|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 17:12:02 +0100, "NY" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote: 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). Is a bicycle not a "mechanically propelled vehicle" for the purposes of the act? No. A bicycle is a human powered machine. Presumably there are other more general obligations that apply to anyone who injures someone else, irrespective of the circumstances. Morally, certainly. I'm unsure of the legal situation. For what it is worth, I think that the cyclist's actions in fleeing the scene of the crash is contemptible. Presumably the cyclist would still be guilty offences relating to failure to stop at the crossing to let pedestrians cross (and relating to causing injury if anyone was injured) - *please* tell me that cyclists are not exempt from this requirement too (!) If the light is green, I still feel that the cyclist should have stopped. Years ago I witnessed a cyclist who injured a pedestrian who was already on a zebra crossing: I was walking towards the crossing and heard someone behind me yell "Out of my f**cking way" so I turned round and saw a cyclist overtake two cars that had stopped to give way to a woman pushing a pram on the crossing. Again yelling "Out of my f**cking way, he swerved between the offside of the leading car and the traffic island in the centre of the road, and clipped the woman as she scurried into the central island. Having come off his bike he skidded across the road and narrowly avoided going under the wheels of an oncoming HGV. He tried to run off but my mate who was built like a brick outhouse restrained him and "persuaded" him to wait until the police arrived. There were a lot of witnesses so the police moved most of us on and didn't take statements, but my mate who did give a statement said the cyclist was ranting and raving about how the pedestrian and the cars had got in his way, and was livid that the police didn't release him as the innocent party. Utterly bewildering that a tiny minority of cyclists think that they have priority over everyone else on the road, and give the vast majority a bad name. I never heard how it ended, but I presume he was convicted - hard to see how he could not be in the circumstances and with so many witnesses. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 02/08/2013 18:58, Max Demian wrote:
My understanding is that jaywalking refers to reckless crossing of the road by a pedestrian, and wouldn't apply to crossing against a red man if there is no traffic in sight. It seems to in Ontario http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-1990-c-h8.html |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:51:14 +0100, JNugent wrote:
snip Cyclists, on the same "had", are also only permitted to move through a green light if the way is clear. Aren't they? Are you sure? I see so many cyclists doing otherwise, that I think you may not be correct on this one. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:48:42 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:40:29 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote: 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). Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing? Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which any response to your question would hang. Pelicon, he http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8 http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL Supplementary question(s): 1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision occurred? Choose from: (a) Yes (b) No (c) I don't know. 2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)? Choose from: (a) Yes (b) No (c) I don't know. c, c. Well what a surprise. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 17:12:02 +0100, "NY" wrote:
snip Utterly bewildering that a tiny minority of cyclists think that they have priority over everyone else on the road, and give the vast majority a bad name. Spot on Porky Chapman, Anchor Lee, Tom Crispin, Justipoo's, Numb Nuts Mason .............. The list goes on, and on, and ......... |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
"Judith" wrote in message
... On Fri, 2 Aug 2013 17:12:02 +0100, "NY" wrote: snip Utterly bewildering that a tiny minority of cyclists think that they have priority over everyone else on the road, and give the vast majority a bad name. Spot on Porky Chapman, Anchor Lee, Tom Crispin, Justipoo's, Numb Nuts Mason ............. The list goes on, and on, and ......... It was scary to watch the 5th (last) episode of Route Masters (about London's roads) on BBC1 a couple of weeks ago and see how cyclists seem to think that the road laws should treat them differently from engine-powered vehicles. Cyclists were weaving in and out of other traffic, overtaking first one one side then on the other, right in front of the eyes of police officers, and only the worst offenders were even mentioned, never mind stopped, instead of staying in the bus/bike lane (where they are relatively safe because cars must not use it). Maybe I'm weird in that I will not do anything as a cyclist which would get me prosecuted if I did it as a car driver. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 22:02:23 +0100, Judith
wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 19:48:42 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:40:29 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 02/08/2013 16:08, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:54:20 +0100, JNugent wrote: On 02/08/2013 11:12, Bertie Wooster wrote: 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). Was it a pelicon, or a zebra, crossing? Please be pinpoint clear in your answer (one patent possibility being that you don't know the answer, which need not be your fault) and be aware that I may have a supplementary question upon the answer to which any response to your question would hang. Pelicon, he http://goo.gl/maps/bMJI8 http://goo.gl/maps/1XfpP http://goo.gl/maps/CPhwL Supplementary question(s): 1. Was the light red for the carriageway traffic when the collision occurred? Choose from: (a) Yes (b) No (c) I don't know. 2. If the answer to (1) is (b), could the cyclist nevertheless has avoided huitting and injuring the pedestrian using the crossing (whether the pedestrian was using the crossing properly or not)? Choose from: (a) Yes (b) No (c) I don't know. c, c. Well what a surprise. It shouldn't be... I'd already said as much. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
"JNugent" wrote in message
... 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. Can you give the Highway Code reference (page number, etc) for that, please? Well it must be against some law to run someone over deliberately. -- Max Demian |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Routemasters (again)
On 02/08/2013 23:16, Max Demian wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message ... 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. Can you give the Highway Code reference (page number, etc) for that, please? Well it must be against some law to run someone over deliberately. I was referring to Lee LJ's claim that there are three traffic light phases ("stop / stop / stop / give way" as he put it). Your unhelpful snip has disguised that fact. Have *you* any idea of the HC reference for his claim? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|