Cyclists and Drivers

So I’m supposed to be doing a Legal Research Assignment, but am taking some time off it to do some…different legal research…to be honest, I’m not even sure if this is proper procrastination.

About a week ago, when I was undertaking my noble part-time job of delivering pizza, a cyclist (motivated by what I can only assume was a desire to remove himself from the gene pool) decided to pull out of a junction in front of my car. One emergency stop and some abusive yelling later, I got thinking about the legal position of such a moron, being that we are supposed to regard bicycles as road vehicles now.

If I were to do such a thing in my car and cause an accident, I’d be fully liable for the damage to any other vehicle involved as well as driver/passenger/passerby injuries. There’s kind of a weird concept surrounding cyclists that’s highly indicative of people who are allowed to use the road system on a vehicle that does not require insurance. Essentially, there seems to be a feeling that cyclists can be as negligent as they please when riding on the roads.

Happily, I have discovered that this is not the case, as legal research, done with my brain and computer has revealed, that while the courts have not imposed any stringent negligence provisions on cyclists, for say damaging someone’s front bumper in the above scenario, they have updated an old concept. That being the concept of contributory negligence, which is the concept that a victim of an incident such as this can be partially to blame for their own injuries and suffering.

There are two main judgments informing this; the first comes from the case of Malasi v Attmed, in which a cyclist jumped a red light and got hit by a taxi. Again, if I had done such a thing in a car, I’d be fully liable for any incident that resulted from it, and rightly so. The red light is there to tell you to stop; if you ignore it, you’re a colossal moron, especially if you’re on a small saddle, rather than inside a metal box that’s designed to protect you from death or serious injury.

The cyclist in this case sued the taxi driver, for causing him serious injury, even though the taxi driver in question saw him and only collided with him while trying to perform an emergency stop.

Technically the cyclist won the case, as the taxi driver was speeding and may have been able to stop in time, had he been driving at the road speed of 30MPH. However (and this is the good bit) the damages paid to the cyclist were reduced by 80% on account of his contributory negligence. Had the driver not been speeding and still been unable to stop in time, this could well have been a rare 100% reduction of damages case.

My thoughts:

The fact that the cyclist sued in this case is something I find very obnoxious. He did something incredibly stupid and negligent; he was either not paying enough attention to the road and traffic signals or was arrogant enough to think he could get through unscathed. The mere fact that he thought he’d see some payout (or more likely was told so by a personal injury lawyer ) as a result of his stupidity offends me.

As to the judgment, I agree, though personally, I’d have gone 90%. True the taxi driver was violating the speed limit, but looking at the root cause of the accident, as the Judge in fact stated in his judgment, the incident would not have occurred had the cyclist not jumped the red light. In my mind that fact that the taxi driver was speeding isn't especially relevant; the cyclist caused the accident; full stop.  I hate to keep hammering this point in, but if I did such a thing in a car, there would probably be precisely on eighth of the amount of consideration given to the fact of whether or not the other driver was speeding. It would be my fault. Not only that, the other driver would be entitled to sue me and then I’d have to argue that he was contributorily negligent, for speeding. So ultimately, what I see in this case is that the rules actually seem to go backwards for cyclists.

The other case concerned with this area of law is a case called Phelthean-Hubble v Coles and has very similar facts, in that a young cyclist “bunny-hopped” from the pavement to the road into the path of a speeding car. Originally, the damages paid to the cyclist were reduced by one third on account of the cyclist’s young age meaning a lesser standard of responsibility should be applied to him, but later by 50% after the Court of Appeal ruled that the his age was irrelevant.

My thoughts:

If his age is irrelevant, why the reduction wasn’t closer to the 80% in Malasi v Attmed? I’d imagine the reason for this is that the cyclist wasn't actively breaking the road laws, only being careless and unobservant. Also being that he was coming from the pavement to the road (much like a pedestrian) I’d say it wasn’t especially possible to draw parallels with what a driver of a car would have done in this situation (as you may have noticed I’m fond of doing).

As far as the irrelevance of the cyclist’s age, I’d say I agree. There’s a case called Nettleship v Weston, which essentially says that learner drivers are to be held to the same standard as fully qualified drivers and Phelthean is kind of meeting it half way here by saying that contributorily negligent cyclists should be treated the same regardless experience or age.

