Paul Rudin wrote:
> Art <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On 18 Dec 2006 22:25:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Art wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:19:52 +0000, Don Whybrow
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Art wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As road users, cyclists have as much responsibility to know the
> >>> >> Highway Code as car drivers.
> >>> >
> >>> >Since the HC also covers pedestrians, lets make everyone pass a test
> >>> >before they can leave their house.
> >>>
> >>> Pedestrians don't ride/drive.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you should see Rules for Pedestrians:
> >>
> >>http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/pedestrians.htm
> >
> > When was the last time a pedestrian was arrested/fined/imprisoned for
> > violating the Highway Code?
>
> Nobody can be arrested or fined or imprisoned simply for violating the
> highway code. It's rules don't have the force of law. Some of it's
> rules make reference to laws... but that's another matter. From the
> HC:
>
>
> "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will
> not, it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted The Highway Code may
> be used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to
> establish liability."
That quote is not quite in context, you need to include the preceding
paragraph.
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be
fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from
driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such
rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In
addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation
which creates the offence."
The "other rules" from your quotation are those rules in the highway
code that don't use either "MUST" or "MUST NOT", and it is those that
are not going to automatically lead to prosecution, in the other cases
they are legal requirements.