apollo179
Well-Known Member
Is there a legal requirement to do so ?
Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..
- Thread starter Judderz
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No; apollo179; yes
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
You are required to obay the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Thus not knowing the law may result in prosecution. Therefore in a sense yes there is a legal requirement to know the law.
Put another way there is no legal requirement to know the law as long as you don't break it.
Can you cite a reference for the reduced damages bit? If courts have actually done this it's a bit worrying.
Unclejohnsson
Active Member
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Section 1 of the Act provides that where a person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of another person, the damages recoverable by him shall be reduced as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
So damages awarded to a passenger in a car who is injured by the driver’s negligence will be reduced if he fails to wear a seat belt and this contributes to his injury; Denning LJ in Froom v Butcher [1976].
have you got case law for that? I recall that the motivation behind the CTC's successful lobby to have mandatory helmet use removed from the draft Highway Code was the avoidance of contributory negligence claims
Here's the CDF take on it
http://www.cyclistsd...helmets-and-law
Reported cases dealing with cycle helmets are few and far between. Drinkall v Woodhall[2003] EWCA Civ 1547 while dealing with procedure, arose from an issue of whether 20% or higher was an appropriate reduction for contributory negligence against a then 14 year old girl injured while cycling and not wearing a cycle helmet. It should, however, be noted that the Judgment only refers to an 80:20 liability split and the Defendant’s wish to argue for a higher degree of contributory negligence because the claimant had not been wearing a helmet (paragraph 3). It is not clear if the 20% reduction originally agreed was on the basis of the failure to wear a helmet or for other reasons. No further facts of the accident are given. One should therefore be wary of drawing any conclusions on likely awards of contributory negligence from this case.
So, should you or shouldn’t you? Wearing a cycle helmet must remain a matter of personal choice. As a litigator, however, you should not assume that failure to wear a helmet will carry with it a finding of contributory negligence.
Going back to 1999 - http://www.exchangec...linghelmets.htm
suggest that contributory negligence counterclaims would be rejected
although an obiter dicta remark in a later case is worrying, there's no established precedent on helmets as far as I can see
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180
suggest that contributory negligence counterclaims would be rejected
although an obiter dicta remark in a later case is worrying, there's no established precedent on helmets as far as I can see
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180
apollo179
Well-Known Member
Right - im not going to bother picking that mess to pieces.
I will just say that if society has such a problem with this ignorance.
(And at presence there is no legal requirement for a cyclist to do anything before he goes out on his bike.)
Then there should be some legal requirement to ensure that cyclists are knowledgeable to the required degree before they do go out on the road.
Like a highway code test. Like there is for cars.
Until this happens and you just depend on individuals to study the law or not study the law on an arbitary individual basis then dont grumble to me about cyclists being ignorant of the law. It is a straightforward product of the present system , or lack of adequate system.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Or to put it another way you make a choice to be informed or remain ignorant. I know what a person with a modicum of sense would do.
martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
There's no legal requirement for a pedestrian to do anything before they go out but I don't think "But I didn't know it was illegal to break into parked cars because I fancied a new phone" will wash with a court.
You don't need to study the law to know that a red light means stop. If you then want to be certain about whether or not it applies to cyclists you could look it up. By not bothering to check and then going through a red light, you are breaking the law without any defense at all.
apollo179
Well-Known Member
And there we have the current situation . Many people like you will choose to be informed about the law before going out on the road and study the law before hand.
Many will be like me and not do so.
If you have a problem with the current situation why dont you start an epetition to introduce a compulsory highway code test for cyclists.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
The current situation in your eyes. I would say far more people choose to ignore the law than are ignorant of it.
apollo179
Well-Known Member
We were discussing the ignorance aspect.
If you have a problem with the ignorance aspect do something constructive like an epetition or lobbying parliament.
Cyclists that choose to ignore the law is another issue.
- Status
