Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post Reply
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 5:23pm
thirdcrank wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 5:16pmAIUI, research into jury trial has been limited: if its true operation were to be revealed, I fancy a lot of thespians would be "resting."
Many types of research into juries are forbidden.

That leaves:
• Trying to reconstruct and explain what happened
• Simulation studies.

Your idea about the effect of the "manslaughter" label could be studied by simulation.

Jonathan

PS: I suspect that much of the misunderstanding of what happens comes from many of us having watched many more hours of fictional portrayal than the real thing. And the limited exposure to the real thing being in very stressful situations.
And I suspect that the the views of many of those with lots of experience are influenced by their daily bread and for many the butter, jam and honey depending on it.
(To declare an interest, with only very low-level involvement, I've now been drawing a pension for over 25 years.)
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 6:59pmJust by way of a polite request, casual sexism is also rightly deprecated on the forum, so please would you desist.

How high do I have to aim to be accused of formal sexism? I don't think I've been sexist once.

Thanks, but I'll side with the judge and pedantic semantics.

Strictly speaking, that it is a road gives one right of way. "Priorities" only become involved where there are more than one party attempt to exercise theirs at the same time.
Highways are roads that provide the public with a right of way, including:

Public roads
Public footpaths
Public bridleways
Public driftways (whatever they are?)
Public carriageways
Public footways

[src: section 192(1) Road Traffic Act 1988 - abridged]
"If it's good enough for the Road Traffic Act, it's good enough ..." etc etc etc.
Jdsk
Posts: 24488
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Jdsk »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:19pmHighways are roads that provide the public with a right of way, include:

Public roads
Public footpaths
Public bridleways
Public driftways (whatever they are?)
Public carriageways
Public footways [src: section 192(1) Road Traffic Act 1988]
"Right of way' describing access to and use of paths and land is quite different from "when you should give way to others... " as used in the Highway Code.

And only using it for this meaning of access and use helps to avoid misunderstanding.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 7 Aug 2022, 7:30pm, edited 1 time in total.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by thirdcrank »

In that context right of way = a right to use it to go from A to B rather than anything to do with proirity while doing so
cycle tramp
Posts: 3483
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by cycle tramp »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 5:40pm
Jdsk wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 3:27pmBonefishblues is correct.
You don't read what I wrote. He's only "correct" if you think right of way means an absolute right to carry on a highway. Most of us just think it means the same as the legal use of the "priority".

Referring to the 'Brushett v Hazeldean' case, another bad case setting a bad precendent, District Judge Mauger found both parties equally to blame for the incident saying that,
“even where a motorist or cyclist has the right of way, pedestrians who are established on the road have right of way”.
Ergo, if a judge can use it relating to the law, so can I.

It's an interesting case to read up on, with many implications for cyclists.
Mr Hazeldean initially defended the case as a litigant in person and decided not to bring a counterclaim as he quite admirably did not approve of “claim culture”. Unfortunately, he is now responsible for the entirety of Ms Brushett’s legal costs and estimates the case could cost him nearly £100,000 and lead to his bankruptcy.
So, blonde walks into the road where cyclist has clear right of way, without waiting for the lights to be in her favour and while reading her phone, gets hit and is award £4,000 in damages (half of what she wanted); then cyclist is landed with £104,000 bill PRECISELY AND ONLY BECAUSE he was too ethical not to call some other ambulance chaser to countersue her.

Put me on the list for those dissastified with legal system in general. My bet would be she had legal cover in her house insurance and their appointed lawyers were the ones who ran up the bill. His punishment was, in essence, a punishment from the legal system for not paying over the top for their services, i.e. you pay us or else you pay 14 times more (if he'd counterclaimed her costs would have been limited to circa £7,000).

Note Ms Brushett’s key witness was another cyclist, while 3 other witnesses, all pedestrians, stated it was her fault.
Sorry folks back again... I did try not to return..

I believe it was the witness who was using their bicycle which gave the key statement, advising that Mr Haseldeane had overtaken him on the way to the crossing, which was already in use by pedestrians, Mr Haseldeane then sounded his horn to part the pedestrians* and then slowed down in an attempt to avoid striking the pedestrian. It wasn't like she was the one and only person crossing that road at that time. The actual investigator attributed the blame 50% 50% between both parties.

(* got to admit that sounds a little impolite. If the lights were in his favour couldn't the guy have coasted up to the crossing, then scooted across, and cycle on his way again?)

