| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Effing cyclists | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 19 2017, 10:08 AM (809 Views) | |
| papasmurf | Aug 19 2017, 10:08 AM Post #1 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I went out on the sidecar outfit we use for long distance rallies earlier today to check everything was working OK after resetting the ABS computer. It is bad enough having to put up with tourist car drivers who if brains were dynamite they would no blow the wax out of their ears. Today added to those were similar on bicycles. One came at me on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend. Luckily I was only doing around 10 MPH because I have no desire to load myself into one of the large agricultures machines that are on the road at this time of year. I really think I must get one of these:- Edited by papasmurf, Aug 19 2017, 10:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| johnofgwent | Aug 25 2017, 04:54 PM Post #41 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hear hear ! |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 25 2017, 05:06 PM Post #42 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if you mean class 3 mobility scooters https://www.gov.uk/mobility-scooters-and-powered-wheelchairs-rules/vehicle-tax-registration-and-insurance This is bloody barking. You cannot register or use a class 2 (4mph) scooter on the road; you MUST register a class 3 scooter; they attract road tax (yes, the government call it that, tut tut) of £0, meaning you can be done if you have not applied for it but there is nothing to pay. Bizarrely,you can't use the bloody things in cycle lanes !! Min age to ride on, in common with electric bicycles, is 14. They / you do not have to be insured. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 25 2017, 05:08 PM Post #43 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
if it was doing 15, it was the one in our caption competition. Max speed is half that. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 25 2017, 05:44 PM Post #44 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just obey the law please and ask all those other supposedly vulnerable road users to do the same. Oh and please don't use the some = all argument. It really won't help you at all as you full well know that many of those supposedly vulnerable road users are blatantly breaking the law and all round taking the P. How many times in the last year have you seen a caravan, horse box driver or other such pull over at the first safe opportunity to release the traffic they trapped. Isn't many is it. Now how many times have you seen such trapped traffic queues. Lots more isn't it. Now try the same exercise on cyclists. How many times have you seen them pull in and compare that to how many times you've seen them illegally undertaking, riding two abreast with traffic behind, riding on pavements, using pedestrian crossings and the classic ignoring red traffic lights. All of which are illegal but they know full well they just about can't be prosecuted for it as no one can clock a registration plate. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 25 2017, 05:48 PM Post #45 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So if I know a pub that would lose most of its business if they clamped down on illegal drugs traded there then we'd just have to let that carry on so the pub survived?Doesn't work does it. In either case. |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 25 2017, 06:08 PM Post #46 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Horse box drivers? Caravans? This thread started as an attack on vulnerable road users , not licenced vehicles and /or towed vehicles I repeat I am horrified at the level of intolerance displayed on this thread towards vulnerable road users |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 25 2017, 06:11 PM Post #47 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They come in two categories iirc Up to 4mph and 4-8 mph |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 25 2017, 08:22 PM Post #48 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That chap Charlie Alliston was charged with "wanton and furious driving which resulted in the death of a young(ish) woman who was more interested in her mobile phone. I see it all the time as I carefully wheel my postal trolley around the hospital twice daily. I have to stop dead until they finally look up and see where they are going......phones are now a menace in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 25 2017, 08:38 PM Post #49 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
yes so much media comment on that case is being way too loaded by people with agendas. I was pleased they threw the manslaughter charge in the trash can where it belonged. Both of them were accidents waiting to happen. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 25 2017, 09:56 PM Post #50 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I saw the "wanton and furious driving" charge described somewhere as the only way to bust someone for what would be straight forward if their "carriage under the act" had an engine. And I don't care what anyone says, operating a "carriage under the act" (the highways act, of course is what I refer to) without an effective means of braking is reckless by anyone's standards. And don't give me the "i didn't realise i had to have one" BS. And frankly, I'm having a very hard time understanding why english law does not consider this manslaughter. Yes I can see that in order to prove it you need to prove a duty of care to the victim which is why it's the one most normally associated with medical negligence but frankly, if a car driver went out on the road with a car with brakes that failed an MOT, and hit someone, what would the charge be I wonder ??? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 25 2017, 10:34 PM Post #51 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But if the someone they hit had just walked out in the road I very much doubt it'd be manslaughter because of the foreseability requirements to prove that. |
