Dramatic footage showed the moment a speeding cyclist was knocked off his bike by police following a high-speed pursuit.

A police aircraft had spotted Joe Onley, 23, riding recklessly in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire, on 15 April last year.

A video showed him travelling at high speeds while pulling wheelies, spinning his rear tire and dangerously overtaking other vehicles.

Onley then sped away when he saw a police car following him before leading officers on a dangerous 20-mile chase.

Guided by the crew of the aircraft, officers finally caught up with him in Kelham where he attempted a U-turn and mounted a pavement.

Footage showed him colliding with an unmarked police car sending him sprawling to the ground before he made an attempt to get away on foot.

He then vaulted a fence and dived over a hedge before running through the grounds of a farm.

Onley, who was uninsured and riding on false plates, was arrested after a short foot chase and detained by officers on the ground.

Onley, of Hucknall, later admitted to dangerous driving, driving without insurance, and fraudulently using a registration mark.

Appearing at Nottingham Crown Court on Tuesday, he was handed a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.

He was also ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work, ordered to pay £350 in costs, and was disqualified from driving for two years.

PC Sarah Clifton, of Nottinghamshire Police, said: “This was an appalling display of riding that could easily have ended in tragedy.

“Onley not only put himself in danger on that day, but also every other road user.

"His behaviour was utterly inexcusable and I am pleased he has now been held to account.”

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/speeding-motorcyclist-knocked-off-bike-by-police-after-pulling-wheelies-during-chase-hucknall-nottinghamshire-125205522.html

The headline copied from the link actually says:

Speeding motorcyclist knocked off bike by police after pulling wheelies
during chase

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/speeding-motorcyclist-knocked-off-bike-by-police-after-pulling-wheelies-during-chase-hucknall-nottinghamshire-125205522.html

--
Spike

QUOTE: Guided by the crew of the aircraft, officers finally caught up with him in Kelham where he attempted a U-turn and mounted a pavement. ENDS

Impossible - they never ride on the pavement.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Guided by the crew of the aircraft, officers finally caught up
> with him in Kelham where he attempted a U-turn and mounted a pavement. ENDS
>
> Impossible - they never ride on the pavement.

The police must have been on the pavement too:

“…officers finally caught up with him in Kelham where he attempted a U-turn
and mounted a pavement. Footage showed him colliding with an unmarked
police car…”

QED

--
Spike

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:02:12 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: Guided by the crew of the aircraft, officers finally caught up with him in Kelham where he attempted a U-turn and mounted a pavement. ENDS
>
> Impossible - they never ride on the pavement.

Pushing a motorcycle across the pavement to park in your own garden is illegal, police in Bristol have claimed.

They say MCN reader Nick Morris, 42, is committing an offence of “driving on the pavement to park” by “pushing his motorcycle across the pavement to the garden of his premises”.

Neighbourhood inspector Colin Salmon has warned that Morris risks prosecution unless he parks his Suzuki SV1000 in the road instead.

Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle on the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to gain access to private property.

“That is the law. That is not what the pavements are for. If a person wishes to have access to their private property there is a due process of doing that, which includes applying to the local authority and getting planning permission to have a driveway and dropped kerb like most people do.”

Morris branded Salmon a “complete moron”.

In the meantime, tell us below if you push your bike up a kerb to park in your garden, and what you think of the police claim it’s illegal.

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/october/oct1309-pushing-a-motorcycle-across-the-pavement-is-illegal/