There are number of morals to this one, always seek legal advice, if possible carry third party insurance, and moderate your speed as conditions dictate, to avoid any collisions.. ...they're hardly life changing habits.
It's time to go :-)
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Stevek76 »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 6:57pm Now can everyone who is not being paid £600 an hour stop pretending to be the claimant's barrister
And you? I'm not the one trying to apply US law and attitude regarding transport to British roads.
At the very least, they could make it illegal for pedestrians to cross on a zigzag adjacent to a pedestrian crossing.
They won't and nor should they. Don't crash into pedestrians, it's really not a tricky thing to do, they're hardly fast moving.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:25pm"Right of way' describing access to and use of paths and land is quite different from "when you should give way to others... "
Well, you're entering something else into the equation there but my point re priorities stands.

If it's good enough for a judge ...
cycle tramp wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:40pmThe actual investigator attributed the blame 50% 50% between both parties.
It was the judge actually, see the links.

Yup, from memory, because the cyclist didn't think to counterclaim (or couldn't afford to), he didn't enter the statements of the other 3 witnesses who thought it was the pedestrian's fault, and the case largely rested on the one other cyclist who, for some reason, thought to record his witness statement on his phone within 10 minutes of the accident.

The cyclist'd started off by defending himself and missed the point where he could have counterclaimed. Unless you know the rules of the dance, you're screwed. it's all got little to do with reason, fairness or justice.

Check your home insurance policy to see if it includes personal injury claim cover.
Stevek76 wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:55pm They won't and nor should they. Don't crash into pedestrians, it's really not a tricky thing to do, they're hardly fast moving.
I made my point re the use of language. Everyone understand what jaywalking means even if it's not a law in England.

Personally, I've been forced off my bike by a pedestrian stepping off the pavement for absolutely no reason, while not even looking backwards. It happened within a few feet in the wet (we were both going in the same direction). It has nothing to do with speed. No brakes in the world would have stopped it. I had a choice to make, either I ploughed into him, or I laid the bike down, and being reasonable I did the latter.

Next time I won't. And I'll give them your name instead.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3483
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by cycle tramp »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:59pm
Jdsk wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:25pm"Right of way' describing access to and use of paths and land is quite different from "when you should give way to others... "
Well, you're entering something else into the equation there but my point re priorities stands.

If it's good enough for a judge ...
cycle tramp wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:40pmThe actual investigator attributed the blame 50% 50% between both parties.
It was the judge actually, see the links.

Yup, from memory, because the cyclist didn't think to counterclaim (or couldn't afford to), he didn't enter the statements of the other 3 witnesses who thought it was the pedestrian's fault, and the case largely rested on the one other cyclist who, for some reason, thought to record his witness statement on his phone within 10 minutes of the accident.

The cyclist'd started off by defending himself and missed the point where he could have counterclaimed. Unless you know the rules of the dance, you're screwed. it's all got little to do with reason, fairness or justice.

Check your home insurance policy to see if it includes personal injury claim cover.
Stevek76 wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 7:55pm They won't and nor should they. Don't crash into pedestrians, it's really not a tricky thing to do, they're hardly fast moving.
I made my point re the use of language. Everyone understand what jaywalking means even if it's not a law in England.

Personally, I've been forced off my bike by a pedestrian stepping off the pavement for absolutely no reason, while not even looking backwards. It happened within a few feet in the wet (we were both going in the same direction). It has nothing to do with speed. No brakes in the world would have stopped it. I had a choice to make...

Next time I won't. And I'll give them your name instead.
Yeah, most of us have. Mine was a large person and I had visions of burying my front wheel between their buttocks and then bending it trying to extract it.. luckily we never made contact and they never even noticed... probably just as well.. marathon plus enima, anyone?...Buy the badge, get the t-shirt and get on with the journey

It is another good reason to cycle some 1.5 metres away from the kerb and carrying third party insurance is always a good idea.... I do wonder about getting something like a tyre driven bicycle bell for urban areas...

You can give them my name of Slattibartfast if you like, but I don't know if they'll believe you.
It's time to go :-)
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Steady rider »

Just a few points, sorry if already covered.
Cyclists make little noise - pedestrians often do not look properly, they can move to the side without much warning.
On shared paths, often not wide, means cyclists have to pass close by.
Cyclists may believe pedestrians will have seen them coming, and only when close, it become apparent that they have not been looking out.
Cyclists may believe pedestrians are safe to pass, but sudden movements by pedestrians can result in difficulty in avoiding them.
Cyclists may be untrained and not fully appreciate the dangers involved in any particular situation.
Cyclist mass vary, a lightweight cyclist hitting a pedestrian, may result in less serious injuries than a heavier cyclists riding at identical speeds.
There are differences between cyclists and motorists, one knowing full well any impact to a pedestrian may well be very serious and greater care is needed and the other who routinely passes pedestrian and would not usually expect a very serious outcome if a collision occurred.
Legislation needs to reflect general circumstances and take account of all the circumstances. Serious penalties should apply in some circumstances.
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by pete75 »

cycle tramp wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 8:33pm

Yeah, most of us have. Mine was a large person and I had visions of burying my front wheel between their buttocks and then bending it trying to extract it.. luckily we never made contact and they never even noticed... probably just as well.. marathon plus enima, anyone?...Buy the badge, get the t-shirt and get on with the journey

