Hauled to court...

stiffler123

Andrew33 wrote: »

OP's attitude is pretty typical, if some poor motorist had hit him, the law would still favour the stupid cyclist who doesn't even have the brains to recognize how vulnerable they are on the road and that motorist would be put tru hell. A Darwin award is just made for you. And then has the fcuking cheek to come on here whinging because the guard did his job!
I hope the guard shows up in court and explains to the judge that he gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to "produce" which you failed to do.

If some poor motorist had hit him? Are you for real? Wouldn't want you to scratch your car mate. The guy had a vis vest on, and yes its not glow in the dark but it's visible just like Gardai are visible mile away at night time when they are wearing there vis jackets. And the Gardai didn't give him the benifit of the doubt, he was an arsehole about it. If he would of given him the benifit of the doubth he would of said something like "Don't let me see you with no lights again, ok run along now." Sending the OP a summons is not giving him the benifit of the doubt.

-Chris-

Lumen wrote: »

Pedestrian vehicle? Like this?

That. Is. So. STUPID.


Thanks Lumen, you've made my afternoon! :D

Lumen

Andrew33 wrote: »

A bicycle is a pedestrian powered vehicle. Same rules apply to cyclists as pedestrians. If you want to continue driving around treating peds and cyclists as "just another road user" , by all means, go ahead. Does Lumen have some connection with brightness:rolleyes:

Face. Palm.

A car is a pedestrian powered vehicle, by your definition.

Cyclists are road users, as are motorists. Pedestrians are...pedestrians.

Do I need to start quoting from the dictionary?

Andrew33

Andrew33 wrote: »

A bicycle is a pedestrian powered vehicle. Same rules apply to cyclists as pedestrians. If you want to continue driving around treating peds and cyclists as "just another road user" , by all means, go ahead. Does Lumen have some connection with brightness:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto

cantalach

Lumen wrote: »

If you wish to assert differently, first read some law.

That only covers statutes and statutory instruments - it does not cover case law (i.e. established precedent) which is what counts above all in a Common Law jurisdiction such as ours.

Chips Lovell

High viz vests are only visible in certain situations. The amount of times I've had a near miss with ninja cyclists wearing one with no lights bears testament to that.

If the guard wanted to be a real hard ass he could have given him a summons straight away. Giving someone a day or two to sort the situation out, whether its no tax or no lights or whatever is quite common.

niceonetom

OP - Judges generally love a bit of theatricality to break up their day. I suggest you take the advice given here to "wear a suit" but up the ante a little - wear a suit made of hi-viz materail.

Arrange with the bailiff of the court to switch off all the lights in the courtroom at your signal. When you stand there, clearly visible in the sudden gloom, be sure to shout "CHECKMATE, ROOKIE!!!" at the peon guard who instigated all this.

You won' get a fine - you'll probably get a round of applause.

Alternatively get Andrew33 to try his novel 'pedestrian vehicle' defence. That kind of legal lateral thinking is sure to pay off.

blorg

Andrew33 wrote: »

A bicycle is a pedestrian powered vehicle. Same rules apply to cyclists as pedestrians. If you want to continue driving around treating peds and cyclists as "just another road user" , by all means, go ahead. Does Lumen have some connection with brightness:rolleyes:

This is simply not true, there is lots of specific law about pedal cyclists that does not apply to pedestrians (lights being just one) and where there isn't specific law bicycles are treated as vehicles and all the general law applying to vehicles applies to them. Note there is a lot of law that applies only to motorised vehicles and not vehicles in general.

Your assertion about pedestrians always being considered blameless in a collision is also incorrect. Some jurisdictions in continental Europe have a presumption of blame on the motorist but even that does not mean the ped is always right if the motorist can prove otherwise, it is just a starting point. Here we do not even have this law. There was a case in the UK where a motorcyclist struck and killed a pedestrian and the pedestrian was found fully responsible for the accident and for compensation for the motorcyclists' injuries (which were paid IIRC by the state.)

Lumen

cantalach wrote: »

That only covers statutes and statutory instruments - it does not cover case law (i.e. established precedent) which is what counts above all in a Common Law jurisdiction such as ours.

Case law is not publicly accessible on the internet, AFAIK. You need a substantially expensive subscription. I could copy and paste, but I don't like antagonising the legal profession unless it's really necessary.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I don't like antagonising the legal profession unless it's really necessary.

