August 2nd 13, 07:56 PM
posted to uk.media.tv.misc,uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving
|
|
|
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 18:45:01 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:
Bertie Wooster considered Fri, 02 Aug 2013
11:12:20 +0100 the perfect time to write:
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:50:58 +0100, JNugent
wrote:
ITYF that the car driver is still expected to anticipate such hazards
I will *not* "find" that, for the simple and obvious reason that it is
not true. You are mistaking the general duty to react in amelioration
(where possible) of other peoples' bad behaviour as a duty to ensure or
guarantee that the bad behaviour cannot have any negative effects on the
person behaving badly.
That people may act negligently does not oblige others to act as if the
negligence is permanently under way. Everyone has a right to expect
everyone else to obey the rules insofar as they might impinge on one's
own rights.
If that is the case, what do you make of the cyclist who, as described
in another thread, mowed down a young child on a pedestrian crossing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23492094
From what you appear to be saying, so long as the lights on the
pedestrian crossing were green for the cyclist, and the cyclist wasn't
engaged in wanton or furious cycling, no offence occurred (section 170
of the 1988 road traffic act does not apply to cyclists).
The signals displayed by a traffic light mean stop, stop, stop, and
give way.
There is no Go, as even a green only allows you to proceed if the way
is clear.
That is what I would expect.
|