thirdcrank wrote:The condition of a motor vehicle can be used as evidence of dangerous driving subject to s 2A (2) of the RTA 1988...
Thank you. I've always known I needed to get our car serviced regularly. However, now I've got a better idea of the consequences should I not do so, and survive the resulting crash...
There's (an increasing?) a trend to use the MOT as a service indicator IMHO.
Indeed. But driven animals can still kill someone so the legislation needs to take account of that, and that still leaves the problem with other public highways.
Why all the effort and expense in making this new offence? I think that is the point of OP.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
You can look at the OP in several ways. eg Objection is made to a new offence which might attract a maximum sentence of fourteen years, yet the maximum for manslaughter - a judge-created offence is life imprisonment. (All sentencing is now subject to the guidelines, of course.)
When a cyclist was recently tried for manslaughter and the causing injury by furious driving offence, criticism from some on here included objection to the use of a statute dating from 1861.
I've suggested that the changes here would probably be achieved by adding extra sections to the RTA 1988 and I think it would be presented as a tidying up exercise.
It's hard to get away from the point that if somebody is killed, they are dead whoever did it and by whatever means.
Since cyclists don't kill many people when cycling, only a tiny minority have anything to be concerned about.
pete75 wrote:Nobody said anything about enforcing them - once the politicos have passed the legislation that's their bit done. They're in the clear if it happens again.
I've heard it said that sometimes, the legislation is there to reinforce expected standards of behaviour, more than because it's actually needed. For example, when the business about hand-held phones came up*, it was widely said that the legislation was unnecessary to successful prosecutions, because existing laws on being in proper control of a vehicle were adequate. However, the fact of the legislation would help to change public attitudes.
yes and thats demonstrably changed public attitudes hasnt it as seen by when the police run their yearly crackdown they only managed to issue 240 fines across Norfolk and Suffolk in one week in January this year.
so no I dont have any faith in the legal system, the police, or this kind of knee jerk legislation that will undoubtedly be used far more often against cyclists, than the existing dangerous driving charge is used against motorists.
define dangerous cycling below the standard expected of the careful and competent cyclist ? when even among a group of average cyclists most close pass videos lead to disagreements about the correct road position,correct speed, correct line/course of action etc etc, put it in front of a jury of mainly motorists who believe cyclists shouldnt travel quicker than walking speed, and its a recipe for disaster.
My dissapointment with this is that the legislators are prioritising committing effort and time into creating a new law where the risk the law is seeking to control is relatively small. There must be bigger risks or problems out there that require legislation?
Furthermore, if the government wanted to reduce the risk associated with cycling it would place time and effort in other places. Like improving the cycling environment in general.
If the government wanted to reduce the risks associated with travel in general it would seek to promote and favour cycling rather than portraying cycling as a dangerous activity that needs controlling.
My worry is that cycling, despite being a common place and ordanary activity, is misunderstood by many and this law will not help public understanding of how its is to use a bike as your everyday transport.
If cyclists were better looked after by the state then I would be more accepting of such new legislation. Unfortunately though, as a cyclist I feel marginalised, persecuted, abused, disempowered and even ridiculed.
Bonefishblues wrote:There's (an increasing?) a trend to use the MOT as a service indicator IMHO.
We do. Service intervals have increased in both mileage and time terms, over the years we've had cars. And we do about 6000 miles a year. So getting it serviced with the MoT means it's getting serviced within the manufacturer's recommendations.
Bonefishblues wrote:There's (an increasing?) a trend to use the MOT as a service indicator IMHO.
We do. Service intervals have increased in both mileage and time terms, over the years we've had cars. And we do about 6000 miles a year. So getting it serviced with the MoT means it's getting serviced within the manufacturer's recommendations.
