Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 17:54:45 GMT
I know two junctions in south London, one in Peckham Rye and the other in Anerley, where if you don't immediately move there will be an accident. The contention is that if, while crossing a junction on a green light a vehicle passing a red light hits you, then the driver of that vehicle will be held entirely at fault. Describe in what circumstances how that might not be true. Never mind about anything else. True but not much consolation if you are dead/ crushed leg (on a bike), your journey to somewhere important is terminated and /or you prize car is trashed. As my old dad used to say, “there is no point in being dead right”. No, but that is irrelevant to the question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 18:01:10 GMT
I know two junctions in south London, one in Peckham Rye and the other in Anerley, where if you don't immediately move there will be an accident. The contention is that if, while crossing a junction on a green light a vehicle passing a red light hits you, then the driver of that vehicle will be held entirely at fault. Describe in what circumstances how that might not be true. Never mind about anything else. He's coming out of a box junction albeit late, you shouldnt enter into it till its clear? The onus is on you to make sure its clear? (I'm hazy on that!) and I now realise it was a rhetorical question...drat! No, it wasn't rhetorical. In your scenario car A hits car B, not the other way round. Car B would have entered the junction on a green light and been prevented from proceeding which is an entirely different fault. But you are right that if you enter a 'no stopping' zone and are forced to stop for whatever reason, you will be held at fault (Marlylebone Rd!).
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 4, 2020 20:17:27 GMT
Thank goodness I live out here and drive along roads like this. There are morons driving, yes, but very few of them: Only mooses to look out for, time to think my own thoughts.....
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Mar 5, 2020 13:08:51 GMT
It beggars belief that the judge (or magistrate) ruled that someone riding a powered bicycle, classified in law as a motorcycle, and with no insurance, can walk free following someone's death as a result of his actions. But its ok because the speed limit is 'arbitrary'. I'd love to hear what bullshit went on for the beak to arrive at that decision. Anyway such is the society we live in. From the article, it wasn't the beak or the CPS who decided that he could walk free: it was the jury. Bit of a perverse verdict, but such are the risks of a jury trial
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 5, 2020 14:43:37 GMT
Although cleared of causing her death, the rider will be found guilty of other offences such as not having a motorbike license etc I think. Why? Was there any evidence that the electric motor was the reason for the speed? The article says. In law, e-bikes which are fitted with an electric motor can only be driven without a licence or insurance if their power is limited, and the motor automatically switches off at speeds above 15.5mph. Was the motor on or off? And to agree on a previous point speed limits only apply for motor vehicles that is why we have the wanten and furious law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 15:25:18 GMT
It beggars belief that the judge (or magistrate) ruled that someone riding a powered bicycle, classified in law as a motorcycle, and with no insurance, can walk free following someone's death as a result of his actions. But its ok because the speed limit is 'arbitrary'. I'd love to hear what bullshit went on for the beak to arrive at that decision. Anyway such is the society we live in. From the article, it wasn't the beak or the CPS who decided that he could walk free: it was the jury. Bit of a perverse verdict, but such are the risks of a jury trial Actually that makes perfect sense to me; it was a trial by partial mob logic. Here in London the cyclist is some kind of deity (compared to the motorist) who can do no wrong. Two wheels good...four wheels baaaaaad...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 15:36:48 GMT
Although cleared of causing her death, the rider will be found guilty of other offences such as not having a motorbike license etc I think. And to agree on a previous point speed limits only apply for motor vehicles that is why we have the wanten and furious law. Piffle. At the time the ' wanton'* law was created there was no concept of 'dangerous driving' as we currently perceive it, nor was there a stated speed limit. *(not to be confused with deep-fried crispy won-tons)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 15:52:21 GMT
The idea of "furious" driving is quite interesting.
Do they examine the psychological state of the individual at the time of the incident?
It implies that they were very angry for some reason.
I would have thought wreckless might be a better word for idiot behaviour unaffected by personal issues.
Not sure what the best term would be if the driver/rider was fulfilling a time sensitive work based activity.
There has been no mention of the ebike rider having an uber eats or deliveroo pack on his back at the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 16:27:33 GMT
The idea of "furious" driving is quite interesting. Do they examine the psychological state of the individual at the time of the incident? It implies that they were very angry for some reason. I would have thought wreckless might be a better word for idiot behaviour unaffected by personal issues. Not sure what the best term would be if the driver/rider was fulfilling a time sensitive work based activity. There has been no mention of the ebike rider having an uber eats or deliveroo pack on his back at the time. Reckless. It seems to me to be more about the vocabulary of the day. As another example, there's a documentary examining conditions in the Victorian / Georgian navy which discusses a case of two sailors held up on a charge of 'buggery' (excuse the archaic term) where the question was asked if there was any proof of them being caught in the act. The term used to describe the (then) offence was 'connected' as in "were they found to be connected"? It is supposed there was no other term available.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Mar 5, 2020 16:31:06 GMT
The idea of "furious" driving is quite interesting. Do they examine the psychological state of the individual at the time of the incident? It implies that they were very angry for some reason. I would have thought wreckless might be a better word for idiot behaviour unaffected by personal issues. Not sure what the best term would be if the driver/rider was fulfilling a time sensitive work based activity. There has been no mention of the ebike rider having an uber eats or deliveroo pack on his back at the time. It is supposed there was no other term available. 'joined at the hip' ?
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Mar 5, 2020 16:32:40 GMT
And to agree on a previous point speed limits only apply for motor vehicles that is why we have the wanten and furious law. Piffle. At the time the ' wanton'* law was created there was no concept of 'dangerous driving' as we currently perceive it, nor was there a stated speed limit. *(not to be confused with deep-fried crispy won-tons) Correct but the law was kept and is still in use. Because, what other law would/could they use?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 16:36:27 GMT
Sometimes there arrrr alternative spellings for these type of words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 16:38:56 GMT
Piffle. At the time the ' wanton'* law was created there was no concept of 'dangerous driving' as we currently perceive it, nor was there a stated speed limit. *(not to be confused with deep-fried crispy won-tons) Correct but the law was kept and is still in use. Because, what other law would/could they use? It seems that laws like one which would outlaw "obviously being an idiot" have been steered clear of by those in power. I wonder why that might have happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 16:43:44 GMT
Sometimes there arrrr alternative spellings for these type of words. Not this time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2020 16:47:40 GMT
No kidding.
|
|