Overall thoughts:

Satisfied is how I describe my feelings after this little journey into legal knowledge. I wouldn't say that I’m happy about the legal positions; all it would take is the Court of Appeal changing it’s mind once to undo the position we’re in now. It might, therefore, be better to have some more grounded direct negligence rules in place for cyclists, rather than applying the rules of contributory negligence in reverse.

As a final point (and this one for fellow LPC students) I really hope these cyclists had to pay their own costs.

Doctor Who: The Snowmen Review

That was pretty good.

This episode allows Moffatt to do what’s needed to be done for a while. Reset the Doctor and his motivations. As with his series “Jekyll” the problem with Moffat’s Who is that the quality is extremely high for very short periods of time. The rest ends up as filler, sitting there in the middle of the series, cashing cheques and whistling while attempting to avoid your death stare. This, in theory should be a step up from the later T Davies days where there seemed to be policy of quantity over quality, leading to everything being bad. However, of late, Who has been suffering both a lack of quantity and quality  - what were they thinking with that dinosaurs episode?

This episode is an opportunity to break free from the bonds of what can only be described as a rut with bow tie in it and give some new life to the show. And we certainly get that.

We get a new companion, a new TARDIS, new costumes. This is basically the beginning of series 5 all over again, except nobody had to regenerate. But that’s also a bit of a problem. While I enjoyed watching the Doctor do his depressed recluse thing, it really wasn't very different from the 10-minute depression sequence from the tenth Doctor’s departure.

Also, looking at all the above points from another perspective, it isn't especially new; the Doctor, having suffered some great trauma, meets an “impossible” girl, in the process revealing his new TARDIS interior, costume and discovering a threat to the universe to continue through the whole series. Err…we’ve seen this before. In this respect, Moffatt’s just following a formula; a good formula, but it’s still predicable.

Looking at the episode more specifically, the new companion (as played by Jenna-Louise Coleman) is very good. Both her genius and personality agree with me far more than the loudness and “feistiness” (cough annoyingness) of Amy Pond.

Richard E Grant is doing a very good Scrooge-meets-Dracula act, but is vastly overshadowed, by the VOICE OF IAN MCKELLEN! – seriously, this episode could have been absolutely awful and all it would have needed is McKellen to show up at the end as say “Mordor” and it would have been saved. 

I personally hope he’s back in the upcoming series, as you do not waste that kind of presence on one voice acting job.

So…this episode is good…very familiar, but good, the new TARDIS looks pretty awesome, the new companion is pretty good and the “smaller on the outside” line is a very welcome change.

How to make Plot-Holes work - spoiler warning - Dark knight rises & Looper

Every film has plot holes. A gripe of internet folk is to complain to no end about them, making claims that they undermine the whole film. This is not true. It is wholly possible to have a film loaded with plot holes, that’s still a good film.

What’s crucial about whether a plot-hole can destroy a film is how it’s executed. For example in Star Trek: Generations, there’s a bit where basically everyone’s dead, but Picard, has the ability (god knows how) to go back in time, to any point he wants, in order to stop the bad guy killing everyone. He chooses to go back to the point a few minutes before the bad guy kills everyone. This is an example of very poor execution, as the entire outcome of the story pivots on Picard’s decision. There is no explanation for why Picard doesn’t choose to go back to a point several days, or weeks before the bad guy killed everyone and stopped the whole situation from happening.

The key to a plot hole not destroying a film, is it resulting from a more minor part of the film.

During this year, I have seen two films that contain significant plot holes, but that do just this.

The first is the Dark Knight Rises, which has some really big gaps in common sense. The biggest of these is the fact that Miranda Tate, is in fact Talia (one of the baddies) who becomes aware of Bruce Wayne’s return to Gotham before Bane does and (despite tricking Gordon into attacking the wrong bomb truck and informing Bane of the special forces team that got sneaked into the city) doesn’t tell Bane that his nemesis is back.

This significant hole is covered, by the fact that the story remains full enough, for us not to notice it right away. The important issues of the film remain forefront in the audiences’ mind and therefore, Talia suddenly forgetting to tell her friend that his about to get is arse kicked by someone dressed as a bat, gets pushed aside, so that we can enjoy the action and Anne Hatheway in a catsuit.

The second film I’ve seen that has a truly huge plot hole, is Looper. Time travel stories especially have the major problems with plot holes, as the only way to really do much with them is to construct paradoxes, which (in the majority of cases) don't ever fully make sense.

