A Reason for H*lm*t Use?

JLB

Paul Rudin wrote:
> "Tony W" <tonyremove@chapmore.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>"Paul Rudin" <paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:87hdlmx2zx.fsf@rudin.co.uk...
>>
>>>>No, a reason for Mrs Green to challenge the insurance company's
>>>>decision.
>>>
>>>.. although the courts are required to take into account failure to
>>>observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing helmets).
>>
>>Rule 45 says 'should' not must or shall.
>
>
> Yeah - well I don't really know what were supposed to make of these
> nuances of language. Take for example the difference in language
> between rule 47 - "Use cycle routes when practicable" - and rule 49 -
> "Keep within the [cycle] lane wherever possible."

Having some experience with this sort of thing, I'd say it's something
of a lawyers playground, although the HC is not law, so it need not be
interpreted too pedantically.

The difference between "must" and "should" is obvious and I won't labour it.

The difference between "practicable" and "possible" is more subtle. The
former is concerned with what can be practiced; the latter is anything
that is not impossible. There is certainly a large overlap, but I would
generally expect what is possible to go further than what is
practicable. YMMV and in the end, if there was a dispute about the full
legal significance, it would be up to a court to decide the issue.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:11:54 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
<notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote this:-

>> Is it their job to cause more grief to the family of the victim?
>
>What a stupid question.

Excellent.

>Of course not, they just send out the standard
>'let's try to wriggle out of paying compensation' letter. Grief just
>doesn't come into the equation for the company involved.

Organisations that try to evade the broader consequences of their
actions tend to find that the most important court is the court of
public opinion. Several railway companies have found this out, as
have Monsanto and McDonald's.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:11:54 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
<notcheckedever@hotmail.com> wrote this:-

>> Is it their job to cause more grief to the family of the victim?
>
>What a stupid question.

Excellent.

>Of course not, they just send out the standard
>'let's try to wriggle out of paying compensation' letter. Grief just
>doesn't come into the equation for the company involved.

Organisations that try to evade the broader consequences of their
actions tend to find that the most important court is the court of
public opinion. Several railway companies have found this out, as
have Monsanto and McDonald's.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:22:31 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
<d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote this:-

>As there are no regulations stating which form of cycle helmet (if any) must
>be worn, rule 45 is somewhat moot (or, scarily, ahead of it's time).

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml#61

>>45. Clothing. You should wear
>>
>>* a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations

It is perhaps amusing that the road lobby when they write the
Highway Code are so ignorant that they put such nonsense in their
publication. As you say, it might be scary.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:18:30 GMT someone who may be Paul Rudin
<paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-

>The highway code uses the term "must" when refering to legal
>requirements. There is no legal requirement to wear a cycle helmet (as
>I think everyone hereabouts knows), but rule 45 of the highway code
>tells you to wear one.

Incorrect.

It says that you should wear one which conforms to current
regulations. As there are no current regulations this "rule" is
rather hard to follow, even if one was inclined to do so.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

JLB

Mark Thompson wrote:
>>[1] A point hammered home rather well in recent documentary film "The
>>Corporation", leading to the conclusion that a company / corporation is
>>inevitably driven by the rules to act as a psychopath, no matter how
>>individually decent its directors might be.
>
>
> I'm wondering if the problem is inflated shareprices making the dividends
> too low to justify the price. To prevent a collapse in shareprices the
> company must justify the higher price by promising increases in profits
> year on year. It is this drive for higher and higher profits that leads to
> the "psychopathic" behaviour - costs slashed and growth sought whatever the
> impact on stakeholders.

In the argument put forward in the film, there is no need to put
quotation marks around psychopath: a qualified psychiatrist using the
accepted professional definition of this condition can look at the
behaviour of a corporation (which is, legally, a person, with legal
rights and responsibilities) and diagnose that it is psychopathic.
>
> Does a company get any benefit from people buying shares from existing
> holders and selling them on when they've risen in price?

So long as the shareholders have made money, the effect on the company
is at best secondary. A lot of people don't think this unrelenting
emphasis on short term results helps the company itself, its employees
or the community (others would argue it's the essence of capitalism and
all for the best), but the directors have little choice. It would be
improper for them to put other interests first. Also, if they followed a
path that (even if only temporarily) suppressed the share price, it
would be an open door to others to buy the company cheap, change course
for short term maximum share price and take the profit.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:33:40 +0000 someone who may be JLB
<JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>The difference between "practicable" and "possible" is more subtle. The
>former is concerned with what can be practiced; the latter is anything
>that is not impossible. There is certainly a large overlap, but I would
>generally expect what is possible to go further than what is
>practicable.

There is a difference. However, if it is not possible to do
something in reasonable safety then it is undoubtedly impractical.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

pk

David Hansen wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2005 01:28:23 -0800 someone who may be
> hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote this:-
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3tnqo
>
> I also noted this:
>
> "Peter Green, 59, died from head injuries after he was in collision
> with a Ford Sierra at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett Road in
> Cheltenham in April.
>
> "The driver of the car, Anthony Leach, was fined £200 for careless
> driving in November."
>
> So, even though the motorist was actually fined for not driving
> properly the "newspaper" implies that the cycle crashed into the
> car.

