A Reason for H*lm*t Use?

David Hansen

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:09:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Richard
<richard@percival.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-

>> There is a difference. However, if it is not possible to do
>> something in reasonable safety then it is undoubtedly impractical.
>
>Rubbish. It's perfectly practical for me to fling myself off the top
>floor of the large building in which I work. Admittedly it's only
>practical to do it once. :-)

It is not possible to fling yourself of the top floor of a large
building in reasonable safety, assuming you are not carrying out a
well planned stunt.


--
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 12 Jan 2005 23:17:40 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote this:-

>"Peter Green, 59, was killed by Anthony Leach when he drove his Ford Sierra
>into him at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett Road in Cheltenham in
>April. He was fined just £200 for careless driving"

You are right. That is a much better way of putting it. Of course
the mass media would never use such wording when a motorist kills an
inferior being.


--
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.

Paul Rudin

JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:

> 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.
>

Yebut, depite the fact that HC rules do not per se have legal force,
the courts are nevertheless required to take into account violations
of the rules of the HC. It surely follows that they must be able to
determine whether such a violation has in fact occured.


This is partly what bothers ne about this. The HC is written with a
lot less precision than legislation, yet it has the quasi-legal
status, where interpretation of its rules might make a material
difference to the outcome of a court case.

dkahn400

David Hansen wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2005 23:17:40 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote this:-
>
> >"Peter Green, 59, was killed by Anthony Leach when he drove his
> > Ford Sierra into him at the junction of Hales Road and Hewlett
> > Road in Cheltenham in April. He was fined just £200 for
> > careless driving"

Ambiguous. It sounds as though Peter Green drove into Leach, who then
killed him. You could say instead "Peter Green, 59, was killed when
Anthony Leach hit him in his Ford Sierra at the junction of Hales Road
and Hewlett Road in Cheltenham in April. Leach was fined £200 for
careless driving." I've left out the word "just" as it's too loaded.
The juxtaposition of the two sentences makes the point by itself.

> You are right. That is a much better way of putting it. Of course
> the mass media would never use such wording when a motorist kills
> an inferior being.

It's tempting simply to delete the original phrase "in collision with"
and insert instead "mown down by".

--
Dave...

Richard

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>>>"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".
>
>
> Well, it does read differently. It's a far uglier construction than the
> latter. Also, it's disingenuous, in that when the construction is reflected
> on it appears neutral, but when it's being read the reader will be very
> likely to form a model of the event that does have the cyclist crashing into
> the car.

It's also possible to have the cyclist crash into the car, but with the
car driver being at fault - eg the car driver pulling out in front of
the cyclist, then stopping dead, and the cyclist being unable to avoid
hitting the car. In which case "cyclist was in collision with the car"
would be perfectly correct, although incomplete in its information.

R.

Richard

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:09:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Richard
> <richard@percival.demon.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>There is a difference. However, if it is not possible to do
>>>something in reasonable safety then it is undoubtedly impractical.
>>
>>Rubbish. It's perfectly practical for me to fling myself off the top
>>floor of the large building in which I work. Admittedly it's only
>>practical to do it once. :-)
>
>
> It is not possible to fling yourself of the top floor of a large
> building in reasonable safety, assuming you are not carrying out a
> well planned stunt.

Correct. But it would also be *practical* of me to do so (as a method
of committing suicide), which was my point. You were asserting that if
it's not safe, it's impractical.

R.

Tony Raven

Paul Rudin wrote:
>
> Yebut, depite the fact that HC rules do not per se have legal force,
> the courts are nevertheless required to take into account violations
> of the rules of the HC. It surely follows that they must be able to
> determine whether such a violation has in fact occured.
>
>

That is the case and the Courts need to decide whether the breach of the
Code, where it is advisory only, led to worse consequences and therefore
an apportionment of responsibility for the consequences on the claimant.
Whenever this has been examined in Court and argued with expert
witness testimony the Courts have never concluded that the lack of a
helmet contributed to the injuries. The strong presumption of the
Courts therefore is that helmets do not reduce head injuries. That is
not to say that one day particular circumstances could be found where a
helmet might have helped.

Given the data around it would be interesting to see a case run for
contributory negligence in wearing a helmet.

Tony

Alan Braggins

In article <cs476d$8c9$1@titan.btinternet.com>, Richard wrote:
>David Hansen wrote:
>>>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.
>
>Rubbish. It's perfectly practical for me to fling myself off the top
>floor of the large building in which I work. Admittedly it's only
>practical to do it once. :-)

"The Discworld Almanak offers this seasonal distillation of wisdom
about wild mushrooms:
1. ALL FUNGI ARE EDIBLE.
2. SOME FUNGI ARE NOT EDIBLE MORE THAN ONCE."

Tony Raven

Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>
> "The Discworld Almanak offers this seasonal distillation of wisdom
> about wild mushrooms:
> 1. ALL FUNGI ARE EDIBLE.
> 2. SOME FUNGI ARE NOT EDIBLE MORE THAN ONCE."

Actually all fungi taste like shit if you try to eat them more than once.

Tony ;-)

Paul Rudin

JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:

> Paul Rudin wrote:
>> JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:
> [snip]
>
>>>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.
>>>
>> Yebut, depite the fact that HC rules do not per se have legal force,
>> the courts are nevertheless required to take into account violations
>> of the rules of the HC. It surely follows that they must be able to
>> determine whether such a violation has in fact occured.
>>
> Just for clarification, as your paragraph is not clear to me: the
> courts are not *required* to take into account any violation of the
> HC.

Well - here's what the relevant piece of legislation (sect 38, para 7
of RTRA 1988) says:

(7) A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the
Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to
criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any
proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including
proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981
c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23
of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any
party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any
liability which is in question in those proceedings.


