anybody up on their law?

[Melonfish]

Reet, from the discussion about cop's shopping cyclists who are breaking the law in hackney: HERE

I asked whether jumping a red was legal for a cyclist and the answe that comes back is no.

the reason behind this is section 69 states:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

because this is under the section for cyclists we take this to mean that cyclists MUST obay all traffic signs and light signals.

ok i get that, but what about section 59?

59
Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

What makes part of section 59 NOT a legal requirement when section 69 is?

 

[ttcycle]

It's in the language - should and must

law can be grey and open to interpretation due to language but the must is pretty clear to me

 

[gaz]

Perhaps if you full quoted 69 then it would make sense

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.



[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

If there is the bit in brackets at the end then that means there is a law behind it, and it shows you where to look under the RTA or similar to find said law. Rule 59 has no such thing.

Let me also include the following which is stated in the highway code introduction

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. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

 

[Melonfish]

It's in the language - should and must

law can be grey and open to interpretation due to language but the must is pretty clear to me

Ah, i see.
ok yeah, i was clear on the must i think the *should* threw me tho.
heh

as for fully quoting 69, yeah i didn't for a reason, i wanted to see what the legality of the HC was rather then the subsect on RTA88sct36
that specifically states Drivers.
the legal definition of a driver is one who operates motor vehicles and whatnot to include horses and carriages of which cycles are one. (carriage that is)
ta
pete

 

[ttcycle]

Gaz' observation is correct- if parts of the HC are enshrined in legislation then it is a must do.

 

[gaz]

Ah, i see.
ok yeah, i was clear on the must i think the *should* threw me tho.
heh

as for fully quoting 69, yeah i didn't for a reason, i wanted to see what the legality of the HC was rather then the subsect on RTA88sct36
that specifically states Drivers.
the legal definition of a driver is one who operates motor vehicles and whatnot to include horses and carriages of which cycles are one. (carriage that is)
ta
pete

The legal definition of a driver should be one that is in control of a vehicle on the road.

 

[Zoiders]

Mandatory and Advisory.

Even some coppers struggle with that one, various county police services have published public information implying that helmet use is mandatory, the problem with this is that it filters through into the minds of the press and wider public.

This leads to drivers thinking it's OK to abuse cyclists for choosing not to wear hi-viz or a helmet.

 

[Melonfish]

The legal definition of a driver should be one that is in control of a vehicle on the road.

Aye:

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
although the bit about "with horses, mules or other animals" is still dodgy.
like most UK law it all needs a flippin overhaul
cheers, i'm no law student but i find it all wonderfully confuddling.

 

[Zoiders]

Aye:

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
although the bit about "with horses, mules or other animals" is still dodgy.
like most UK law it all needs a flippin overhaul
cheers, i'm no law student but i find it all wonderfully confuddling.

It's not confusing.

To "drive" animals is where the term "driver" comes from in the first place, to compel livestock to move from point A to point B you must drive them, this applies even if they are pulling a carriage and is also where the term "Hackney Carriage Driver" comes from.

You never watched the Rawhide repeats on a sunday morning?

 

[ttcycle]

Aye:

DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
although the bit about "with horses, mules or other animals" is still dodgy.
like most UK law it all needs a flippin overhaul
cheers, i'm no law student but i find it all wonderfully confuddling.

A warning, never read policies or acts/laws passed...

The legalese is shocking and needs distilling for comprehension, that or several readings!

 

[Zoiders]

It's perfectly comprehensible - it also is entirely relevant as last time I checked it's still common to see people driving a horse and trap.

 

[Melonfish]

A warning, never read policies or acts/laws passed...

The legalese is shocking and needs distilling for comprehension, that or several readings!

it makes my head spin, hence the thread! ;D

 

[ttcycle]

HC is not an issue in comparison

 

[Davidc]

Is a horse rider a driver?

 

[Arch]

Is a horse rider a driver?

Yes, of the horse.