A Reason for H*lm*t Use?

David Hansen

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:31:34 +0000 someone who may be Richard
<richard@nomail.nospam.thanks> wrote this:-

>But it would also be *practical* of me to do so (as a method
>of committing suicide), which was my point.

You might have difficulty in getting the authors of the Highway Code
to accept that their document covers suicide. Feel free to try
though.


--
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 Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:07:56 GMT someone who may be Paul Rudin
<paul.rudin@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-

>The HC is written with a
>lot less precision than legislation,

Have you read RIP? It is not in the least precise and it is not
unusual for "laws" concocted in the past few decades.


--
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:
>> 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.

> 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.


Well - I would say that the "may" specfically relates to the ability
of the parties to the litigation to rely on HC violations. It doesn't
give licence to the court to ignore such violations.

Richard

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:31:34 +0000 someone who may be Richard
> <richard@nomail.nospam.thanks> wrote this:-
>
>
>>But it would also be *practical* of me to do so (as a method
>>of committing suicide), which was my point.
>
>
> You might have difficulty in getting the authors of the Highway Code
> to accept that their document covers suicide. Feel free to try
> though.

You just can't admit that your assertion (that all activities that are
"practical" must also be "safe") is wrong, can you?

R.

JLB

Paul Rudin wrote:
> JLB <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>
> Well - I would say that the "may" specfically relates to the ability
> of the parties to the litigation to rely on HC violations. It doesn't
> give licence to the court to ignore such violations.

Okay. I was saying the HC need not be introduced in the first place;
that was my use of "ignored". Once somebody does introduce the HC it
cannot be rejected as irrelevant or whatever; that seems to be your use
of "ignored", and I agree with that.

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

dkahn400

David Hansen wrote:

> You might have difficulty in getting the authors of the Highway Code
> to accept that their document covers suicide. Feel free to try
> though.

Well, it does insist that we ride in the cycle lane wherever possible.
That comes close.

--
Dave...

David Hansen

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:39:10 +0000 someone who may be Richard
<richard@nomail.nospam.thanks> wrote this:-

>You just can't admit that your assertion (that all activities that are
>"practical" must also be "safe") is wrong, can you?

Nice try. However, your trying to take the discussion out of the
context of the Highway Code will not get you very far. As I said,
suicide is not something the authors of the Highway Code will accept
their wording covers.


--
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 14 Jan 2005 00:59:34 -0800 someone who may be "dkahn400"
<dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-

>> You might have difficulty in getting the authors of the Highway Code
>> to accept that their document covers suicide. Feel free to try
>> though.
>
>Well, it does insist that we ride in the cycle lane wherever possible.
>That comes close.

I doubt if the authors would agree.


--
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.

Tony Raven

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?
>

You might have to if JLB were correct but he is not.

Tony

JLB

Tony Raven wrote:
> 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?
>>
>
> You might have to if JLB were correct but he is not.

To clarify what my poorly expressed line about director's duties was
trying to say, go to the draft Companies Bill, section 17, Annex C,
parts 1 and 2 at

http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/final_report/anx_c.pdf

This is part of an attempt by the DTI to cut through the accumulated
common law of centuries and replace it with something that might be
understood by the majority of directors and presumably anyone else. It
was presented as a report of a mere 525 or so pages in two volumes in
June 2001.

Here the DTI summarises what has happened since, though it looks a bit
out of date.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/review.htm



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

Tony Raven

JLB wrote:
>
> To clarify what my poorly expressed line about director's duties was
> trying to say, go to the draft Companies Bill, section 17, Annex C,
> parts 1 and 2 at
>
> http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/final_report/anx_c.pdf
>
> This is part of an attempt by the DTI to cut through the accumulated
> common law of centuries and replace it with something that might be
> understood by the majority of directors and presumably anyone else. It
> was presented as a report of a mere 525 or so pages in two volumes in
> June 2001.
>
> Here the DTI summarises what has happened since, though it looks a bit
> out of date.
> http://www.dti.gov.uk/cld/review.htm
>

Apart from the fact that we work under the Companies Act 1985, where in
the link you posted does it say that Directors must always act in the
financial interests of the shareholders?


Tony

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 12 Jan 2005 01:28:23 -0800, hyweljenkins@hotmail.com wrote in
message <1105522103.904335.54630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:

>"Gill Green's life fell apart when her husband was killed in a road
>accident as he cycled to work. Now she has been told her payout from
>the insurance company may be cut - because her husband wasn't wearing a
>cycle helmet."

I believe the Cyclists' Defence Fund may be taking this up, but
haven't heard in detail yet. You may be interested in Julian
Fulbrook's take on contributory negligence and helmets; send email if
you want a copy. Essentially there is a convention on contributory
negligence and safety aids which was established in relation to seat
belts pre-compulsion; many insurers apply an automatic 25% reduction
when the rider is not wearing a plastic hat. Fulbrook (one of CTC's
lawyers) agues that it is wrong to use this formula as it does not
apply to this case, but as usual there are more people who are
uninformed than who are informed.

The letters I have seen discussed from the insurers are of the very
worst kind - you would think it was up to the victim to prove that the
convicted careless driver was at fault, rather than the other way
around! The burden of proof undoubtedly lies with the insurers, and
all they are doing here is trying to get the widow to settle for a
reduced payout to avoid litigation. As I say, the CDF may well take
this one up - I hope so.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales