Switching off someone else's ignition

ilikewatch

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Well let's assume you were identified and a complaint was made it would see you in court for any injury above a Section 47 Assault as that's the limit self defence can be decided on without a trial.

Yes, I realise that (I am a fully qualified internet know-all, keyboard warrior and barrack room lawyer), but when you got to court and explained the circumstances I think you would have a very good chance of aquittal.

Tobster86

Car_54 wrote: »

The law prohibits "using" a motor vehicle without insurance, and he certainly wasn't using it .

Can I nip that one in the bud by stating that the cyclist's own car insurance covers him to drive other vehicles?

AdrianC

Tobster86 wrote: »

Some more clarification then; the ignition was simply switched off.

Then the most serious offence committed is probably wilful obstruction of the highway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137

I can't see a vigilante ticking-off counting as "lawful excuse". If there was evidence of whatever had lead up to it, then the correct course of action would be to hand it over to the police.

Spicy_McHaggis

ilikewatch wrote: »

Yes, I realise that (I am a fully qualified internet know-all, keyboard warrior and barrack room lawyer), but when you got to court and explained the circumstances I think you would have a very good chance of aquittal.

Depends on if it was reasonable, as I said why not push them away?

ilikewatch

Car_54 wrote: »

That's stretching the definition of "operating", and in any event that's not an offence.

The law prohibits "using" a motor vehicle without insurance, and he certainly wasn't using it .

In what way is operating a vehicles ignition not "using it"?

Tobster86

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

As this is all in your head why no play out the ending you want?

Ok, since sarcasm doesn't seem to convey well through forum media; the incident is not hypothetical, but has been described truthfully and accurately.

Spicy_McHaggis

AdrianC wrote: »

Then the most serious offence committed is probably wilful obstruction of the highway.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/137

I can't see a vigilante ticking-off counting as "lawful excuse". If there was evidence of whatever had lead up to it, then the correct course of action would be to hand it over to the police.

But remember the cyclist is nearly dead so too injured to hand it to the police. But fit enough to pursue the car?

ilikewatch

Tobster86 wrote: »

Can I nip that one in the bud by stating that the cyclist's own car insurance covers him to drive other vehicles?

O RLY? Without the owners permission? That's pretty comprehensive, do you have some form of joyriders insurance?

ilikewatch

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Depends on if it was reasonable, as I said why not push them away?

In the situation described I think the most likely way the driver could "break someones hand" is by slamming it in the door -slamming the door seems a pretty reasonable course of action if a stranger has opened it and is trying to grab your ignition keys.

Obviously if you grabbed their hand and held them there whilst you fumbled under your seat for a hammer then started breaking fingers it would start to look considerably less like self defence and the outcome at court might not be so rosy :-)

Spicy_McHaggis

ilikewatch wrote: »

In what way is operating a vehicles ignition not "using it"?

Well it's not enough for driving as he has no control of the braking, steering or propulsion.

If you're going down the route of using that piece of road, well that's being done by the driver not the cyclist.