Someone on the internet is wrong. Of course it's necessary.

blorg

cantalach wrote: »

That only covers statutes and statutory instruments - it does not cover case law (i.e. established precedent) which is what counts above all in a Common Law jurisdiction such as ours.

Statute law though is superior to precedent; precedent is concerned with interpretation of the statutes, or where there is no statute. A precedent is overturned as soon as the legislature decides to codify it.

But in any case what Andrew33 is coming out with is made up in his head, bollocks, and is flat out contradicted by statute. It is not as if there is a wealth of case law there supporting his argument that a bicycle is actually a pedestrian. This is directly contrary to the statutes.

seamus

cantalach wrote: »

That only covers statutes and statutory instruments - it does not cover case law (i.e. established precedent) which is what counts above all in a Common Law jurisdiction such as ours.

Aha, but case law is all about interpretation of the laws, a judge's decision does not make law in itself.

So while Judge X may make a judgement that a cyclist was in the right, unless he makes a judgement on the interpretation of an existing law, then the next judge is free to come along and make the opposite judgement, even if the facts in both cases are identical.

You'll find that a judge has never ruled that pedestrians are always in the right, rather they rule that in the specific circumstances on which they are ruling the pedestrian had right-of-way in that case due X, Y or Z circumstances, and therefore the driver is liable. This means that no precedent is set, effectively.

Neither the rules of the road nor case law sets out any fact that any class of road users has a higher priority than any other.

Pedestrians do not have right of way once they are on the road. They have a duty of care to ensure that oncoming traffic is far enough away to allow them to cross the road, before they start to cross.

The problem is that given that pedestrians are slow-moving and cars are fast-moving, it's next to impossible to prove that as a car driver, you were as careful as possible, since the movements of a pedestrian (by virtue of being slow) should be very predictable or at least visible. Therefore you failed in your duty of care towards other road users. A pedestrian actually has to leap out delibarately in front of you at the last minute, without warning, otherwise it can be shown that you failed to drive carefully.

Judges are also (very wrongly) biased against the insured. More often than not, a judge will rule in favour of the uninsured, even if their claim appears fraudulent or dubious.

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

So while Judge X may make a judgement that a cyclist was in the right, unless he makes a judgement on the interpretation of an existing law, then the next judge is free to come along and make the opposite judgement, even if the facts in both cases are identical.

I'm sure the Supreme Court would be happy to take on a case of this magnitude once it's rattled through all the lower courts. There has to be something unconstitutional about being required by law to exercise basic self-preservation.

Jawgap

This is gone waaaaaay off topic - where's the new mods when you need them!!

cantalach wrote: »

That only covers statutes and statutory instruments - it does not cover case law (i.e. established precedent) which is what counts above all in a Common Law jurisdiction such as ours.

True - it counts above everything except, the Constitution, European Treaties, Directives, Regulations and Domestic Statutes.....

niceonetom wrote: »

OP - Judges generally love a bit of theatricality to break up their day. I suggest you take the advice given here to "wear a suit" but up the ante a little - wear a suit made of hi-viz materail.

Arrange with the bailiff of the court to switch off all the lights in the courtroom at your signal. When you stand there, clearly visible in the sudden gloom, be sure to shout "CHECKMATE, ROOKIE!!!" at the peon guard who instigated all this.

You won' get a fine - you'll probably get a round of applause.

Alternatively get Andrew33 to try his novel 'pedestrian vehicle' defence. That kind of legal lateral thinking is sure to pay off.

You need one of these:-

Cabaal

niceonetom wrote: »

Alternatively get Andrew33 to try his novel 'pedestrian vehicle' defence. That kind of legal lateral thinking is sure to pay off.

"pedestrian vehicle" defense can by like the wookie defense but for cyclists

Andrew33
...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is cyclist. A cyclist is a pedestrian and can walk on footpaths and has right of way all the time! As a cyclist and a pedestrian he has full control over all the road. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Andrew33
Why would a cyclist which is also a pedestrian or a pedestrian vehicle need lights? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a cyclist with no lights, and I'm talkin' about "pedestrian vehicles"!

Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and deciding was he in the wrong think for a second, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If a cyclist is a pedestrian vehicle, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Beasty

Jawgap wrote: »

This is gone waaaaaay off topic - where's the new mods when you need them!!

Currently sat on a plane, heading off to Monte Carlo (wallet brimming) for a "business" trip - so over to the other guys ...

petethedrummer

rochie16

Yeah, miles off topic...

Anyways, to respond to a few points...

The Garda was indeed a rookie, can't have been more than 21 years of age. Garda get points or something for making ****ty cases like this, helping them move up the ladder quicker.