I don't think this allows for a court can chose ignore a violation of
the HC.


> They choose to do so when the HC is considered by the court to be
> a good guide to what relevant law/regulations require.

See above.

> Neither is anybody ever going to appear in court for any breach of
> the HC.

Agreed.

> Any criminal court appearance will relate to charges under
> some road traffic legislation.

Yes, but were also concened with establish liabilty, or magnitude of
damages in *civil* case.


> The court will be concerned with finding if the alleged breach of
> legislation occurred. The HC can be used to guide the court in
> making its judgement.


>
> However, it is obvious why someone might be confused. The first
> sentence of the HC makes a truly heroic effort to suggest something
> quite different: "Many of the rules in the Code are legal
> requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a
> criminal offence." If one reads on to the end of this paragraph there
> is this: "In addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to
> the legislation which creates the offence". In other words, the
> offence is in the legislation, not the HC.

I think we all know this.

>
> To give an example: a cyclist rides on past a school's "lollipop
> person" who is stood in the road with a "stop children crossing"
> sign. If the authorities chose to prosecute, the summons would allege
> (something along the lines of) the cyclist "... was riding dangerously
> on the road contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 28(2), and
> is therefore guilty of an offence under the Road Traffic Act Section
> 28(1)". To show that what happened was dangerous within the meaning of
> the Act, the prosecution would be very likely to produce the HC and
> quote rule 186, because that saves a lot of work. The court would be
> very likely to accept the prosecution's argument no matter what the
> cyclist said, and that's the end of the case.

The above quoted legislation says that the court has to accept the HC
violation as relevant.


>> This is partly what bothers ne about this. The HC is written with a
>> lot less precision than legislation, yet it has the quasi-legal
>> status, where interpretation of its rules might make a material
>> difference to the outcome of a court case.
>
> This is true. However, it is hard to see how a publication intended to
> guide all road users could be both (a) short and clear (enough) to be
> understood and used by the great majority of the public and (b)
> written with the precision required (and too seldom acheived) by
> legislation.

Legislation tends to be reasonably precise. In the case of the HC a
little less equivocation would help. We know that the rules are not of
themselves legally binding in any case.

>
> If you, or anyone else reading this, has the gift of writing such
> prose, I suggest your country needs you. Stop what you are doing and
> report to the House of Commons as soon as possible. Take on the job
> of rewriting all our legislation and all its associated
> guidance. Whatever salary you want should be paid without
> hesitation. Statues will surely be erected in your honour all over
> the country by subsciptions raised from an eternally grateful
> public. However, beware of members of the legal profession; you will
> make them all redundant.
>

I have an interest in keeping the legal profession in work - I'm
married to a lawyer and hope that she'll soon be able to keep me in
the manner to which I'd like to become accustomed

Zog The Undeniable

David Hansen wrote:

> 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.

In that case, as cyclists, we're all fuX0red!

JLB

Paul Rudin wrote:
> JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Paul Rudin wrote:
>>
>>>JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:

[snip a lot before and after because there's no disagreement and I've
nothing to add]

>>Just for clarification, as your paragraph is not clear to me: the
>>courts are not *required* to take into account any violation of the
>>HC.
>
>
> Well - here's what the relevant piece of legislation (sect 38, para 7
> of RTRA 1988) says:
>
> (7) A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the
> Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to
> criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any
> proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including
> proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the [1981
> c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23
> of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any
> party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any
> liability which is in question in those proceedings.
>
>
> I don't think this allows for a court can chose ignore a violation of
> the HC.
>
>>They choose to do so when the HC is considered by the court to be
>>a good guide to what relevant law/regulations require.
>
> See above.
[snip]
>>To give an example: a cyclist rides on past a school's "lollipop
>>person" who is stood in the road with a "stop children crossing"
>>sign. If the authorities chose to prosecute, the summons would allege
>>(something along the lines of) the cyclist "... was riding dangerously
>>on the road contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 28(2), and
>>is therefore guilty of an offence under the Road Traffic Act Section
>>28(1)". To show that what happened was dangerous within the meaning of
>>the Act, the prosecution would be very likely to produce the HC and
>>quote rule 186, because that saves a lot of work. The court would be
>>very likely to accept the prosecution's argument no matter what the
>>cyclist said, and that's the end of the case.
>
> The above quoted legislation says that the court has to accept the HC
> violation as relevant.
>
Thanks for quoting the relevant legislation. To me, the key word
relating to the (fairly small, if any) difference in our views on this
is "may", in the first sentence. That makes it optional for the court or
anyone else involved in proceedings, to cite the HC. Use of the HC in
proceedings is not mandatory and it can be ignored.

The effect of the quoted legislation is to prevent anyone saying the HC
is irrelevant to such proceedings once it is introduced. In that
circumstance, following or not following the HC will "tend" to establish
who, if anyone, was in the wrong. Therefore, it is still possible for
the court to decide that although a "mandatory" HC rule was breached,
the relevant offence was not committed, and so on. This would, however,
be exceptional.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Tim Woodall

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:04:20 +0000,
JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> private companies, who have an unavoidable legal duty to act at all
> times in the financial interests of their shareholders [1], they do have
>

This is one of those insane rules. If you are self employed and run a
limited company for which you are the sole shareholder, are you allowed
to turn down work that would make you more money for work that you will
enjoy more?

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

JLB

Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:04:20 +0000,
> JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>private companies, who have an unavoidable legal duty to act at all
>>times in the financial interests of their shareholders [1], they do have
>>
>
>
> This is one of those insane rules. If you are self employed and run a
> limited company for which you are the sole shareholder, are you allowed
> to turn down work that would make you more money for work that you will
> enjoy more?

If you did, who would complain that their interests were being neglected?

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