Driver Prosecuted Over Collision After Cyclist Jumps Red Light

Car_54

Nasqueron wrote: »

You are clearly not acquainted with British law, this sort of stuff is perfectly normal. It's what happens when you have a law and extend and edit it over and over and people are afraid to cut stuff out. It's why all these populists like Trump who promise to cut red tape and regulation will never succeed because it's almost impossible to make cuts without just getting rid of the entire law and rewriting it.

It's like how bikes are not covered under the road traffic act for speeding because the law only references motor vehicles.

Why do you think the exclusion of bikes (and horses) from speed limits is a mistake, rather than a deliberate decision?

Billy_Bullocks

GingerBob wrote: »

They are in the quote.

So in effect you are saying even if it would cause an accident you most stop at an amber light.

It's pleasing to see you have nothing to do with writing or passing legislation.

Zola.

Hate cyclists that don't think they have to behave the same as other road users.

GingerBob_3

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

So in effect you are saying even if it would cause an accident you most stop at an amber light.

It's pleasing to see you have nothing to do with writing or passing legislation.

I'm pleased too. It would be an embarrassment to be involved, given the type stuff one would be expected to vomit up onto the page.


To clarify:


""the amber light means stop [before the line] unless it's unsafe to do so."


I think that succinctly addresses the issue. Clear and unambiguous. Unlike the written puke in the legislation itself.

neilmcl

Looks like my prediction in post #4 for this thread was correct then

Nasqueron

Car_54 wrote: »

Why do you think the exclusion of bikes (and horses) from speed limits is a mistake, rather than a deliberate decision?

Where did I say that Mr Strawman?

Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 cover bikes already offers a catch-all that covers bikes

1847 Town Police Clauses Act covers "riding furiously" - bikes were confirmed to be carriages in Taylor v. Goodwin (1879)

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers "wanton or furious driving or racing" if it causes an injury and was used as recently as 2013 against a cyclist on the pavement who hit a child

Nasqueron

Zola. wrote: »

Hate cyclists that don't think they have to behave the same as other road users.

Indeed though I assume you also hate all road users that don't think they have to behave the same as other road users given that cars cause the vast majority of serious injuries and deaths to other road users, pedestrians etc

Car_54

Nasqueron wrote: »

Where did I say that Mr Strawman?

Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 cover bikes already offers a catch-all that covers bikes

1847 Town Police Clauses Act covers "riding furiously" - bikes were confirmed to be carriages in Taylor v. Goodwin (1879)

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 covers "wanton or furious driving or racing" if it causes an injury and was used as recently as 2013 against a cyclist on the pavement who hit a child

You said "It's what happens when you have a law and extend and edit it over and over and people are afraid to cut stuff out." which seemed to me to imply that the exclusion of bikes was not deliberate. I may have been wrong.

The prohibition of speeeding is in fact in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, not the RTA. It is quite specific to motor vehicles, and it does not depend on convoluted definitions or on earlier legislation which has been extended or edited. It would have been very easy to include bicycles and/or horses had that been the intention.

Nasqueron

Car_54 wrote: »

You said "It's what happens when you have a law and extend and edit it over and over and people are afraid to cut stuff out." which seemed to me to imply that the exclusion of bikes was not deliberate. I may have been wrong.

The prohibition of speeeding is in fact in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, not the RTA. It is quite specific to motor vehicles, and it does not depend on convoluted definitions or on earlier legislation which has been extended or edited. It would have been very easy to include bicycles and/or horses had that been the intention.

Man you have more straw than Worzel Gummidge!

Ref your first comment - I was talking about the wording of the law being convoluted due to people being unwilling to edit it - hence why they have so many words to say that amber = stop unless unsafe

Ref the second comment - what has the 1984 act got to to do with anything? I was simply pointing out the rules that already exist that the police can use for cyclists if they break the law, why amend the 1984 act if the 1988 act covers them or you already have laws that do it?

Car_54

Nasqueron wrote: »

Ref the second comment - what has the 1984 act got to to do with anything? I was simply pointing out the rules that already exist that the police can use for cyclists if they break the law, why amend the 1984 act if the 1988 act covers them or you already have laws that do it?

The relevance of the 1984 act is that it makes speeding an offence, for drivers of motor vehicles, but not for cyclists.

If parliament's view was that speeding cyclists could be dealt with under existing legislation, why would they not have applied the same logic to drivers?

I think it more likely that they simply did not see speeding by cyclists as a problem requiring legislation.