Highway Code, why the mishmash?

Hammyman

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Ok, why the difference between bikes and mopeds?

Motorbikes can do up to 200MPH, your typical moped 40 at best.

Why the use of should and must when both rules can be used to procecute?

Because things that are "should" do not apply to a traffic law - they are merely guidance. Must means there's a law applicable.

And what is a passenger vehicle?

Something that carries passengers as its main design, car, taxi, minibus, coach.

And it's not a beef with the rules it's the form they are written in, although I must admit I didn't know off all these subtle differences, in the words of Michael Caine "not a lot of people know that"

This has got to be a wind up, surely?

cyclonebri1

DrScotsman wrote: »

Well you only accurately quoted half of the relevant text.



Definitely not the same. "Establish liability" does not mean "establish guilt for a criminal offence", although the first can lead to the second depending on the circumstances. So for starters, can you cite what offence is being committed (or inferred) by breaching the moped rule?

No. I accuratly quoted the the text I posted, not a half of it.

And no, I can't establish the moped offence, that is the point of the post

So can a moped rider drive on bald tyres?.

You guys get me, this is a situation that is ambiguous to say the least.

Should a moped rider have tread or must he, answer that please.

I did intend this as a disscussion item but there are obviousley many more annally .............. than I thought

cyclonebri1

pendulum wrote: »

Because the law on tread for a motorbike is different to that of a moped. Isn't it the law you should be querying and not the highway code?


Because MUST means its the law and SHOULD is just a recommendation. That is explained at the beginning of the code. There's no minimum legal tread depth for a moped so that's why it says "should" show visible tread and not "must".






It seems like it should be the other way round to me.

Unfortunately ignoring a "should" gets the same result/fine/ban, as is clearly stated in the begining of the HC as I stated and you copied?????????????

DrScotsman

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And no, I can't establish the moped offence, that is the point of the post

So can a moped rider drive on bald tyres?.

You guys get me, this is a situation that is ambiguous to say the least.

Should a moped rider have tread or must he, answer that please.

What's ambiguous is how you're possibly finding this ambiguous.

The highway code says should, hence it is not a criminal offence, but you should have tread.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Unfortunately ignoring a "should" gets the same result/fine/ban, as is clearly stated in the begining of the HC as I stated and you copied?????????????

Please tell me, where does the highway code say that ignoring a "should" gets the same result/fine/ban. I think you're confusing "liability" and "guilt", two completely different things.

Sandoval

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Sandoval, convince me that you are not a complete !!!!!!, oh sorry you can't. And, for fs sake change your text/print or whatever it's called to something in line with everyone else, ie, default

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

You ask "What is a passenger vehicle? " go on then, what is it?, car? a taxi? a bus?, psv? a tandem? I'm waiting plank

Correct, all those things are passenger vehicles.

At least you managed to spell plank correctly though...

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

And edited to say "all from a guy that can't comprehend carp is a polite way of saying "crap". poor chap.:whistle:

Is 'chap' also a polite way of saying crap?

You've started a carp thread here asking pointless carp questions which basically amount to 'why do different vehicles need different tread depths.'

If you don't understand that then you've clearly had a carp education.

What a load of carp...

Lum

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No. I accuratly quoted the the text I posted, not a half of it.

And no, I can't establish the moped offence, that is the point of the post

So can a moped rider drive on bald tyres?.

Legally they can, but then if it were raining and someone were to step out into the road suddenly and the moped rider was unable to stop or swerve due to having bald tyres in the wet then the fault would lie with the moped rider as they SHOULD have tread on their tyres.

If, however, they did have tread and someone were to step out into road suddenly and the moped driver was unable to stop or swerve then the fault would lie with the person stepping out because they didn't look and stepped out in front of a vehicle.

By ignoring the SHOULD parts of the highway code you leave yourself open to civil (and possibly criminal) proceedings should you !!!! up and have an accident.

By ignoring the MUST parts of the highway code you leave yourself open to criminal proceedings as soon as a copper or camera spots you.

See the difference?

The most common bit of confusion caused by SHOULD vs MUST is that of hatched areas on roads. Ones with solid borders MUST not be entered and ones with broken borders SHOULD not be entered. What this actually means is that the latter are just fine for overtaking, but a bit further ahead when that hatched area turns into a right turn lane and some dozy old fart wanting to turn right drives into the side of you as you overtake them, it is your fault.

goldspanners

marlot wrote: »

A motorcycle tends to have narrower tyres than a car, and with 1.5mm of tread IS legal - motorbikes are allowed to drop to 1mm. Don't forget that bike tyres also have a round profile - there isn't a huge amount in touch with the road, and its likely that the extra tread depth makes only a small difference. I don't know for sure - I've never let mine get anywhere near that low!

A moped tends to have very skinny tyres, also rounded profile, so its possible that the tread makes almost no difference. Its also restricted to 30 mph, which is well below aquaplaning speed.

so going on this assumption then why is it that lorry tyres (more contact with the road than car tyres) are allowed to go down to 1mm aswell?

what your saying is, motorbikes have little contact with road so 1mm is fine.
cars have more contact with road so need more tread to displace more water,so have a limit of 1.6mm
lorries have even more contact with road so should need to displace even more water but they only have 1mm of tread just like bikes.

DaveF327

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Unfortunately ignoring a "should" gets the same result/fine/ban, as is clearly stated in the begining of the HC as I stated

The difference is in the legislation.

Any inclusion of the word MUST refers to a specific offence in statute law which carries a specific penalty.

The word "should" is intended for guidance, the contravention of which would not constitute any specific offence (ask yourself what you would be charged with) but can be used in the courts to establish liability in a separate case. The vast majority of cases where this law (RTA section 38(7)) is invoked are civil cases where one road user is suing another, or where insurance companies are battling it out to divvy up blame and costs. It's rare for this law to be invoked in a criminal case as most criminal cases are being tried under a specific law, but there are a few very ambiguous charges, such as driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration (what's reasonable?) where the "shoulds" and "should nots" from the highway code can be used to interpret what is reasonable or careless.

Another way of looking at it is this: contravening a MUST is an easy ticket for plod and requires minimal evidence. A photograph will often suffice. Open and shut case, guilty as charged. Contravening a should involves a lot of work by plod to bring it to court, is often hard to prove, often ignored totally by the police and at worst, would result in a talking to, breathalyser, inspection of vehicle to find another offence, then a final "don't do it again".

marmitedog

Lum wrote: »

Legally they can, but then if it were raining and someone were to step out into the road suddenly and the moped rider was unable to stop or swerve due to having bald tyres in the wet then the fault would lie with the moped rider as they SHOULD have tread on their tyres.

As a previous poster pointed out, mopeds don't go fast enough to aquaplane, hence they don't need tread. Grip is a function of contact area, therefore the "balder" the better.
Same for cyclists, the tread is purely a marketing gimmick.

Lum

marmitedog wrote: »

As a previous poster pointed out, mopeds don't go fast enough to aquaplane, hence they don't need tread. Grip is a function of contact area, therefore the "balder" the better.
Same for cyclists, the tread is purely a marketing gimmick.

And if you have no tread on your tyres it'll be up to you to prove that in court.