![]() |
|
| Curious Cdn | Aug 26 2017, 12:06 AM Post #52 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thee used to be an old guy in the neighbourhood that roared around on one of those electric hadicapped scooters as if he didn't give a sweet goddam about life or limb ... crazy and fearless. Then I saw him at the cenotaph one Nov 11th in his maroon beret with his chest full of medals ... |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 26 2017, 02:10 AM Post #53 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If the driver was 100% liable for the collision it would be causing death by either careless or dangerous ( much more difficult to prove and get a conviction) driving |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 26 2017, 07:39 AM Post #54 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not posting as a challenge o what you say, I'm asking because i am confused manslaughter is a killing that occurred without there being an intent to kill, the "malice aforethought" that would make it murder I find it strange that a charge that supposedly applies when there is gross negligence or gross recklessness does not apply here. I know a little of the "duty of care" business having been a divemaster. The bottom line is all to do with the definition and actions of a theoretical "reasonably prudent person". I was not entitled to train novice unqualified students; i was entitled to refresh the experience of persons already qualified. To give a specific but hypothetical example or two, part of the training involves jumping into water from a raised platform, such as a boat or quayside, and if I was doing that training, and I told them to jump into the water at a particular point, it was expected that I would, before my training session, enter the water cautiously myself, or have someone i knew to be qualified to my level or above enter it, to check for ourselves if it was safe and clear of underwater obstructions. It was deemed reckless not to, as a reasonably prudent person WOULD, after being trained as i had, do it. Similarly, if a quarry site had a loose rocky edge it was deemed reckless not to a) make oneself aware of that hazard, either by enquiry of the site owners or by the simple expedient of observing loose rock at the bottom of a cliff edge and seemingly unstable rock above it ... and then b) keep one's charges away from such, or at least advise them to stay away. if THEY then strayed too close and were injured after having been warned, that was recklessness on THEIR part not mine. Similarly, just because aircraft overflew a dive site it did not make me responsible if one of my charges was hurt by something that fell off an overflying aircraft. And I mention that because the tale of what happenned to one poor sod at sharm who took a nose wheel on the head is the stuff of legend ... I know these are duties that apply to those in a professional status and maybe therefore that is the issue, but it seems to me NO "reasonably prudent person" who has ever ridden a bicycle of any sort can really tell me it is anything other than the height of reckless stupidity to ride one without effective brakes in a public area where they may encounter other traffic, be that foot, wheeled, animal or anything else. And I do not buy the excuse that a person "just walking into the road" is at fault because the government has for a VERY, VERY long time run all sorts of campaigns and public information films in which a pedestrian emerging suddenly into the road from a line of parked cars and is hit and killed by a passing motorist has their death fully and legally dumped in the lap of the motorist - the most blatant being a fully grown adult walking straight out into the road from between two parked cars and being hit by a car not two car's length away, doing a perfectly legal 30 past the line of parked cars. In the days of the green cross code it was made perfectly clear who was to blame for the consequences of such and that was not the motorist who clearly had the right of way except at crossings where the person had stepped out. The film in question, you may recall, ends with the fully adult woman's pale corpse lying in the road, an intubation tube still in the mouth from where the attending paramedics left it after pronouncing when CPR failed, her unseeing eyes staring upwards. Her death was in my view entirely her own fault yet the government chose to deliberately paint the driver into whose car she walked at full tilt as responsible for her death moth morally, and legally. You cannot, in my view, have a government sending that message and then not prosecute AND WIN a prosecution of this cyclist for manslaughter.... Edited by johnofgwent, Aug 26 2017, 07:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 26 2017, 09:57 AM Post #55 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here you go John have chapter and verse: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#involuntary And here's the foreseeability part:
Is it reasonable to expect someone to 'foresee' that some dimbo on a mobile phone will walk out in front of him? If you answer yes then you have just said no motorist may ever drive at more than 5mph Edited by Steve K, Aug 26 2017, 10:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Curious Cdn | Aug 26 2017, 11:54 AM Post #56 |
|
