Car Passenger Knocks of Cyclist - An Answer

On 13 Aug, 13:40, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug, wrote:
On 13 Aug, 10:47, " wrote:

It is a statutory defence to have good reason or legal authority.
(subsection 4)

Yes there are statutrory defences, there are also questions about
whether statutory defences are, in fact, acceptable legal
requirements under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European
Convention on Human Rights. But let's not go there as we will be
getting into reasonably deep legal theory - we can just say, it is
an offence, you could be arrested and charged, you could go to
court and unless you had a reasonable defence, statutory or
otherwise, you would be found guilty under normal circumstances.

Ergo, if you _do_ have a good defence you will _not_ be found guilty
and it is therefore _not_ necessarily an offence to have a folding
knife with a locking blade in a public place. (Assuming the justice
system works as it should, which is of course rather a large
assumption.)

It's depressing that a policeman assumes, when discussing a
circumstance that may be legal or may be illegal, that it is normal
for the 'suspect' to be acting illegally rather than legally.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|


As your original post was in the manner of a generality, as I took it,
I felt it important to inform yourself and others that a lock knife
was not generally acceptable and that it had been established by case
law that a lock knife did not fall into the same category as a
normally folding pen knife. I made no assumptions as to your purpose
in having one merely the generality of having one about ones person.
Given the current publicity about knife crime any misconception that
one might slip one into ones pocket could have led to a situation that
might have been avoided with that information.

I had not considered you a suspect

Sniper8052

On Aug 13, 1:40 pm, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug, wrote:
On 13 Aug, 10:47, " wrote:

It is a statutory defence to have good reason or legal authority.
(subsection 4)

Yes there are statutrory defences, there are also questions about
whether statutory defences are, in fact, acceptable legal
requirements under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European
Convention on Human Rights. But let's not go there as we will be
getting into reasonably deep legal theory - we can just say, it is
an offence, you could be arrested and charged, you could go to
court and unless you had a reasonable defence, statutory or
otherwise, you would be found guilty under normal circumstances.

Ergo, if you _do_ have a good defence you will _not_ be found guilty
and it is therefore _not_ necessarily an offence to have a folding
knife with a locking blade in a public place. (Assuming the justice
system works as it should, which is of course rather a large
assumption.)

I'm not sure it's as simple as that on a purely technical basis.

Carrying a knife (of a proscribed type) is a strict liability offence.
The only requirements for the prosecution to prove is that the knife
was of a prohibited type and carried in a public place.

It is necessary for the defence to assert and prove (on the balance of
probability?) that a statutory defence applies.

So I think both sides are correct. Carrying a locking knife in public
is an offence unless the defendant can assert and prove a defence
(statutory or otherwise) but the defendant cannot rely on a
presumption of innocence.

Tim.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "
said in
:

Dog/bone/boxer (work it out)

I'm not sure she ever will, because she also said:

I would also doubt how "clued" someone was who said:
I encourage my children to wear helmets...
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads.

I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. In fact, I have several times most
explicitly /not/ said that. It is her inference from some pictures,
but I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets
ad have repeatedly pointed out that it is neither relevant (appeal
to authority fallacy) nor any of her business. Yet she continues to
repeat the false assertion, and use the false assertion to attempt
to undermine my credibility. That is simply trolling.

If judith wants to challenge me to a head to head on depth of
knowledge of helmets then she will need to do some background
reading before she has much of a chance. This list is slightly out
of date now, but encompasses the papers in my library about 6 months
ago IIRC: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Helmet_evidence

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:11:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "
said in
:

Dog/bone/boxer (work it out)

I'm not sure she ever will, because she also said:

I would also doubt how "clued" someone was who said:
I encourage my children to wear helmets...
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads.

I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets


well here we go:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...s?OpenDocument

On that page

Under the heading of "My position"

First paragraph :

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."


Any comments - perhaps an apology for calling me a liar?

(Have you found the "snide comments" I made about the author of
Cyclecraft yet - or is that another lie about me you are continuing to
perpetuate with no evidence?)


--
I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.

Oh dear Guy! What a daft thing to do! you do so in those exact words on your
web site, text and link follow:


http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...ts/why-helmets
My position
All in all I would say that the evidence in favour of helmets is equivocal.
There are many other things which seem to me to be much more likely to
result in genuine improvements in cyclist safety, but all these are lost
behind the fog of statistics and fearmongering thrown up by the helmet
promoters. It is surely significant that the leading helmet promoter in the
UK is overweight and admits to not being a regular cyclist; not one single
cycling body in the UK was prepared to back a recent Bill compelling helmet
use by children, and that includes the trade body whose members profit from
selling them. For myself, sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't. I
encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of injuries the
helmet might prevent. Most important, I tell them that the helmet is not a
magic talisman: if you want to live it's your own skill and vigilance which
will save your life, not a piece of polystyrene.

pk

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:48:01 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

Alex Heney considered Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:13:01
+0100 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:04:35 +0100, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

allan tracy considered Mon, 11 Aug 2008
08:18:44 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:


Err… could someone please explain to me why there’s an assumption of
blame here on anyone associated with the car.

Last I checked, overtaking on the inside isn’t allowed and that
includes cyclists.