I don't understand the people who say I was being dangerous. I wasn't driving along a dark, winding country road. I was in a brightly lit dublin area with a hi-vis on, taking more than due care for obvious reasons.

Whilst I did find the request to produce the bike ridiculous, the real ridiculous thing was that I was given a time and a date to do it at a specific garda station, ie a Saturday morning between 11 and 12. I couldn't make it, I had prior commitments. Simple as. I had a football game to play, we were low on players (as always) and I was needed. I'm confident I had my priorities right. It's incomparable to producing tax or driver's licence where you have ten days to produce it at a Garda station of your choice. I told the Garda this, hoping he'd save him and me the time and not report it.

Cheers for the advice though: Wear suit, be contrite, lick the judges hole (was that one?)

I'll turn up in court, wear a suit, be apologetic, and argue my valid points.

Edit: And I was polite and mannerly with the Garda until he asked me to produce, just for those who think I was incompliant from the start.

Lumen

rochie16 wrote: »

I'll turn up in court, wear a suit, be apologetic, and argue my valid points.

Can we come, pleeeeease? (tugs sleeve, makes puppy dog eyes)

Jawgap

rochie16 wrote: »

Yeah, miles off topic...

Anyways, to respond to a few points...

The Garda was indeed a rookie, can't have been more than 21 years of age. Garda get points or something for making ****ty cases like this, helping them move up the ladder quicker..

rochie16 wrote: »

I don't understand the people who say I was being dangerous. I wasn't driving along a dark, winding country road. I was in a brightly lit dublin area with a hi-vis on, taking more than due care for obvious reasons.

Whilst I did find the request to produce the bike ridiculous, the real ridiculous thing was that I was given a time and a date to do it at a specific garda station, ie a Saturday morning between 11 and 12. I couldn't make it, I had prior commitments. Simple as. I had a football game to play, we were low on players (as always) and I was needed. I'm confident I had my priorities right. It's incomparable to producing tax or driver's licence where you have ten days to produce it at a Garda station of your choice. I told the Garda this, hoping he'd save him and me the time and not report it.

Cheers for the advice though: Wear suit, be contrite, lick the judges hole (was that one?)

I'll turn up in court, wear a suit, be apologetic, and argue my valid points.

You should've had lights on the bike - you didn't - you broke the law - now it's time to man up and take the consequences. Yes, the law may be stupid and the Guard an idiot but I suspect there's two of you in it......:cool:

I really wish they televised court proceedings in Ireland........yours sounds like it will be epic........

rochie16

rochie16 wrote: »

I had prior commitments. Simple as. I had a football game to play, we were low on players (as always) and I was needed. I'm confident I had my priorities right.

Are you for real??

Oh wait now I get it, you're above the law.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

Please detail the laws which assign default responsibility for road accidents between cyclists and cars to the motorist. I was not aware of this.

It is actually correct. If a pedestrian steps of a pathway, they instantly have right of way.

Andrew33 wrote: »

Don't ask me to quote paragraphs and sub sections but the pedestrian ALWAYS has "right of way". If a pedestrian steps off a path in front of you, you are obliged to stop. The law will always side with the pedestrian (or pedestrian vehicle). There might be a small degree of responsibility on the side of the pedestrian but the driver of a motorised vehicle will bear the brunt of it.
(Unless they've changed the law in recent years?)

However it doesn't apply to "pedestrian vehicles" to use your made-up term.

Lumen wrote: »

Please detail the laws which assign default responsibility for road accidents between cyclists and cars to the motorist. I was not aware of this.

Andrew33 wrote: »

Don't ask me to quote paragraphs and sub sections but the pedestrian ALWAYS has "right of way". If a pedestrian steps off a path in front of you, you are obliged to stop. The law will always side with the pedestrian (or pedestrian vehicle). There might be a small degree of responsibility on the side of the pedestrian but the driver of a motorised vehicle will bear the brunt of it.
(Unless they've changed the law in recent years?)

Lumen wrote: »

Cyclists are not pedestrians. In any case, motorists have an obligation to take reasonable care to avoid running over pedestrians, but this does not make them liable in all collisions with pedestrians.

If you wish to assert differently, first read some law.

I don't know about liable, but right of way is the pedestrians if they start to cross a road no matter how unreasonable it seems. The wife failed her driving test last November because of it We subsequentially investigated thoroughly and it is valid.