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:02:12 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> QUOTE: Guided by the crew of the aircraft, officers finally caught up
>> with him in Kelham where he attempted a U-turn and mounted a pavement. ENDS
>>
>> Impossible - they never ride on the pavement.
>
> Pushing a motorcycle across the pavement to park in your own garden is
> illegal, police in Bristol have claimed.
>
> They say MCN reader Nick Morris, 42, is committing an offence of “driving
> on the pavement to park” by “pushing his motorcycle across the pavement
> to the garden of his premises”.
>
> Neighbourhood inspector Colin Salmon has warned that Morris risks
> prosecution unless he parks his Suzuki SV1000 in the road instead.
>
> Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle on the
> pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to gain access
> to private property.
>
> “That is the law. That is not what the pavements are for. If a person
> wishes to have access to their private property there is a due process of
> doing that, which includes applying to the local authority and getting
> planning permission to have a driveway and dropped kerb like most people do.”
>
> Morris branded Salmon a “complete moron”.
>
> In the meantime, tell us below if you push your bike up a kerb to park in
> your garden, and what you think of the police claim it’s illegal.
>
> https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/october/oct1309-pushing-a-motorcycle-across-the-pavement-is-illegal/

Excellent news! It means that having a bicycle on the pavement at all,
whether walking it, riding it, or crossing the pavement to park it in your
kitchen, is illegal! When can we look forward to some effective
enforcement?

--
Spike

QUOTE: Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle on the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to gain access to private property. ENDS

In Hull, we had some bozo driving over the pavement to access his front garden and his electric socket - KHCC put up bollards to stop his doing this dangerous act.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle on
> the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to gain
> access to private property. ENDS
>
> In Hull, we had some bozo driving over the pavement to access his front
> garden and his electric socket - KHCC put up bollards to stop his doing this dangerous act.

What we need are bollards on the pavement to stop these dangerous cyclists.

--
Spike

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 11:42:01 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle on the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to gain access to private property. ENDS
>
> In Hull, we had some bozo driving over the pavement to access his front garden and his electric socket - KHCC put up bollards to stop his doing this dangerous act.

Here are the bollards.

https://goo.gl/maps/dFC7rGWgY2foMyWX9

On 16/07/2023 11:41 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle on the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to gain access to private property. ENDS
>
> In Hull, we had some bozo driving over the pavement to access his front garden and his electric socket - KHCC put up bollards to stop his doing this dangerous act.

What a load of tripe.

It is not illegal to cross a footway (with a motor vehicle) to gain
access to land within forty-five feet of the highway (which would
include the entrance to a private driveway) for the purposes of parking
the vehicle.

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34>

Road Traffic Act 1988

S.34

QUOTE:
34. Prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere
than on roads. E+W

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful
authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle—

(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other
description, not being land forming part of a road, or

(b) on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,he is
guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, a way shown in a
definitive map and statement as a footpath, bridleway or restricted
byway is, without prejudice to section 56(1) of the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981, to be taken to be a way of the kind shown, unless
the contrary is proved.

(2A) It is not an offence under this section for a person with an
interest in land, or a visitor to any land, to drive a mechanically
propelled vehicle on a road if, immediately before the commencement of
section 47(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the road was —

(a) shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public
path, and

(b) in use for obtaining access to the land by the driving of
mechanically propelled vehicles by a person with an interest in the land
or by visitors to the land.

(3) It is not an offence under this section to drive a mechanically
propelled vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a
road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose
only of parking the vehicle on that land.

(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section
with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court
that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of
saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.

(5) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the
operation of—

(a) section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public
over commons and waste lands), or

(b) any byelaws applying to any land,or affects the law of trespass to
land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in
respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a
vehicle on any land.
ENDQUOTE

