Re: Road Traffic Act Offence

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Quoted message said:

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" <[email hidden]> 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" <[email hidden]> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:38:56 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Sat, Dec 17 2005 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: 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.

Quoted message said:

You're having a laugh!

Now you've spoilt it for EVERYONE!

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Jim Ley said:

On 17 Dec 2005 12:04:43 -0800, [email hidden] 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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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
http:[email hidden]/Stuff

Simon Brooke said:

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.'

Jim Ley said:

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.

Ther courts certainly seem to have sympathy if the victim of a careless
pedestrian is anyone other than a cyclist... To quote from the above
page once again:

'Amy Ratter was riding down the A970 near Lerwick in Scotland at 60 Mph
when 60 year old pedestrian Margaret Halcrow stepped into the road. Amy
Ratter could not avoid hitting Margaret Halcrow and lost control of her
bike, crashing and being knocked unconscious as well as breaking her
forearm and collarbone and dislocating her wrist. Luckily Margaret
Halcrow suffered only minor injuries.

In a court hearing held on 2 December 2005 Ms Ratter said she expected
the pedestrian would stop when she reached the verge and wait until the
bike passed. However, she walked into the road and into the path of the
bike. The judge, Lord Hardie, said: "It was not reasonable for her to
anticipate Ms Halcrow would continue into the path of the motorcycle.
In my opinion, the accident was caused by the sole fault of Ms
Halcrow."

The judge awarded compensation to Ms Ratter against Margaret Halcrow
totalling £184,728, including £13,780 for her pain and suffering and
the value of the bike, with the rest of the damages being awarded to
cover her loss of wages since the accident and in the future.'

Time for compulsory pedestrian insurace perhaps ?

Hywel

(I am only joking just is case anyone thought otherwise)

Time for compulsory pedestrian insurace perhaps?

In countries such as Denmark everyone has to have public liability
insurance, in fact such insurance is a favoured 18th birthday
present...

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

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.

Ther courts certainly seem to have sympathy if the victim of a careless
pedestrian is anyone other than a cyclist... To quote from the above
page once again:

My complaint is his defence, it suggests he had no real defence other
than "I wasn't riding safely enough such that I could deal with
someone else doing something I didn't expect".

If the defence was more along the lines of, I was cycling within the
speed limit well away from the curb took note of the pedestrians
likely to step into the road, reduced my speed slightly and went a
little wider to give even more room, I noted they hadn't looked so had
no expectation that they would step into the road, then when I was
within 2 feet of them, they strode fast into the middle of the road
and I was unable to avoid them"

That's the sort of activity from the cyclist that would, for me, make
it an accident, or the pedestrians fault. The cyclist was riding
safely, the problem with the defence as quoted on the site pretty much
boils down to I was cycling along not a care in the world and someone
jumped out.

Maybe it was just a poorly chosen defence, I certainly don't know
enough to say, but as presented on the site, I don't have all that
much sympathy for the rider.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

That's the sort of activity from the cyclist that would, for me, make
it an accident, or the pedestrians fault. The cyclist was riding
safely, the problem with the defence as quoted on the site pretty much
boils down to I was cycling along not a care in the world and someone
jumped out.

I was out with my daughters yesterday in town and because of the crowded
pavement I was walking alongside them in the gutter. It was a quiet
wide street with no traffic. A cyclist was cycling towards me in the
gutter and, rather than using any of the available road to go round me,
cycled right up to me, stopped and glowered at me until I stepped out of
his way. I was having a good day so I said nothing, stepped to one side
and let it go.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Jim Ley said:

My complaint is his defence, it suggests he had no real defence other
than "I wasn't riding safely enough such that I could deal with
someone else doing something I didn't expect".

I take it that you would agree that if this is true in the case of
cyclists, then it should apply equally to the users of motor vehicles?
For example should not the drivers of motor vehicles also be expected
to drive at a speed which enables them to avoid hitting someone who
does something they don't expect, such as a cyclist making an
un-signalled turn across their path or a child running into the road?

