Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Riding a vehicle off road...
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
The DBF
First off, apologies if this is in the wrong section....

Can anyone enlighten me to the offence if any, of riding a road registered vehicle off road, i.e. with out the land owners permission. This being in Scotland I may add as the law may well be different from elsewhere in the UK.

I know what the reverse would be, be it a off road vehicle on road (no insurance/tax.mot etc) but what is the reverse offences ???


Thanks in advance
hdskyforce
Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 34)

This makes it unlawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on any common land (as well as some other types of land ) without lawful authority (usually, this would be the permission of the landowner). It is not an offence to drive on land in emergency situations. Nor is it an offence under the Act to drive within fifteen yards of the road to park the vehicle on land. However, in the case of common land, byelaws preventing driving or parking may apply. Parking or driving of a vehicle on the land without the landowner's permission would also constitute trespass.

If you damage the land you could be looking at criminal damage too.
CuriousOrange
I also think (but don't know) that you'd likely be driving without insurance.

An insurance policy is required if using a vehicle on the road or other public place. Somewhere off-road that you can get to without the owner's permission I think can be deemed public as the public have access to it. And most insurance policies exclude off-road use (all mine have anyway).

Whether this is the wrong section depends on why you're asking. Idle curiosity, because you're thinking of doing it, or because you've done it and now facing allegations or what? 

The DBF
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Thu, 27 May 2010 - 12:52) *
Whether this is the wrong section depends on why you're asking. Idle curiosity, because you're thinking of doing it, or because you've done it and now facing allegations or what?


I'm just wondering what any possible consequences would be if caught and charged.
southpaw82
Wrong section then.
jobo
its a night mare of interpretation

to my knowledge it not endorsable, though there is a provision under section 59 PRA to seize the vehicle,

though the insurance is a problem, less as CC said about it being invalidated, more that your in to a huge debate about if your in a public place and if so that you need it

the law is very badly phrased,

Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor 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 or bridleway,

he is guilty of an offence.

so it needs lawful authority not permission which is very different


now common land is reasonably well defined,,, but more moorland isnt and any land not being part of a road is so enormous as to cover supermarket car parks and certainly private car parks and any route that leads somewhere and is used as access, could be considered to be a road.

note,the act also specifically dosent restrict your right of access to common land so you very well may have lawful authority to use the amenity

my mate was pulled riding his bike down a canal towpath and successfully argued it was a road, foot paths needing to be designated as foot paths in order to be foot paths

there also the issue of acquired right of access, that being private land that has acquired right of way status by being unfenced for a number of years, giving you the lawful authority you require



uk_mike
Be aware that the law is very different in Scotland!

QUOTE (jobo @ Thu, 27 May 2010 - 15:59) *
to my knowledge it not endorsable, though there is a provision under section 59 PRA to seize the vehicle,


Sect 59. does not apply in Scotland, but there are similar provisions under Sect 120 CJ(S)A.

QUOTE
though the insurance is a problem, less as CC said about it being invalidated, more that your in to a huge debate about if your in a public place and if so that you need it


The definition of a road in Scotland is much wider than South of the Border (being any place which is not a waterway to which the public has access). If the land is open to the public it is almost certain that the full weight of road traffic law would apply and he driver would need to be insured with a policy that included off road use (most specifically exclude OR use).

QUOTE
now common land is reasonably well defined


There is no concept of "common land" in Scottish Law.

QUOTE
any land not being part of a road is so enormous as to cover supermarket car parks and certainly private car parks


The Scottish Courts have confirmed that such areas fall within the definition of a road in Scotland (EDIT: Unless it is fenced off).


QUOTE
my mate was pulled riding his bike down a canal towpath and successfully argued it was a road,


The Scottish definition of a road includes the wording "not being a waterway" so oddly this is once public place that would not be a road up here

QUOTE
foot paths needing to be designated as foot paths in order to be foot paths


Not in Scotland it just needs to have the "character of a footway".

QUOTE
there also the issue of acquired right of access, that being private land that has acquired right of way status by being unfenced for a number of years, giving you the lawful authority you require


Scottish law has no concept of Rights of Way. There is a "right to roam" but that only applies to people on foot or horseback.

If your vehicle caused damage (even tyre marks in the grass) to private land you could also face charges of criminal damage or criminal trespass (In Scotland traspass becomes a criminal offence of you cause damage to private property during the trespass).

In terms on consequences if the landowner or locals complained seizure (or a warning notice/marker for a first off) of your car under Sect 120, or for not having valid insurance is the most likely result. If it is an area which has a lot of unlawful off roading, which the police have been asked by the community to target under the Anti-Social Behaviour (Scotland) Act the driver might also end up with an ASBO. If the area is open to the public and the vehicle was being driven in a dangerous or careless manner charges of DD or CD might be on the table.