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 16/07/2023 11:41 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> QUOTE: Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle
>> on the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to
>> gain access to private property. ENDS
>>
>> In Hull, we had some bozo driving over the pavement to access his front
>> garden and his electric socket - KHCC put up bollards to stop his doing
>> this dangerous act.
>
> What a load of tripe.
>
> It is not illegal to cross a footway (with a motor vehicle) to gain
> access to land within forty-five feet of the highway (which would
> include the entrance to a private driveway) for the purposes of parking
> the vehicle.
>
> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34>
>
> Road Traffic Act 1988
>
> S.34
>
> QUOTE:
> 34. Prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere
> than on roads. E+W
>
> (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful
> authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle—
>
> (a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other
> description, not being land forming part of a road, or
>
> (b) on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,he is
> guilty of an offence.
>
> (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, a way shown in a
> definitive map and statement as a footpath, bridleway or restricted
> byway is, without prejudice to section 56(1) of the Wildlife and
> Countryside Act 1981, to be taken to be a way of the kind shown, unless
> the contrary is proved.
>
> (2A) It is not an offence under this section for a person with an
> interest in land, or a visitor to any land, to drive a mechanically
> propelled vehicle on a road if, immediately before the commencement of
> section 47(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the road was —
>
> (a) shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public
> path, and
>
> (b) in use for obtaining access to the land by the driving of
> mechanically propelled vehicles by a person with an interest in the land
> or by visitors to the land.
>
> (3) It is not an offence under this section to drive a mechanically
> propelled vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a
> road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose
> only of parking the vehicle on that land.
>
> (4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section
> with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court
> that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of
> saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.
>
> (5) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the
> operation of—
>
> (a) section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public
> over commons and waste lands), or
>
> (b) any byelaws applying to any land,or affects the law of trespass to
> land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in
> respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a
> vehicle on any land.
> ENDQUOTE

👏

--
Spike

On 16/07/2023 01:50 pm, Spike wrote:
> JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
>> On 16/07/2023 11:41 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> QUOTE: Salmon told MCN: “We shouldn’t have anyone pushing a motorcycle
>>> on the pavement. Nobody should push a motor vehicle on a footpath to
>>> gain access to private property. ENDS
>>>
>>> In Hull, we had some bozo driving over the pavement to access his front
>>> garden and his electric socket - KHCC put up bollards to stop his doing
>>> this dangerous act.
>>
>> What a load of tripe.
>>
>> It is not illegal to cross a footway (with a motor vehicle) to gain
>> access to land within forty-five feet of the highway (which would
>> include the entrance to a private driveway) for the purposes of parking
>> the vehicle.
>>
>> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/34>
>>
>> Road Traffic Act 1988
>>
>> S.34
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> 34. Prohibition of driving mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere
>> than on roads. E+W
>>
>> (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful
>> authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle—
>>
>> (a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other
>> description, not being land forming part of a road, or
>>
>> (b) on any road being a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,he is
>> guilty of an offence.
>>
>> (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above, a way shown in a
>> definitive map and statement as a footpath, bridleway or restricted
>> byway is, without prejudice to section 56(1) of the Wildlife and
>> Countryside Act 1981, to be taken to be a way of the kind shown, unless
>> the contrary is proved.
>>
>> (2A) It is not an offence under this section for a person with an
>> interest in land, or a visitor to any land, to drive a mechanically
>> propelled vehicle on a road if, immediately before the commencement of
>> section 47(2) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the road was —
>>
>> (a) shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public
>> path, and
>>
>> (b) in use for obtaining access to the land by the driving of
>> mechanically propelled vehicles by a person with an interest in the land
>> or by visitors to the land.
>>
>> (3) It is not an offence under this section to drive a mechanically
>> propelled vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a
>> road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose
>> only of parking the vehicle on that land.
>>
>> (4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section
>> with respect to a vehicle if he proves to the satisfaction of the court
>> that it was driven in contravention of this section for the purpose of
>> saving life or extinguishing fire or meeting any other like emergency.
>>
>> (5) It is hereby declared that nothing in this section prejudices the
>> operation of—
>>
>> (a) section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (rights of the public
>> over commons and waste lands), or
>>
>> (b) any byelaws applying to any land,or affects the law of trespass to
>> land or any right or remedy to which a person may by law be entitled in
>> respect of any such trespass or in particular confers a right to park a
>> vehicle on any land.
>> ENDQUOTE
>
> 👏

Note, though, that the vehicle must be parked off the road after the
manoeuvre, which rules out parking on the footway (under this particular
provision, at least).

“A person who for any purpose places any rope, wire or other apparatus across a highway in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the highway is, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding Level 3 (£1,000).

To cut a long story short, trailing a cable/wire across a path to charge your electric car could see you fined up to £1,000 for the privilege when a location is not suitable.