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

My complaint is his defence, it suggests he had no real defence other
than "I wasn't riding safely enough such that I could deal with
someone else doing something I didn't expect".

I take it that you would agree that if this is true in the case of
cyclists, then it should apply equally to the users of motor vehicles?

Absolutely, however I would not have expected that to necessarily have
avoided the accident, it would've just made it an accident or the
fault of the pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

For example should not the drivers of motor vehicles also be expected
to drive at a speed which enables them to avoid hitting someone who
does something they don't expect, such as a cyclist making an
un-signalled turn across their path or a child running into the road?

Certainly I would expect a driver to justify how their driving was
safe, in response to the other 2 actors behaviour, that does not mean
I would expect them to always be able to avoid a collision, just be
able to demonstrate that they made allowances for the situation, not
just blindly cycled along the road asserting they had right of way.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

My complaint is his defence, it suggests he had no real defence other
than "I wasn't riding safely enough such that I could deal with
someone else doing something I didn't expect".

I take it that you would agree that if this is true in the case of
cyclists, then it should apply equally to the users of motor vehicles?

Absolutely, however I would not have expected that to necessarily have
avoided the accident, it would've just made it an accident or the
fault of the pedestrian.

Quoted message said:

For example should not the drivers of motor vehicles also be expected
to drive at a speed which enables them to avoid hitting someone who
does something they don't expect, such as a cyclist making an
un-signalled turn across their path or a child running into the road?

Certainly I would expect a driver to justify how their driving was
safe, in response to the other 2 actors behaviour, that does not mean
I would expect them to always be able to avoid a collision, just be
able to demonstrate that they made allowances for the situation, not
just blindly cycled along the road asserting they had right of way.

As one cannot precisely expect the unexpected and make allowance for
it, then should not all motorists (and cyclists) in inhabited areas
have to drive at a speed that will be non-lethal in the vast majority
of unexpected incidents involving pedestrians? At present they are
allowed to drive at intimidatory speeds, in order to keep the
pedestrians alert. Is the boot on the wrong foot?

Quoted message said:

As one cannot precisely expect the unexpected and make allowance for
it, then should not all motorists (and cyclists) in inhabited areas
have to drive at a speed that will be non-lethal in the vast majority
of unexpected incidents involving pedestrians?

If there are no pedestrians about then such measures are not
reasonable. Certainly a driver driving down a residential street with
lots of parked cars and a high likelyhood of children about should be
driving at a slower speed than a business park with wide open roads.

There's no single rule, it's about making allowances for the
situation.

Jim.

Jim Ley said:

Certainly I would expect a driver to justify how their driving was
safe, in response to the other 2 actors behaviour, that does not mean
I would expect them to always be able to avoid a collision, just be
able to demonstrate that they made allowances for the situation, not
just blindly cycled along the road asserting they had right of way.

Jim.

I think you meant to say:

Certainly I would expect a driver to justify how their driving was
safe, in response to the other 2 actors behaviour, that does not mean I
would expect them to always be able to avoid a collision, just be able
to demonstrate that they made allowances for the situation, not just
blindly DRIVEN along the road asserting they had right of way.

Given the above, would you not agree that making 'allowances for the
situation' includes driving at a non-lethal speed (certainly under 20
Mph) anywhere they are, or may be, cyclists or pedestrians around...

Jim Ley said:

Quoted message said:

As one cannot precisely expect the unexpected and make allowance for
it, then should not all motorists (and cyclists) in inhabited areas
have to drive at a speed that will be non-lethal in the vast majority
of unexpected incidents involving pedestrians?

If there are no pedestrians about then such measures are not
reasonable. Certainly a driver driving down a residential street with
lots of parked cars and a high likelyhood of children about should be
driving at a slower speed than a business park with wide open roads.

There's no single rule, it's about making allowances for the
situation.

I guessed that there would be a get-out clause.