Frozen Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, don;t do that. Our gene pool will never improve. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 26 2017, 12:56 PM Post #57 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But this is exactly what that public information film was getting at, that when a pedestrian steps out without looking into the path of your vehicle, it IS the motorists fault. That is what the government has tried to ram home, which you now say cannot possibly be upheld And the highway code which states clearly if by the presence of the vehicle.... .... makes it more so. It's the double standard I'm complaining at. |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Aug 26 2017, 01:03 PM Post #58 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's sounds pretty rural where you live..do you really need to be riding horses..walking dogs..on roads with no pavements?...or is it a question of arrogance? |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 26 2017, 06:12 PM Post #59 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I do believe that the charge can be applied to any contraption that is mechanically driven on a public highway. |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 26 2017, 09:02 PM Post #60 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where do you suggest dogs are walked , horses are ridden , cyclists cycle , walkers walk if not on the road? Footpaths, bridleways all have to be accessed , the vast majority of land /fields you see are privately owned and most private fields are used for grazing/ arable crops -where I live the nearest bridleway is approx half a mile away and the nearest footpath just over that. It is also quite rare for footpaths/ bridleways to be perfect loops without needing to use roads |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 27 2017, 09:06 AM Post #61 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
actually, having sat down and googled for 30 minutes it seems clear some bloody appeal judge has poked their nose in sometime in the last few years and fucked with what seemed to me to be a sensible way of going about things. Not for the first time, I feel we should kill all the lawyers, who seem to make it up as they go along to feather their own nests |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 27 2017, 09:23 AM Post #62 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It was the House of Lords in 1932 and the very famous snail in a bottle case - hardly an appeal judge in the last few years Here have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Aug 27 2017, 01:24 PM Post #63 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quite frankly I would not risk my life walking along country lanes with no footpaths..I used to put my dog in the car and take him to a place where it was safe to walk him..and horse owners must consider these dangers before one is purchased..as for cyclists and walkers..what the hell do they expect..for us all to drive at 5 mph? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 27 2017, 01:56 PM Post #64 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There is an argument that for a lot of these roads that data back to the 18th and 19th centuries they were for horses. I think that argument works fine for any horses that were alive or foetuses when the roads were built. Somehow I suspect none of those are left |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 27 2017, 08:32 PM Post #65 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And yet another thread gets hijacked to someone's hobby horse du jour We already have an immigration thread Rich. This is the cyclists (and other slow road users) thread update: the relevant posts are on route to the right threadEdited by Steve K, Aug 27 2017, 10:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Aug 28 2017, 07:28 AM Post #66 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No it did not. The thread was started because of dangerous cyclists. |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 28 2017, 01:58 PM Post #67 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Papa, I do not think that they are dangerous on purpose, but I would say that they are ignorant and uncaring for other taxpaying road users let alone pedestrians. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Aug 28 2017, 02:04 PM Post #68 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Going around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road IS being dangerous on purpose. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 28 2017, 03:08 PM Post #69 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But that case established a liability where none had previously been. and the case, if you read it through, never did get properly settled; the defendant died before an ultimate decision could be obtained and his executors settled out of court. Edited by johnofgwent, Aug 28 2017, 03:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 28 2017, 05:42 PM Post #70 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Donoghue v Stevenson was original precedent which established the tort of negligence Prior to the judgment there would have been no liability to Mrs Donoghue for being harmed by the contaminated drink as she had not purchased the ginger beer , it was bought for her, and therefore the only relationship was contractual between the purchaser (who was not harmed) and the seller The majority HOL decision established a new precedent and contains Lord Atkins famous quote You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question. The neighbour principle has been refined in law since but the basic principle of ''do not harm your neighbour'' stands |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 28 2017, 05:55 PM Post #71 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
