Road Traffic Act Offence

On 17 Dec 2005 09:18:39 -0800, "Paulie" wrote:

I had the bad luck of stepping out onto a road and nearly collided with
a police cyclist. Although no collision took place, my details were
taken and I got a "pink" slip saying that I committed an offence under
the road traffic act. Does this mean that I now have a criminal record?

Yes.

Any advice will be appreciated.

Don't step out in front of cyclists again.

Thanks

You're welcome.

I think he was taking the mickey. As far as I know 'jaywalking' is not
an offence in the UK. What's more the UK courts have found that if a
pedestrian steps off the kerb without looking and as a result is in
collision with a cyclist, it is the cyclists who is at fault! Take a
look at the link below and look down to the case of Richard Brady...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html

On 17 Dec 2005 12:04:43 -0800, wrote:

Take a
look at the link below and look down to the case of Richard Brady...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html

| Brady, said: "I was expecting that they would see me and realise it
|was my right of way, as if I was a car. As I continued down the hill
|the person stepped out in front of me at which point I had very
|little time to stop or move out of the way."

It's difficult to have sympathy with someone who's defence is that
they do not know the law and wrongly believe they had right of way
over a pedestrian in the road.

Jim.

Jim Ley wrote:

On 17 Dec 2005 12:04:43 -0800, wrote:

Take a
look at the link below and look down to the case of Richard Brady...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html

| Brady, said: "I was expecting that they would see me and realise it
|was my right of way, as if I was a car. As I continued down the hill
|the person stepped out in front of me at which point I had very
|little time to stop or move out of the way."

It's difficult to have sympathy with someone who's defence is that
they do not know the law and wrongly believe they had right of way
over a pedestrian in the road.

Is the defence solicitor wrong then?

Defence solicitor Harriet Heard said: "This isn't a pedestrian
crossing. It is whether a cyclist would expect to have his right of way
respected. His evidence is that he had every reason to expect Mrs
Tuckett would stop."

Tom Davidson wrote:
|| On 17 Dec 2005 09:18:39 -0800, "Paulie" wrote:

|| Does this mean that I now have a criminal record?
||
|| Yes.

You're having a laugh!

--
Rob

Rob
Dec 17, 8:38 pm show options

Newsgroups: uk.legal, uk.rec.cycling
From: "Rob" - Find messages by
this author
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:38:56 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sat, Dec 17 2005 8:38 pm
Subject: Road Traffic Act Offence
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


Tom Davidson wrote:-
|| Does this mean that I now have a criminal record?
||
|| Yes.


You're having a laugh!

Now you've spoilt it for EVERYONE!

in message .com,
') wrote:


Jim Ley wrote:

On 17 Dec 2005 12:04:43 -0800, wrote:

Take a
look at the link below and look down to the case of Richard Brady...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html

| Brady, said: "I was expecting that they would see me and realise it
|was my right of way, as if I was a car. As I continued down the hill
|the person stepped out in front of me at which point I had very
|little time to stop or move out of the way."

It's difficult to have sympathy with someone who's defence is that
they do not know the law and wrongly believe they had right of way
over a pedestrian in the road.

Is the defence solicitor wrong then?

Defence solicitor Harriet Heard said: "This isn't a pedestrian
crossing. It is whether a cyclist would expect to have his right of way
respected. His evidence is that he had every reason to expect Mrs
Tuckett would stop."

Then the solicitor didn't know the law either. Pedestrians have the right
to pass and repass on the public highway. That's what it's /for/. Riders
of horses, drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, and cyclists are also
allowed to use it, and drivers of motor vehicles, although they have no
right to use it, are tolerated provided they have the necessary licences
and insurance.

But the road is principally there for pedestrians to pass and repass, by
right. So no, you do not have a general right of way over pedestrians on
the road. The boot is, appropriately, on the other foot.

(I think that's all true under English as well as Scots law. In Scotland
a cyclist legally /is/ a pedestrian, following the judgement that 'a
bicycle is an aid to pedestrianism analogous to a walking stick').

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

Simon Brooke wrote:

in message .com,
') wrote:


Jim Ley wrote:


On 17 Dec 2005 12:04:43 -0800, wrote:


Take a
look at the link below and look down to the case of Richard Brady...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html

| Brady, said: "I was expecting that they would see me and realise it
|was my right of way, as if I was a car. As I continued down the hill
|the person stepped out in front of me at which point I had very
|little time to stop or move out of the way."

It's difficult to have sympathy with someone who's defence is that
they do not know the law and wrongly believe they had right of way
over a pedestrian in the road.

Is the defence solicitor wrong then?

Defence solicitor Harriet Heard said: "This isn't a pedestrian
crossing. It is whether a cyclist would expect to have his right of way
respected. His evidence is that he had every reason to expect Mrs
Tuckett would stop."


Then the solicitor didn't know the law either. Pedestrians have the right
to pass and repass on the public highway. That's what it's /for/. Riders
of horses, drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, and cyclists are also
allowed to use it, and drivers of motor vehicles, although they have no
right to use it, are tolerated provided they have the necessary licences
and insurance.

But the road is principally there for pedestrians to pass and repass, by
right. So no, you do not have a general right of way over pedestrians on
the road. The boot is, appropriately, on the other foot.

I think this is all based on a misunderstanding over what is meant by
"right of way". Sure, pedestrians and cyclists have the right to pass
and repass. It doesn't mean they have the right to jump out in front of
other road users, of any type - if they did, zebra crossings would have
little purpose or meaning. "right of way" really means something more
like "priority".

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

"Jim Ley" wrote in message
...
On 17 Dec 2005 12:04:43 -0800, wrote:

Take a
look at the link below and look down to the case of Richard Brady...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/justice.html

| Brady, said: "I was expecting that they would see me and realise it
|was my right of way, as if I was a car. As I continued down the hill
|the person stepped out in front of me at which point I had very
|little time to stop or move out of the way."

It's difficult to have sympathy with someone who's defence is that
they do not know the law and wrongly believe they had right of way
over a pedestrian in the road.

Shirley self preservation should make you treat the ped with extreme
caution.
--
Pete

Simon Brooke wrote:

Pedestrians have the right
to pass and repass on the public highway. That's what it's /for/. Riders
of horses, drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, and cyclists are also
allowed to use it, and drivers of motor vehicles, although they have no
right to use it, are tolerated provided they have the necessary licences
and insurance.

I think what you meant to say was something like:

'Pedestrians, riders of horses, drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, and
cyclists have the right to pass and repass on the public highway.
That's what it's /for/. The drivers of motor vehicles, are also allowed
to use it although they have no right to use it, are tolerated provided
they have the necessary licences and insurance.'