To this effect, the first time that the nasty plot hole in this film shows it’s head, is when we get our first example of what happens when you “let your loop run.”

This is shown through Seth, when is older self starts to lose body parts as a result of Abe cutting bits of his younger self off. This doesn’t work. If we are to assume that the injuries of younger Seth can affect older Seth, then we have to assume that cause and effect is the driving force behind it. We are saying here, that younger Seth is the beginning of the line and that older Seth is the end. Changes made to the beginning affect the end. But they don't just affect the end. Every part of the line would have been changed, by any changes to the beginning, therefore older Seth wouldn’t just lose body parts, he never would have had them; his younger self would have lived the rest of the line, without them. Given the amount of damage that is done younger Seth, older Seth would probably never even have been there, given that he would have been in no condition to have been sent back.

This same plot hole exists at the end of the film, as when young Joe figures out that he’s responsible for creating the Rainmaker, his older self’s entire perception of the events should have changed. As a HISHE parody as already said, the very knowledge should have been enough to alter the time lines, without him having to kill himself.

In a similar way to the TDKR, this film remains interesting enough for us to really be bothered, by this gaping inconsistency in the time travel rules. The differences in the priorities of the two Joes’ is the primary focus, making the holes in logic a secondary concern.

Err…so that’s how to make plot holes work.

Merry Christmas!!!  

Stupid Law!!!!

So, did anybody ever hear about that law in Hereford that says you can shoot a Welshman, with a cross bow, provided he’s standing on the Cathedral Green? It’s one of those stupid laws that no one’s ever bothered to repeal and that people like to imagine entitles them to some sort of awesome legal defence if they ever do it. Heads up, it doesn’t actually work like that; killing someone is killing someone no matter what some ancient law says.

I only bring this up, because the sheer stupidity of someone saying to the Police, “I’m allowed to do this because I used a cross bow, I was on the green on a Sunday and he’s Welsh” is round about as stupid as someone saying “I was offended by what he said therefore he should go to prison”…oh…wait a second.

Yes it’s this one and while I am a little bit late to start moaning about this shiny new law, I’m going to do it anyway.

How the hell are judges getting away with sentencing people to prison, for saying things? This makes literally no sense  - usually with these sorts of laws, the legal layman tends to misunderstand sentences, largely due to factors such as newspapers misleading them and Politicians outright lying about why a case has been decided the way it has (incidentally, the reason that guy got to stay in this country wasn’t because he had a cat).

But anyhow, the weird thing about this new law (section 5 of the Public Order Act) is that it isn't subject to this misunderstanding or Political opportunism. Someone feels suitably offended by something you say, you could end up in court. Put it on your Facebook page, your Twitter feed or your T-Shirt and you could well be booking a court date.

Section 5 (1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 states that it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

Threatening; yes, if someone threatens me, I think the law should be there to protect my well-being, abusive; can shrug it off, but in certain circumstances, say someone in a position of power like a teacher or an employer, then maybe there should be a safeguard – Insulting…what exactly does that mean?

Having studied law for over three years now, I know that the words in the statute are never the end in terms of meaning. The court will always clarify what they believe any important word that’s passed through Parliament means. This is why I’m so shocked by the recent cases. The court has taken what is referred to as a literal interpretation of the word “insulting”. True they seemed to have given it some meaning in the case of Matthew Woods, his comments on his Facebook page being described as “disgusting” but that’s not a definition. I don’t see why the court would act in this way without proper definition.

 Now, onto what this means. In basic terms, you “insult” enough people, you go to prison. That’s all you need to do; do something insulting. I don't know about you, but I insult six people a day. Most of the Doctor Who writing staff can probably bring charges against me for the sheer amount of ad hominem I slip into when writing reviews.

I insult my University on a regular basis, I insult my bank on a regular basis, I insult my friends on a regular basis. This doesn't mean I’m a criminal, this just means I’m a person – insulting things and people is how the majority of us vent frustration and avoid giving into our more violent urges (something that actually would be a legitimate reason to haul someone before the court).

This rant has taken up far too much of my time, but I’m going to attempt to bring it back round to Sci-fi with a quote.

“With the first link the chain is forged, the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably”  - Star Trek, The Next Generation, Season 4 Episode 21 “The Drumhead”

Please note that if anything in this post has offended you, you are welcome to contact your local Police Station.