement.

Patchy I resent that it is not only offensive but it is also very patronising. I can think for myself thanks very much, I didn't realise that agreeing with people was such a big thing
as you may have noticed I have stuck with the same argument throughout and so havent exactly followed other people around.
Plus there is such a thing as typing something at the same time as sombody else!

Originally posted by FilthFan
Patchy I resent that it is not only offensive but it is also very patronising. I can think for myself thanks very much, I didn't realise that agreeing with people was such a big thing
as you may have noticed I have stuck with the same argument throughout and so havent exactly followed other people around.
Plus there is such a thing as typing something at the same time as sombody else!

Well, I find it offensive when people try to pretend that I am patronising someone for being in a wheelchair.

I have had to deal with cars parked selfishly across cycle paths, and in the past I may have caused some accidental scratches while trying to pass them.

Anyway, we appear to be going in circles so I guess we shall just have to disagree on this subject. :)

Originally posted by Patchy
Well, I find it offensive when people try to pretend that I am patronising someone for being in a wheelchair.

I have had to deal with cars parked selfishly across cycle paths, and in the past I may have caused some accidental scratches while trying to pass them.

Anyway, we appear to be going in circles so I guess we shall just have to disagree on this subject. :)

Too right. I wasn't trying to pretend anything Patchy I could say people were trying to pretend alot of things about me but do i? no.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Well I live just down the road and use that route to school quite alot and crookesmoor road is no way wide enough for two vans at the same time especially if it is parked up.
Well it pains me to have to tell you you're wrong again, but I live not far from there and have often driven my van (6'5" wide) down Crookesmoor Road (between Spring Hill and Crookes Valley Road) when another van has been coming towards me, cars parked on both sides. I can happily drive through at a sensible speed (about 25mph) with about 6" gap between the two vans' wing mirrors.

Anyway, what a night of delicious irony this has been. After my last post, I went out to fetch the van which I left outside a friend's house last night because I'd had a drink (I'm sure some of you will rub your hands to hear that I left the van parked parially on the pavement!)

On the way there a car drove up onto the kerb in front of me and parked halfway across the pavement, leaving a gap you could just about squeeze a wheelchair through if you weren't too worried about scratching the car. Bizarrely, the side of the road he parked on was already full of parked cars, none of them parked on the pavement, not even a tyre squidged up on the kerb. Also, immediately behind the car (like 2 metres behind it) was a car park with plenty of spaces in. I was very tempted to scratch a message on the side of the car, something like "you should read more Sheffield Forum mate", but I managed to resist the urge.

Even by just saying that Dan you could potentially have landed yourself in alot of trouble. Vandalism is serious and not a joke.

Also are you quite sure you didn't destroy the cars if you managed that becuse crookesmoor road is a rather narrow road when it is parked up and are we talking about the same road because you definately cannot fit two cars squidged near each other very comfortably down it.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I was very tempted to scratch a message on the side of the car, something like "you should read more Sheffield Forum mate", but I managed to resist the urge.


I guess it won't be long before you are serving at her majestys pleasure then, if you agree with and are quite willing to carry out criminal damage.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Even by just saying that Dan you could potentially have landed yourself in alot of trouble. Vandalism is serious and not a joke.

Also are you quite sure you didn't destroy the cars if you managed that becuse crookesmoor road is a rather narrow road when it is parked up and are we talking about the same road because you definately cannot fit two cars squidged near each other very comfortably down it.
Sorry, I'd heard about the proposed religious discrimination bill but I hadn't realised that all jokes are now outlawed. If you're interested in catching other thought criminals I suggest once again that you take a peek at the speed camera thread, where numerous people have suggested that they would like to drive faster than some cameras will allow them to, an offence which not only risks cosmetic damage to your panels but might actually kill somebody, or perhaps one of the various threads which suggests police reveal the locations of paedophiles and other undesirables so that "natural justice" can take its course.

I am not sure what road you are talking about but the one I am referring to can be seen here (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=433638&y=387640&z=1&sv=433750,387750&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf). At the point where the arrow is there is enough room to turn a modest jumbo jet (oops, that sense of humour again), and I can confirm that you can definitely definitely fit four cars (or even two cars and two vans) side-by-side on it without any risk of "vandalism".

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I guess it won't be long before you are serving at her majestys pleasure then, if you agree with and are quite willing to carry out criminal damage.
Guess again!

Are they very very small cars and vans?

Originally posted by DanSumption
Guess again!