If the landowner kicks up a fuss about damage to his property criminal damage or criminal trespass charges are very likely, which would put a prison sentence on the table.
jobo
thats interesting, but how would they prosecute for invalid insurance, ie off roading, when the land your driving on is designated a road by law ?

nb the canal in question had no water in it,other than a few puddles, would it still be a water way ?
QUOTE (uk_mike @ Sat, 29 May 2010 - 15:01) *
QUOTE
though the insurance is a problem, less as CC said about it being invalidated, more that your in to a huge debate about if your in a public place and if so that you need it


The definition of a road in Scotland is much wider than South of the Border (being any place which is not a waterway to which the public has access). If the land is open to the public it is almost certain that the full weight of road traffic law would apply and he driver would need to be insured with a policy that included off road use (most specifically exclude OR use).


uk_mike
QUOTE (jobo @ Sat, 29 May 2010 - 15:29) *
thats interesting, but how would they prosecute for invalid insurance, ie off roading, when the land your driving on is designated a road by law ?


Interesting question. As the term off-roading is part of the contract I would think it would be considered in the terms of Scottish Contract Law rather than the context of the RTA/R(S)A. I would imagine the court would apply the every day understanding of the term - who says the law has to be consistent? But the insurance requirements in the RTA might get in the way of than interpretation. It would be down to the court to decide on the point. Given the police would seize the car if the insurers (who are probably based down south and have no idea of the minutiae of Scottish Law) saying they did not cover it the question might be moot.

QUOTE
nb the canal in question had no water in it,other than a few puddles, would it still be a water way ?


The question would be does a water way have to have water in it or just be capable of doing so? I cannot find any sign of it being defined anywhere in the law but The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as either "a body of water" or a "conduit through which water flows". The latter definition would suggest it could be, but that would be down to the courts to decide.
The DBF
I did say in my original posting that it was in Scotland and the laws were different, I'm still trying to understand why I could be charged with a relative insurance charge as you are not required to have insurance when not riding on the queens highway or am I wrong in thinking that ?
uk_mike
QUOTE (The DBF @ Sat, 29 May 2010 - 16:36) *
I did say in my original posting that it was in Scotland and the laws were different, I'm still trying to understand why I could be charged with a relative insurance charge as you are not required to have insurance when not riding on the queens highway or am I wrong in thinking that ?


There is no concept of a "Highway" in Scotland let alone a Queen's one. Even down South the concept of a King's/Queen's Highway legally ceased to exist sometime in the 19th Century.

The Road Traffic Act requires that a driver has an insurance indemnity against third part risks when using a motorised vehicle on any road open to the public - it does not matter if it is publically or privately owned the important thing is that it is open to the general public . In Scotland a Road is defined by the Roads(Scotland) Act 1984 - to be any place (other than a waterway) over which the public has a right of passage. With the Scottish "Right to Roam" now in force - the courts are interpreting this to be pretty much anywhere that is not fenced and gated off from the road network, (and is not a domestic garden). Basically if the general public can legally get to a place without paying an entry free it is wise to assume that insurance is required.

The thing to bear in mind is that the legal definition of a Road (for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act and Road Traffic Regulation Act) bears no relationship to the everyday meaning used by the general public. Boy racers are falling foul of this all the time, something the cops up here regularly take advantage of!
jobo
i think we are over stating the difference between English and Scottish law, as in most practicle application , for off road ridding driving they end up the same

the RTA and that is what a conviction would be based on, requires insurance for roads and other public places public places

road has quite a narrow meaning under english law, however other public places is quite encompassing

in Scotland they seem ? to have designated other public places as roads ? but at the end of the day, it amounts to having to have 3rd party insurance

what im less convinced about is the point that off road driving would void the 3rd party eliment of your insurance, as there is a specific prohibition on this in the RTA ?
uk_mike
QUOTE (jobo @ Sat, 29 May 2010 - 18:37) *
what im less convinced about is the point that off road driving would void the 3rd party eliment of your insurance, as there is a specific prohibition on this in the RTA ?


Does that apply to contractual policy restrictions though? Insurers can sell SDP policies that are voided while a driver uses a car for business purposes, and enough people have fallen foul of that over the years that it is clear that courts view it as lawful restriction. How is that different from voiding a policy using a car for off road purposes, if (as is the case in every policy I have ever held) the contract prohibits that type of use? I'll admit that I have no particular insight into this point and am just speculating, but it is an interesting point.
The DBF
So how can one obtain insurance for a vehicle to ride off road then ? as I assume any insurance company would state that it wouldn't cover off road use huh.gif
uk_mike
QUOTE (The DBF @ Mon, 31 May 2010 - 22:23) *
So how can one obtain insurance for a vehicle to ride off road then ? as I assume any insurance company would state that it wouldn't cover off road use huh.gif


Standard policies specifically exclude off road use - some insurers will remove the exclusion for an extra fee, but you will probably find that a specialist insurer will give you a much better rate.

Specialist brokers are your best bet: By the power of Google!.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.