(There may be something about it not applying within X feet of a pedestrian crossing but I am on hazy ground there)

rochie16

Not above the law, I said at the time I'll play the match and if I have to go to court I'll go to court.

briano

rochie16 wrote: »

be apologetic, and argue my valid points.

Let us know how that works out for you

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

It is actually correct. If a pedestrian steps of a pathway, they instantly have right of way.

What is actually correct?

If a pedestrian steps off a pathway then you have a duty to avoid running them over, if possible. You also have a duty to drive in such a way as to account for such an eventuality, by choosing an appropriate speed and road position.

Any other arrangement of rights would be bizarre - you could just drive around knocking over stupid peds with only paint damage to worry about.

That's not the same as saying that the motorist will necessarily be liable if the pedestrian is injured.

Doom

stiffler123 wrote: »

I'm on your side Roachie. It's pretty hard not to notice a glow in the dark vest, don't think the guy was much in the wrong. Cop trying to be a bit of a grasshole imo.

If a car came out of a side road, what good is a glow vest in the dark then.....In my opinion the guards don't come down hard enough on cyclists especially in the cities

Jawgap

rochie16 wrote: »

Not above the law, I said at the time I'll play the match and if I have to go to court I'll go to court.

If it was a soccer match - you're screwed, the judge will just think you're a lout and lock you up for the greater good of society. Wear a shellsuit and chew gum noisily.

If it was a GAA match - you might be ok - wear a fainne and a pioneer pin and if the judge is a mucker he'll probably end up jailing the Guard. Don't wear a suit - go for something tweedy with elbow patches and grow a beard before the day.

If it was a rugby match - expect a big fine, the judge will assume you can afford to pay it.......wear the Armani and keep your (oakley) shades on while you're in the court.


:):)

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

What is actually correct?

If a pedestrian steps off a pathway then you have a duty to avoid running them over, if possible. You also have a duty to drive in such a way as to account for such an eventuality, by choosing an appropriate speed and road position.

Any other arrangement of rights would be bizarre - you could just drive around knocking over stupid peds with only paint damage to worry about.

That's not the same as saying that the motorist will necessarily be liable if the pedestrian is injured.

As far as I am aware this is the case. The pedestrian right of way thing counts only if a pedestrian is already crossing the road, you cannot just run them over. It does not mean a ped can jump out in front of a car, but if one did with enough distance for you to stop then yes, you would be expected to not just run them over.

In that UK case where the motorcyclist killed the pedestrian the principle taken was that the party who caused or the last person who could have avoided the collision was responsible. The ped stepped out suddenly in front of the motorcyclist and it was decided that there was nothing the motorcyclist could have done to prevent the collision.

ROTR, not the law wrote:

You must always yield to:
pedestrians already crossing at a junction,
pedestrians on a zebra crossing,
pedestrians on a pelican crossing when the amber light is flashing, and
pedestrians and traffic when you are moving off from a stationary position (for example from your position at a stop sign or a parking space).

...

It is important to understand that the right of way is not an absolute right of way. You must proceed with caution, having regard for other road users.

manwithaplan

The OP may have some grounds for claiming that he couldn't be required to produce his bike in the way he was but that's hardly the point. He's not being charged with "failure to produce a bike". He is charged with a specific offence under the RTAs relating to cycling without lights. Of which he is guilty. What are these "valid points"? Am I missing something?

seamus

blorg wrote: »

As far as I am aware this is the case. The pedestrian right of way thing counts only if a pedestrian is already crossing the road, you cannot just run them over. It does not mean a ped can jump out in front of a car, but if one did with enough distance for you to stop then yes, you would be expected to not just run them over.

Correct. This is often confused by people though who believe that as soon as a pedestrian puts one foot on the road, all cars are required to stop and let them cross.

This is not the case. This only applies in the case of a car turning at a junction (left or right), who must yield to any pedestrian crossing (or waiting to cross) the road which the driver is turning into. Afaik it's been decided that a pedestrian who in such circumstances has placed one foot on the road, has right-of-way over all traffic turning into that road.
On a straight road, the same thing does not apply and you are *not* obliged to stop if a pedestrian is standing on the road. But no, you cannot just mow through them either and you may be done for dangerous driving if you swerve around them.

Chips Lovell

rochie16 wrote: »

The Garda was indeed a rookie, can't have been more than 21 years of age. Garda get points or something for making ****ty cases like this, helping them move up the ladder quicker.