I once saw a moped move up the inside of a stationary queue of cars
(traffic lights) only to go flying as a nearside car passenger opened
his door. A nearby policeman booked the unhurt moped driver much to
his surprise and great annoyance.

Presumably, the car driver was then able to claim against the moped
driver's insurance as well.

I bet that copper's sergeant gave him hell back at the nick.
See highway code for details, but I'd think it far more likely that
the moped rider was able to claim from the driver's insurance for the
damage to the moped.
Maybe also from the copper for the wrongful booking.
It's perfectly legal for ANY vehicle to pass stationary vehicles on
the left, and perfectly ILlegal to open a door in such a way as to
endanger other people.
Of couse, the moped rider may not have the benefit of decent legal
advice, and if he pleaded guilty he may even be one of the deluded
souls on here that keeps maintaining that filtering is illegal.

I imagine he was booked for driving without due care and attention.

While there is certainly no specific offence regarding overtaking on
the left, in any situation where there is an accident involving
somebody doing so, there will be a strong presumption of fault on them
unless there is *good* evidence otherwise.

Like maybe the fact that it would have been perfectly safe if another
person had not committed a specific offence?

And if a copper sees it, and thinks it was not safe, he is perfectly
entitled to book somebody for doing it.

He is also perfectly entitled to stand on one leg, spinning around,
and shoving his truncheon up one nostril - that doesn't make it any
more sensible.
When the copper had a specific offence that he could have booked for,
but instead choose to harrass the victim, he is only worthy of
contempt.

So to say it is "perfectly legal" is somewhat misleading.

But completely accurate


Did you intentionally snip uk.legal so that Alex wouldn't see your
response?

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets.
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:48:01 +0100, Phil W Lee phil wrote:

When the copper had a specific offence that he could have booked
for, but instead choose to harrass the victim, he is only worthy of
contempt.

But not unheard of - witness Daniel Cadden - cyclist cycling legally,
cars going past breaking the law, so the police first instruct the
cyclist to do something illegal, and then when he declines, arrest
him. The first judge [1] agrees with the police, and it's only at
appeal that sanity prevails.

[1] a district judge, so a-judge-formerly-known-as-a-magistrate, and
possibly the nation's barmiest at that, having previously locked up a
greengrocer for selling bananas wrongly and let off a policeman
driving at 160mph just to familiarise himself with the car.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

judith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:11:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "
said in
:

Dog/bone/boxer (work it out)
I'm not sure she ever will, because she also said:

I would also doubt how "clued" someone was who said:
I encourage my children to wear helmets...
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets


well here we go:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...s?OpenDocument

On that page

Under the heading of "My position"

First paragraph :

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."


Any comments - perhaps an apology for calling me a liar?

(Have you found the "snide comments" I made about the author of
Cyclecraft yet - or is that another lie about me you are continuing to
perpetuate with no evidence?)


--
I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)



Well you just could not make it up could you?

Guy will no doubt tell us that her latest sig. is a lie.

And what's these snide comments? - I think we should be told.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:11:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:28:26 -0700 (PDT), "
said in
:

Dog/bone/boxer (work it out)

I'm not sure she ever will, because she also said:

I would also doubt how "clued" someone was who said:
I encourage my children to wear helmets...
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads.

I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets


well here we go:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080...s?OpenDocument

On that page

Under the heading of "My position"

First paragraph :

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."


Any comments - perhaps an apology for calling me a liar?

(Have you found the "snide comments" I made about the author of
Cyclecraft yet - or is that another lie about me you are continuing to
perpetuate with no evidence?)


--
I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)



Well - you told her to do the research, and read the literature.

It looks like she did ;-)

On Aug 13, 5:58 pm, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk
wrote:
Peter Grange considered Tue, 12 Aug 2008
18:43:01 GMT the perfect time to write:

On 12 Aug 2008 18:26:00 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

I've seen statements by police spokesman that it's illegal to carry a
folding knife with a locking blade).

Is it not? My understanding was that the law was intended to outlaw
StanleyKnife type devices, but the definition of locking blades
accidentally encompassed any blade which can be locked out, eg the
Opinel folding knife.

IIRC, it's only illegal if it can be operated one-handed, OR has a
blade longer than 100mm (used to be 4").
So, for instance, a Leatherman tool is ok, despite that fact that it
locks, because you need both hands to open it, whereas a stanley knife
isn't, because you don't.

It actually makes considerable sense, as it prevents carrying of a
knife which could be used as a surprise weapon - by the time an
assailant had unfolded a Leatherman, the other party is likely to have
escaped or had a chance to stop them, whereas a stanley could be
grabbed from a pocket and used instantly, with no chance for the
victim to react.

Don't think so. It applies to all articles with a blade or a sharp
point except folding pocket knives with a blade of less than three
inches.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...t11-pb3-l1g139

But I don't know where there's a strict definition of folding pocket
knife.

It's interesting that this would apply to sewing pins and needles,
safety pins etc whatever the size. "Just in case I need it" would be
an interesting defence and I can't see why, in theory, if such a
defence is allowed it shouldn't also apply to a walker carrying an
axe. After all, it's perfectly legal to clear an obstruction across a
footpath if you happen to be carrying the tools to do it, but IIRC,
it's an offence to go home and fetch the tools to do it.

I also don't see why it wouldn't apply to a sharpened pencil.

Tim.