Might I point out an error in the posts that suggest that animals such as sheep on the road are illegal. Maybe a post from the city? In many parts of the country animals graze on open land. There are sheep wandering up the road near me as I type. Perfectly legal. Wales and Scotland are littered with the things as are places like Dartmoor or the New Forest. Hitting these is not the fault of the owner generally. Its the fault of the driver who didn't drive according to the conditions. Sheep and cattle on the road don't leap out from the bushes like squirrels and deer. You can see them coming. Back to the point. To me if your actions hurt then you should pay the price. Stupidity is deliberate. Getting it wrong is stupid. Misjudging things is stupid. Serves you right.
We're straying a bit from the OP but with farm animals straying onto a highway, it all depends. eg
8 Duty to take care to prevent damage from animals straying on to the highway.
(1)So much of the rules of the common law relating to liability for negligence as excludes or restricts the duty which a person might owe to others to take such care as is reasonable to see that damage is not caused by animals straying on to a highway is hereby abolished.
(2) Where damage is caused by animals straying from unfenced land to a highway a person who placed them on the land shall not be regarded as having committed a breach of the duty to take care by reason only of placing them there if—
(a) the land is common land, or is land situated in an area where fencing is not customary, or is a town or village green; and (b) he had a right to place the animals on that land.
Bonefishblues wrote:There's (an increasing?) a trend to use the MOT as a service indicator IMHO.
We do. Service intervals have increased in both mileage and time terms, over the years we've had cars. And we do about 6000 miles a year. So getting it serviced with the MoT means it's getting serviced within the manufacturer's recommendations.
I meant if it falls the MOT it gets fixed.
Yes. That's usually a good idea unless the owner intends to scrap the vehicle.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
We get a proposal for this new law. At pretty much the same time Bradley Wiggins is labelled a cheat- at least in some quarters.
You have to ask- who are the likely beneficiaries? The Alliston case was nowhere as clear cut as reports in the press claimed. And as for Wiggo- even if you have doubts, it's funny a lot is being made of them now.
A lot of people don't like cyclists, whether racing or otherwise. Some of them are MPs, of course. We also have a government that would like to distract attention from it's miserable record. And the press is doing it's job for them- the ridiculous Corbyn spy story, and now the hate cyclists season is open. We'll probably get a helmets story next. The ideal story would be Corbyn not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, riding a fixed gear bike, meeting a spy like in the Ipcress File movie. The spy would probably work for the EU, with contacts with the remainers in the UK.
Can't really argue with this ,like someone said, somebody does something, someone else ends up dead, there has to be accountability. There's nothing in the current legislative framework that "fits the bill' so to speak. Society demands accountability hence the various Legislation to put this on a statutory basis.
We need to lobby for more focussed prosecutions for car v bike near misses (and chapeau to the Police Forces pushing Dangerous Close Pass prosecutions here)
And we need (brace for howls of anguish) Jaywalking Legislation . ( Yes I still bear the scars, I do ride defensively but despite this I was faced with a Pelican Crossing, clearly my green light (not an amber gamble and not that far from proper traffic lights which I had stopped at, person of extremely generous proportions steps out, my choices were 1 Car coming the other way 2 The barriers Adjacent to the Crossing 3 The pedestrian
A witness said I tried to go round the pedestrian which is true, I have ridden on the Track and I did my utmost to miss her but just clipped her. Bike trashed, knee twisted ,back bashed. Pedestrian Unconscious (!) .
And that's not my only pedestrian interface, I have had several. (Including one where I ran over a blokes feet with the back wheel of my trike. When I stopped to make sure nothing broken the bloke said he thought it was a bike )!
Huge Police turnout to the injured pedestrian, the reports said it was an injury RTC , Motorbike v Pedestrian. I did consider at the time what would have happened if the pedestrian had hit her head and been killed (I was a serving Police officer at the time)
I did consider suing but the person in question had no real assets. House insurance paid for the bike ,I still have the injuries.
Last edited by 9494arnold on 6 Mar 2018, 10:26am, edited 1 time in total.
as seen by when the police run their yearly crackdown they only managed to issue 240 fines across Norfolk and Suffolk in one week in January this year.
a bit from the OP but with farm animals straying onto a highway, it all depends. eg