It's not like he's made up the law or something. It's illegal to cycle without lights.

rochie16 wrote: »

Whilst I did find the request to produce the bike ridiculous, the real ridiculous thing was that I was given a time and a date to do it at a specific garda station, ie a Saturday morning between 11 and 12. I couldn't make it, I had prior commitments. Simple as. I had a football game to play, we were low on players (as always) and I was needed. I'm confident I had my priorities right. It's incomparable to producing tax or driver's licence where you have ten days to produce it at a Garda station of your choice. I told the Garda this, hoping he'd save him and me the time and not report it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this at the guard's discretion, i.e. he's no legal obligation to give you a second chance. He could have written you up there and then.

rochie16 wrote: »

I'll turn up in court, wear a suit, be apologetic, and argue my valid points.

What are your valid points? That you think it's a silly law?

Jawgap

I think the best advice I can give the OP (apart from wear a nice suit and suck it up) is to apply the old lawyer's adage :-

The Rule of Law: 1. If the facts are against you, argue the law.
2. If the law is against you, argue the facts. 3. If the facts
and the law are against you, yell like hell.

I reckon that'll work......

Cabaal

rochie16 wrote: »

Not above the law, I said at the time I'll play the match and if I have to go to court I'll go to court.

But you don't HAVE to go to court, you could do something else instead and not go.
I'm sure you have a football match or something

Of course I'm sure there would be repercussions....just like there are repercussions for not showing at the gardai station. See what I did there :pac:

Cabaal

Doom wrote: »

If a car came out of a side road, what good is a glow vest in the dark then.....In my opinion the guards don't come down hard enough on cyclists especially in the cities

Agreed, as a cyclist we can't have it so that only motorists obey the laws. The laws apply to cyclists too.

If a motorbike was driving up the road without lights they'd be outcry about how dangerous it is, I find it funny that the OP seems to think its ok

rochie16

manwithaplan wrote: »

The OP may have some grounds for claiming that he couldn't be required to produce his bike in the way he was but that's hardly the point. He's not being charged with "failure to produce a bike". He is charged with a specific offence under the RTAs relating to cycling without lights. Of which he is guilty. What are these "valid points"? Am I missing something?

Guilty of the offence alright. Did you know it's also an offence not to carry your driver's licence in your car with you? Yet you are given a reasonable way in which to produce. Valid points are that you should be able to produce in a station of your choice within a 10 day period...

briano

rochie16 wrote: »

Guilty of the offence alright. Did you know it's also an offence not to carry your driver's licence in your car with you? Yet you are given a reasonable way in which to produce. Valid points are that you should be able to produce in a station of your choice within a 10 day period...

But what if you are reeeeaally busy?

rochie16

Cabaal wrote: »

Agreed, as a cyclist we can't have it so that only motorists obey the laws. The laws apply to cyclists too.

If a motorbike was driving up the road without lights they'd be outcry about how dangerous it is, I find it funny that the OP seems to think its ok

I can't pedal a 500lb bike at 50mph.

Cabaal

rochie16 wrote: »

Guilty of the offence alright. Did you know it's also an offence not to carry your driver's licence in your car with you? Yet you are given a reasonable way in which to produce. Valid points are that you should be able to produce in a station of your choice within a 10 day period...

Curious,
You knew you had to attend the station and ok the exact time did not suit you but did you make ANY attempt to visit the station within a 10 day period like you keeping ranting on about?

If you didn't it looks like you don't give a ****e,

Cabaal

rochie16 wrote: »

I can't pedal a 500lb bike at 50mph.

Doesn't matter, your a road user with no lights and as such you are a danger to yourself and others on the road. You'd be extremely foolish to try argue this very very valid point with a judge.

Actually on second thoughts please argue it and infact video it so we can all have a laugh

rochie16

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious,
You knew you had to attend the station and ok the exact time did not suit you but did you make ANY attempt to visit the station within a 10 day period like you keeping ranting on about?

If you didn't it looks like you don't give a ****e,

Wasn't given the option to, no point in doing so.

rochie16

Cabaal wrote: »

Doesn't matter, your a road user with no lights and as such you are a danger to yourself and others on the road. You'd be extremely foolish to try argue this very very valid point with a judge.

Actually on second thoughts please argue it and infact video it so we can all have a laugh

Didn't say I had an argument against this. I just took exception to your ridiculous comparison, in terms of the dangerousness of the situation.

niceonetom

OP - please let us know how you get on.

cantalach

blorg wrote: »

But in any case what Andrew33 is coming out with is made up in his head, bollocks, and is flat out contradicted by statute. It is not as if there is a wealth of case law there supporting his argument that a bicycle is actually a pedestrian. This is directly contrary to the statutes.