However, the legislation also states a possible exemption if you have “taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger”. This is a grey area because the legislation does not define what “adequate warning” means.
If needs must, use a cable protector

We don’t endorse trailing a cable across a public footpath to charge your electric car, but you can reduce the risk to pedestrians with a cable protector.

Cable protectors fit flush to the ground with a small ramp, enveloping the cable to reduce the tripping hazard. Here’s what one looks like:

Using a cable protector is a simple, affordable way to highlight that you have trailed a wire/cable across the path. However, it’s important to remember it is not a perfect solution, with visually impaired people and children at risk.

The cable protector should cover the full area to be walked on, including the full width of any footway and verge between the property and the vehicle..

Under the Highways Act 1980, if you take all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, then trailing a cable is not usually illegal, however, the mechanism for it to be illegal still exists.

It should also be said that some councils do not allow cables across pavements, full stop, and they are within their rights to tell you to stop.

For this reason, policies vary from council to council.

Remember – cable protectors reduce risks to pedestrians, but don’t eliminate them. By trailing a cable, you always run the risk of injuring someone. If a passer-by injures themselves due to your cable, then you can be held responsible.

On 16/07/2023 04:26 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> “A person who for any purpose places any rope, wire or other apparatus across a highway in such a manner as to be likely to cause danger to persons using the highway is, unless he proves that he had taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding Level 3 (£1,000).
>
> To cut a long story short, trailing a cable/wire across a path to charge your electric car could see you fined up to £1,000 for the privilege when a location is not suitable...

....particularly because of the danger caused to chav-cyclists using the
footway, eh?

> However, the legislation also states a possible exemption if you have “taken all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger”. This is a grey area because the legislation does not define what “adequate warning” means.
> If needs must, use a cable protector

You need permission for that.
>
> We don’t endorse trailing a cable across a public footpath to charge your electric car, but you can reduce the risk to pedestrians with a cable protector...

....or by charging your virtue-signalling apparatus somewhere else (such
as in your driveway or garage).

Haven't got one of those?

Tough luck.

> Cable protectors fit flush to the ground with a small ramp, enveloping the cable to reduce the tripping hazard. Here’s what one looks like:
> Using a cable protector is a simple, affordable way to highlight that you have trailed a wire/cable across the path. However, it’s important to remember it is not a perfect solution, with visually impaired people and children at risk.
> The cable protector should cover the full area to be walked on, including the full width of any footway and verge between the property and the vehicle.
> Under the Highways Act 1980, if you take all necessary means to give adequate warning of the danger, then trailing a cable is not usually illegal, however, the mechanism for it to be illegal still exists.
> It should also be said that some councils do not allow cables across pavements, full stop, and they are within their rights to tell you to stop...

....or to forbid you to start.

> For this reason, policies vary from council to council.
> Remember – cable protectors reduce risks to pedestrians, but don’t eliminate them. By trailing a cable, you always run the risk of injuring someone. If a passer-by injures themselves due to your cable, then you can be held responsible.

Where did you get your PhD in The Bleedin' Obvious, M'Lud?

This is Money spoke to Kathryn Hart, a partner at personal injury law experts Lime Solicitors, to better understand what the process would be for an individual who suffers injury after tripping on a charging lead across the footpath.

'Your accident probably happened on a public highway so you cannot claim the negligent person is the occupier of that highway,' she explains.

'You will need to argue that in common law negligence they owed you a duty of care, that they have breached that duty and that it was reasonably foreseeable that the injury would occur and that you have been injured.'

This makes the claim scenario the same as it would be if an individual needed to prove that they had actually been knocked down by the owner of the EV, with the claim then made against their insurer.

'Will that insurance apply in this sort of case? What you need to prove is that the injury arose out of the use of the insured vehicle on the road,' Kathryn says.

'If the Court accepts that charging the vehicle is using it then the insurers would have to cover it.'

However, she warns: 'Insurers are not usually quick to accept responsibility if they think they can avoid it. I think they will fight it.

'The problem with a claim against the car owner is that if the insurance doesn't cover them then they are probably not worth suing.'