I'd be carefull, if you get caught doing criminal activity by someone who doesn't believe in the justice system. Might find its a hospital bed you need, not a cell.

Originally posted by Patchy
Anyway, we appear to be going in circles so I guess we shall just have to disagree on this subject. :)

You're the one going in circles - you have a ridiculous non-sensical argument, which has been shot down many times on this thread.

It doesnt matter where the car was parked, he scratched it, this was wrong. Incase you missed it the first million times IT DOESNT MATTER WHERE THE CAR WAS PARKED.

But I think it would be unreasonable to expect someone to keep turning round and going back to a crossing just so people can use the pavement as a car park.

Most people with half a brain might suggest it was unreasonable to criminally damage a car just because you couldn't be arsed to go around.

We're talking about parking inconsiderately, possibly illegally, which may even result in someone being inconvenienced, or horror of all horrors (insert sarcasm where appropriate) risking life and limb crossing the road.
This against what could easily be £100's worth of damage.

As for 'keep turning round' - it was one car.

Plus, whats this rubbish about it being ok to also do this with a shopping trolly? I thought it was so blindingly obvious you were all fawning to 'the poor disabled lad' it wasn't even worth mentioning, until T020 mentioned it again and you come out with this?! I nearly fell off my seat!
While completly wrong, I can understand you lot sticking up for MF because he's in a chair, maybe even feeling a bit sorry for him (i'm sure he just loves that) but to say you'd feel the same about a shopping trolley is genius - I can just imagine people coming out to their cars to see someone jamming a shopping trolly up the side of their car.

"sorry - no, no carry on - completely my fault. Here, let me help you pull the trolley through, its the least I can do. This'll leave a nasty scratch, but what did I expect"

(Really am retiring this time. Probably)

I'm going to agree with Floyd again but I'll pretend not to for some poster's benefits as I am aparently just agreeing with people and do not have my own opinions.

Originally posted by FilthFan
Are they very very small cars and vans?
<sigh>

The car was a Saab 900, which is 6 foot wide, presumably most of the cars coming the other way were of a similar size. The van, as I already mentioned, is about 6" wider than that. The van coming the other way was about the same, possibly a little wider, I think it was one of those high-top Mercedes. If you like I'll take a tape measure over there and check the width of the road.

Or perhaps I've been driving in my sleep every time I thought I was going down Crookesmoor Road.

Anyway, much as I hate to use your argument against you, didn't you say you're 15 and hence, I presume, a non-driver? How on earth would you know how many cars will fit down there safely.

And anyway anyway, isn't this all rather off-topic?

<sigh> back

I'm getting awfully tired of this thread now.
Yes I am 15. Yes I am a non-driver. No I possibly would not know.
Whatta you to do?

Originally posted by DanSumption
Or perhaps I've been driving in my sleep every time I thought I was going down Crookesmoor Road.

Seem to post with your eyes shut too :rolleyes:

Cant we just all agree that scratching a car is wrong - thats what the post is about.

Parking on the pavement is wrong
Scratching a car cause its parked on a pavement is wrong
Battering someone who scratched you car is wrong
Getting someone bigger to batter the person that battered you for scratching their car is wrong


Can you see where I'm going with this?

........well said Floyd - without wanting to be slandered for my opinions.

Originally posted by Jimbob1989
I'd be carefull, if you get caught doing criminal activity by someone who doesn't believe in the justice system. Might find its a hospital bed you need, not a cell.
Sheesh, and I hate to think what they might do to me if I think about vandalising something or, god forbid, make a joke about doing it.

Still, the bloke in the car was about 90, I reckon I could have had him no worries, so there's no need to be concerned about me.

Originally posted by floyd77
Parking on the pavement is wrong
Scratching a car cause its parked on a pavement is wrong
Battering someone who scratched you car is wrong
Getting someone bigger to batter the person that battered you for scratching their car is wrong
Yes, I agree with you 100%

Originally posted by Tony
That's about the size of it. There is no aiding and abetting going on in this thread. There is where illegal file sharing or pirate software is being discussed.

Sorry, must be my faulty memory (not being sarcastic) but I was sure threads had been closed because people had said they used drugs and people were encouaging it. That isn't aiding and abetting, I thought it just wasn't seen as a good thing on a family forum, but I suppose criminal damage is an ok think for the kids to try. :)

Admin: Well I've made my own feelings clear earlier. :)

For now though I'm shutting this thread down to let everyone cool off.