yes, i understand the precedent of negligence that it set, and i understand how the woman would not have had any comeback without that settlement. writs alleging watering of wine with violence afoot with swords and cudgels or whatever being toe sort ofcrap that was needed. which just amplifies my point about the law being an ass, imo. but the defendant clearly had it in mind to appeal, and died before that could be settled, and the estate settled out of court, thus denying us the conclusion. i'm still a little confused as to how these ruling and your neighbour principle come to a scenario whereby it is not grossly negligent to ride a defective or illegal vehicle on the public highway knowing you may encounter other road uses on foot or on wheel and be unable to stop in time. but than perhaps this is why i became a scientist and an engineer who deals in matters of fact; i'd be useless as a lawher who deal in bollux Edited by johnofgwent, Aug 28 2017, 05:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 28 2017, 06:07 PM Post #72 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lord Atkins judgment is at HOL There was no further appeal possible I'm also not sure why Donoghue made an appearance on this thread apart from the duty of care principle in negligence - there are far more appropriate remedies for defective vehicles etc |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 28 2017, 07:32 PM Post #73 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One wonders just how many vehicles are on our roads without an up to date MOT certificate?......mine is due in October and I have to get 3 new tyres before that happens......it will happen. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 28 2017, 08:08 PM Post #74 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You were away but it's all in the posts above. Go back to the quote from the CPS about what manslaughter actually is and not what vexatious people want it to be |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Aug 29 2017, 10:01 AM Post #75 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK thanks The CPS site is for laymen and I see that they are using the ratio of Donoghue in the very broad 'duty not to harm neighbours' principle to explain |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 29 2017, 01:09 PM Post #76 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ok Steve I think I see the real problem. Go to the top of that CPS page and you find the CPS define THREE situations where a homicide may be construed as manslaughter. The first is where there is a lack of control. The example I think is where psychiatric evidence is used, although the long and detailed description suggests this has changed in this century. The second is the case we have been chewing the fat over. The gross negligence manslaughter, which I know all about as it is the one PADIs lawyers try to make bloody sure you never end up facing. But did you notice the third definition ... "Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm, that resulted in death, is manslaughter ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter") Reading your link word by word I find under the definition of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter the following... "This is where the killing is the result of: the defendant's unlawful act (not omission); where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183; whether or not the defendant realised this." So let's see The defendant illegally rode a vehicle defined as unfit for road use on a public road, and as a result, harm was done to another, and they died. The defendants act was not one of omission. They purchased, and they rode, a vehicle that was not legal. They claim ignorance of illegal doing but ignorance is no defence. The question then falls back on the HSE reasonably prudent person definition. If a reasonable person would on sober reflection consider riding a bicycle without brakes in an urban environment to be a harm to those they may encounter ... Even if the defendant did not ... I'm beginning to see a misdirect here. I see no real reason why the defendants admitted unlawful act which clearly presented a danger to others, over whom the prosecution had no need to prove duty of care, should not land him answering that charge in that form ... |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Aug 29 2017, 02:27 PM Post #77 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Your problem is that "and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from" It's foreseeability in different words. If his defective brakes meant he'd hit on a pedestrian crossing or pavement or going through a red light it'd be bang to rights But he didn't. In fact had the victim lived and the rider died she most certainly would have been looking at a manslaughter charge |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Aug 29 2017, 03:48 PM Post #78 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but defective brakes do not come into this as Bicycles built for solely riding in a velodrome have no front brakes at all. So, the defective brakes were in fact missing and the bicycle was illegal to use on a public highway. I find it hard to believe that the rider was unaware of this law. If indeed what I have written is the case, but that is how I understand it to be. |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Aug 29 2017, 04:09 PM Post #79 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't:-
|
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Aug 29 2017, 04:38 PM Post #80 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quite They have no front brake at all and the rear "brake" is achieved by back pedalling. Or rather, trying to. There are no brake levers on the handlebar.. We start from the position that this rider was committing an illegal act by using the thing on a public road. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussions · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



moment
update: the relevant posts are on route to the right thread

2:25 PM Jul 11