Well, yes, I agree with that. My point about case law/precedent was a bit tangential - a point of order if you will. Lumen asked Andrew33 to support his argument by using a website that I believe only embodies part of the law. Statutes and SIs have to be read in the light of case law/precedent. What counts, ultimately, is not the words that the legislature has passed but the way in which these words are interpreted by the judiciary (unless and until a particular interpretation is superseded by an amended or entirely new statute). If the relevant court in question or a higher court of appeal had previously ruled in a similar case that there was such a thing as a 'pedestrian cyclist' (after a lunchtime spent with a bong perhaps) then that would be binding and whatever it says in irishstatutebook.ie wouldn't matter a fiddler's.

CramCycle

rochie16 wrote: »

I can't pedal a 500lb bike at 50mph.

Lucky, because you'd be braking the speed limit if you were heading to Rathgar Garda station, and I can't imagine the Garda would have been so nice the next time.

Chips Lovell

rochie16 wrote: »

Guilty of the offence alright. Did you know it's also an offence not to carry your driver's licence in your car with you? Yet you are given a reasonable way in which to produce. Valid points are that you should be able to produce in a station of your choice within a 10 day period...

No, you can still be done for failure to produce on the spot:

It is an offence for any person to drive without being in a position to produce their licence on request from a Garda. It is also an offence to fail to submit a licence within 10 days to a Garda station where so requested. At present penalty points do not apply to this offence. In the meantime it will be an offence under the Road Traffic Acts attracting a maximum fine on conviction of €800.

Either way though, it's irrelevant as its a different offence. There is nothing in law that says the Guard a.) had to give you a chance to present new lights at the station or b.) give you a certain time frame within which to do. That's all the judge is going to be interested in.

Ultimately its your money, but I wouldn't waste my time trying to argue with a judge over what I think the law should be rather than what it is.

petethedrummer

Just stand up and roar "why aren't you prosecuting proper criminals like them?" while pointing over at the nearest bunch of scobes. That should win you some friends.

Liamo08

rochie16 wrote: »

Not above the law, I said at the time I'll play the match and if I have to go to court I'll go to court.

So you broke the law (regardless whether you agree with it or not) then you were given the option of going down to the Garda station and probably getting off with a caution but you then actually told the guard that you wouldn't make it as you'd a football match to play? What exactly did you expect to happen, how do you expect any guard to respond to being told that you won't be going down the station as you'll be too busy playing a match?

blorg

cantalach wrote: »

Well, yes, I agree with that. My point about case law/precedent was a bit tangential - a point of order if you will. Lumen asked Andrew33 to support his argument by using a website that I believe only embodies part of the law. Statutes and SIs have to be read in the light of case law/precedent. What counts, ultimately, is not the words that the legislature has passed but the way in which these words are interpreted by the judiciary (unless and until a particular interpretation is superseded by an amended or entirely new statute). If the relevant court in question or a higher court of appeal had previously ruled in a similar case that there was such a thing as a 'pedestrian cyclist' (after a lunchtime spent with a bong perhaps) then that would be binding and whatever it says in irishstatutebook.ie wouldn't matter a fiddler's.

Courts do not have unlimited freedom in how they interpret statutes. If the statute is clear they cannot just interpret it whatever way they like. Judicial interpretation arises where statutes are ambiguous or not present in their application to a particular case.

If you read the statutes on what constitutes a pedal cycle and the laws applying to a driver of a pedal cycle it is quite impossible to conceive that a judge would conclude that a cyclist is actually a pedestrian and that all the expressly written law concerning vehicles and pedal cycles does not actually apply to them.

You do not have to do an exhaustive search of case law to come to this conclusion.

Stark

rochie16 wrote: »

I told him that I had no intention of cycling down the 7km to Rathgar on a saturday morning, having commuted 100km to college Monday through Friday.

7km. ZOMG. Your poor thing, it would take you nearly a whole 20 minutes to get to the Garda station on the day of your match when it's that far away.

CramCycle

rochie16 wrote: »

Didn't say I had an argument against this. I just took exception to your ridiculous comparison, in terms of the dangerousness of the situation.

On Baggot st about 10years ago, a cyclist killed a pedestrian who didn't see him. The cyclist walked away (physically) unscathed, the man died due to head injuries.

Your on a bike, if you hit someone, the laws of PHYSICS apply to not only you but what you hit.