To my reading the newspaper text is neutral, not implying one way or the
other who hit whom. Whether it should have been more specific is another
issue, but "in collision with" does not read as "crashed into".#

pk

JLB

dkahn400 wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>>Paul Rudin Wrote:
>>
>>>... although the courts are required to take into account
>>>failure to observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing
>>>helmets). The question is whether such failure makes any
>>>difference to the outcome on a case by case basis.
>>
>>Would you care to point out which section of the highway code
>>states that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a
>>helmet?
>
>
> There isn't one of course. But as I'm sure you are aware there is a
> rule (45) that states that you /should/ wear "a cycle helmet which
> conforms to current regulations".
>
> I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.
>
The introduction to the HC goes some way to explaining the legal status
of the HC rules.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/index.shtml

(thanks to David Hansen for pointing out this url)

What this amounts to is that where it is alleged somebody has not
complied with some relevant law/regulation, the HC can be cited to show
what they should have been doing. Where it is restating an absolute
legal requirement, it says "must" and cites the particular regulation.
This still does not make the HC into law. In the event of any
discrepancy between the HC and an actual regulation, it is the
regulation that counts.

As it goes on to claim this is all in the interests of preventing deaths
and injuries, it is easy to see why insurance companies think failure to
follow the HC is something to be taken into account when road users are
injured .

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB

dkahn400 wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>>Paul Rudin Wrote:
>>
>>>... although the courts are required to take into account
>>>failure to observe the HC (and it has a rule for wearing
>>>helmets). The question is whether such failure makes any
>>>difference to the outcome on a case by case basis.
>>
>>Would you care to point out which section of the highway code
>>states that pedal cyclists (i.e. not motorcyclists) must wear a
>>helmet?
>
>
> There isn't one of course. But as I'm sure you are aware there is a
> rule (45) that states that you /should/ wear "a cycle helmet which
> conforms to current regulations".
>
> I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.
>
The introduction to the HC goes some way to explaining the legal status
of the HC rules.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/index.shtml

(thanks to David Hansen for pointing out this url)

What this amounts to is that where it is alleged somebody has not
complied with some relevant law/regulation, the HC can be cited to show
what they should have been doing. Where it is restating an absolute
legal requirement, it says "must" and cites the particular regulation.
This still does not make the HC into law. In the event of any
discrepancy between the HC and an actual regulation, it is the
regulation that counts.

As it goes on to claim this is all in the interests of preventing deaths
and injuries, it is easy to see why insurance companies think failure to
follow the HC is something to be taken into account when road users are
injured .

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Richard

Al C-F wrote:
>>I'm not aware of any case law where the prospect of alternative injuries
>>was raised (as per your argument above), which seems curious to say the
>>least.

> Sorry, what is curious? My argument or that the prospect of
> alternative injuries has not been raised?

The latter. :-)

R.

Tony Raven

dkahn400 wrote:
>
> I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
> like not observing the HC to me. We'll have to ask one of our resident
> lawyers how a court would be likely to interpret it.

I think the answer is in the article and good on the newspaper for
publishing the CTC and John Franklin comments about it. No UK Court has
found in favour of the insurance company in such cases.

Tony

JLB

David Hansen wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2005 07:47:08 -0800 someone who may be "dkahn400"
> <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>
>>I happen to think it's misguided, but not wearing one certainly looks
>>like not observing the HC to me.
>
>
> Take a look at Rules 61 and 62.
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml#61
>
> How can one observe both of them?
>
>
Rule 62 is a good example of a rule that is not a rule as normally
understood. It is advice or guidance for people that choose to keep left
or walking on a roundabout because "you may feel safer". It is not even
suggesting it is a good idea to keep left on a roundabout. It points out
some problems with keeping left, and what you might do about it.

You can observe both 61 and 62 by following the procedure recommended in
61 and deciding that keeping left or walking, as discussed in 62, does
not suit you.

If you choose to walk or keep left as set out (but not recommended) in
62, you will not be following the "correct procedure". However, this is
not of itself a failure to comply with any law or regulation. If there
was an accident while you did this, your position would be weak in any
consequent legal action, particularly if you had not followed the
specific advice in 62 so far as it is relevant.

This part of the HC looks to me like a good example of the rather
confused output that tends to emerge from committees given the job of
writing such things. One faction argues for a single "rule" for all
vehicles. Another faction wants exceptions, such as the 62 "rule" for
the very timid. In the end a compromise results, although it is not
satisfactory to either party. (I'm currently engaged in a similar
exercise. Blocking dissenting factions is taking a fair amount of my
time, but it's the only way we will get a simple, coherent and useful
result. Damn all committees.)

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:24:14 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "pk"
<spam.trap100@btinternet.com> wrote this:-

>To my reading the newspaper text is neutral,

That my be your reading, but it is not one I would agree with.

Neutral text would say something like, "Peter Green, 59, died after
a collision between his bike and a car...". The text in the
newspaper is anything but neutral.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.