Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 02:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 08:38 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
OK so as both I and the article suggest, we DO need a specific offence then? (Or probably more sensibly, the maximum penalty for the existing offence needs to be increased for the (mercifully) extremely rare occurences when it results in death or serious injury)? It's no good having a "points" offence because it might not be the driver that does it. It's all very well saying the driver is responsible for what happens in his or her car, and for minors in the car, I have some sympathy with that argument) but considering the driver can't be responsible for (say) seat belt wearing by other adult passengers, why should this be any different?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 08:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
botach wrote:
I and a lot of other motorists


Have you never ridden a bike? If you have, you're a motorist and a cyclist, just like me.

In fact, you're a human being just like me.

Let's leave it at that shall we and not try and further divide us to create conflict, which you appear to be trying to do.

There is no single "cyclist" group or "motorist" group, it's verging on paranoia to suggest there is.


That's a good sentiment - but one that's incompatible with a desire to automatically presume fault on the part of one group or road users (or "humans") when involved in an accident with another group of road users, is it not?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 09:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
That's a good sentiment - but one that's incompatible with a desire to automatically presume fault on the part of one group or road users (or "humans") when involved in an accident with another group of road users, is it not?


I support this strongly, and I drive.

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_co ... liability/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 09:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Mole wrote:
OK so as both I and the article suggest, we DO need a specific offence then



I'm not so sure as I'm not sure I agree with the jury's decision.


Mole wrote:
It's no good having a "points" offence because it might not be the driver that does it. It's all very well saying the driver is responsible for what happens in his or her car, and for minors in the car, I have some sympathy with that argument) but considering the driver can't be responsible for (say) seat belt wearing by other adult passengers, why should this be any different?


This isn't all on the driver, if a passenger opens a door and breaks the law it's them that's liable, not the driver, although this would be interesting in the case of a minor as you say as they can't break the law really.

I've not suggested points on the drivers license.

Although when I drive I do take responsibility to tell passengers to be careful when getting out, and look out for them, I feel it's my duty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 13:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Mole wrote:
That's a good sentiment - but one that's incompatible with a desire to automatically presume fault on the part of one group or road users (or "humans") when involved in an accident with another group of road users, is it not?


I support this strongly, and I drive.

http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_co ... liability/


I don't, and I ride.

Still, good to see at least a degree of back-pedalling from the previous, more extreme position.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 08:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
Mole wrote:
It's a fair point. He WASN'T driving. OK, he was the drivER and HAD BEEN driving, but wasn't at the time of the offence. Even if that one COULD have been argued, what about the case of a 4 door car where a rear seat passenger opens the offside rear door?

No reason for the same law not to apply to (adult) passengers as the the man in the driving seat

Quote:
f it's going to be made an automatic offence (and I'm not sure that's a good idea, because there is a degree of subjectivity in the interpretation of whether or not you "endanger" someone vs. whether that "someone" contributed to it by (say) not being adequately visible or ravelling at too high a speed), then it would need to apply to any user of a car door and not just the driver.


Opening a nearside door in the path of a cyclist riding on the pavement would be an interesting case :-)


Cyclists, in general, shouldn't be riding on the pavement. Well that's always been my view, but things change of course, and now it seems to be generally accepted.

Quite frankly I still don't like it, although I do feel it's probably best if young children ride on the pavement, but they ought to keep the speed down and give priority to pedestrians. Based on what I've observed the principal offenders with bikes on pavements are unruly adults.

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: HC RULE 67
PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 02:02 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
weepej wrote:
Although when I drive I do take responsibility to tell passengers to be careful when getting out, and look out for them, I feel it's my duty.

And that is likely because you have taken a driver's exam and read the Highway Code. A passenger may not have ever done so, so they cannot be expected to know of the 'rules' and nor the breaking thereof. And hence you tried to guide and advise accordingly.
So if you advise them so, might that then make you then responsible, should an incident occur?
(I'm thinking of the rules about if a driver beckons a ped to cross the road and then gets hit, that driver is then said to be responsible.)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.234s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]