You should put this in the What made you laugh today thread. Well it made me laugh anyway.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Carlton green
Posts: 3630
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by Carlton green »

cycle tramp wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 10:35am https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGlZrK9WYpo

Indefensible road manners for the worst reasons. Edited see below.
One needs to watch the video to see the glorified stupidity of the cyclists involved as they make a dangerous and dammed nuisance of themselves. I call them cyclists yet they are more people on bikes. Of course there is a wide spectrum of how people behave themselves and interact with others, the cycle messengers in the video are (in respect to cycling) pretty much at the extreme antisocial end of the spectrum.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
simonhill
Posts: 5211
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 11:28am
Location: Essex

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by simonhill »

It's amazing how dumb some people can be. My local seafront cyclepath is between road and promenade. There is a raised curb, a wide white line, the path is painted green, but people still walk straight across it without a glance either way.

There's also those who use it to unload cars, assemble their buggies, keep kids corralled on while unloading, etc.

Do they ever think, hmmm strange green path, I wonder what this is for???
fastpedaller
Posts: 3433
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by fastpedaller »

Albrecht wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 2:28pm
cycle tramp wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 9:09amI think it might help if certain bicycle users did not give ammunition which in turn would be used against the rest of us.
It's a certain type, isn't it? And it's not what I'd call the "yob" element, e.g. young kids on bikes. Funnily enough, they tend to know they are in the wrong.

In my experience, it tend to be a kind of an aggressive male who dressing up like a full sports rider on a racing bike or high performance MTB, and treats every ride as a race or a cardio work out.

A sort of cyclist's version of 'roid rage, not just road rage.

Like a Top Gear car driver, they've spent their £2000 on a bike and demand the right to ride it at full speed everywhere. Hell on tow paths too.
Hmm - So a generalisation again - I'll need to be careful of riding my Spa steel tourer when I'm wearing lycra, after all the bike has drop bars, so I'm racer :roll:
Albrecht
Posts: 75
Joined: 26 Jul 2022, 8:47pm

Re: Grant Chapps panders to The Mail

Post by Albrecht »

fastpedaller wrote: 8 Aug 2022, 9:43amHmm - So a generalisation again - I'll need to be careful of riding my Spa steel tourer when I'm wearing lycra, after all the bike has drop bars, so I'm racer :roll:
Thing about generalisations is, generally speaking they are true. And having just watched the Alleycat promo video above, it sort of confirms it.

I stand by my comment. It's a particular type of aggressive, self-centred male that spoil things for everyone. I don't, however, know if you are one or responsible rider. They almost got us barred from towpaths for using them as their private velodrome.
cycle tramp wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 8:33pmYou can give them my name of Slattibartfast if you like, but I don't know if they'll believe you.
No worries, I was going to blame Steve, not you.

I went out to buy some victuals mid-topic (that's "food" to any of you who haven't swallowed a legal dictionary, although I am sure someone will correct me to say it's not) and some kid was riding down the white line of the road on one of those illegal electric mini-scooters, smartphone in hand, swipping through his message. I literally watched him swipe 2, 3, 4 ... as he went down the road.

What's the point of any discussion about laws?

1.5m equals right in front of the bonnet badge on our streets but, hey, I could become a one person, mobile 12mph speed zone. Most car drivers seriously haven't got the memo about the new Highway Code priorities yet. They're still working on the principle of whoever's vehicle is bigger.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Grant Shapps panders to The Mail

Post by mjr »

Bonefishblues wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 1:50pm
awavey wrote: 7 Aug 2022, 12:34pm I mean no one complains that the laws on being drunk on a highway actually source from the 1872 licensing act do they ?
Mr Briggs patiently explained that he knew this was a very rare occurrence. His motivation is to try to reduce the impact, distress and confusion caused to the bereaved after the event because the CPS has to decide what and how to prosecute - and all they have is this anachronism to apply.
How is it anachronistic, please? It's not much like finding a smartphone in a Da Vinci drawing, is it?

Old law is not necessarily bad law. After all, the law currently in force that requires one to ride/drive on the left is from the 1830s. Or would you like us to be rid of [url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1]the law forbidding roadside judgment of damages[/quote] (section 15) (eg "you hit his car, so now must pay him £1000, by order of the police") and requiring such cases to be heard by a court (section 1), usually the defendant's county court (section 4), which is from the 1260s?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Post Reply