Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Not sure this thread is the place for detailed legal discussion, but I think the term would be “involuntary bailment” if you want to google it for more info. The long and short of it is the person who has come into possession of the goods (the bailee) has certain obligations regarding the goods, including keeping them safe. Simply dumping them in the street would likely by at the very least a civil tort against their owner, and potentially a criminal offence too (if deemed to be fly tipping).
However, TIER bikes are left in the streets as part of their usual operation, so it could be argued that they are as safe in the street outside of his property as they would be anywhere else. Better to leave them where they were left by TIER though as it could be argued that moving them caused some damage.
brooksby wrote:
Not exactly ‘drivers’ problems’, but I’ll leave this here:
Businessman accused of ‘holding e-bikes to ransom’ after TIER left them at his storage firm by mistake
TIER didn’t come and pick up five bikes left at Stewart Burrough’s self-storage business, so he started charging them for the storage. TIER responded by calling the police
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/businessman-accused-holding-e-bikes-9213312
I saw that and had mixed opinions about it as TIER aren’t the best run business around, but the bloke had no right to move the bikes into his storage container and then try charging them for storage.
I think he should have informed the police/council about TIER fly tipping e-waste instead.
Didn’t realise these are still made !
This driver had the perfect vehicle for today’s weather in Littlehampton, West Sussex – a Dutton Surf amphibious kit car, produced in nearby Worthing.
That driver must be having so much fun and laughing at the other drivers
Its a totally overblown issue, that will eventually die out as lighter battery technology comes into play.In the meantime EV’s are only 12-25% heavier than the equivalent ICE car so most still sit well inside the upper weight limits of cars, and are almost irrelevant compared to PSV’s and Trucks.
Solve the fashionability of SUV’s and you solve the weight problem regardless of power source.
Regardless weight is a side issue generated by an EV hostile press strongly influenced by the Petroleum lobby to slow down ICE car removal.
I disagree. You’re comparing four-wheeled EVs with four-wheeled ICEs and yes, the difference could disappear if we get much better battery tech. However, I’m comparing four-wheeled EVs with two or three wheeled EVs and it’s the different form factor (fully enclosed vs partly or not enclosed) that makes the biggest difference to the weight. A demonstration of this is that motorbikes are much lighter than cars and they also don’t suffer so much from congestion.
For the record, I’m in favour of four-wheeled EVs to replace four-wheeled ICEs, but they aren’t really a solution, just a little bit better as they don’t have exhaust pollution and regenerative braking means less brake dust particulates. Their tyre particulates are currently worse than ICE’s due to their heavier weight though. It’s just that we need to move more people onto fewer wheels if we want effective and human-friendly transport (as opposed to corporation-friendly transport).
Something similar here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct5wrf.There probably isn’t great charging infrastructure for electric cars in India yet, and the cost of the vehicles will still be a major barrier. But when those are addressed, China’s massive EV manufacturing capacity will surely respond…
I’m convinced that the problems with four wheel EVs are due to their size and weight. The heavier the vehicle is, then the more batteries you need to accelerate it and that also pushes up the charging time and increases tyre pollution. The larger it is and the more trouble you’ll have not getting stuck in jams. And of course, the larger and heavier it is means you’ll pay more for it.
Personally, I’m not convinced by the three wheel form factor as they’re significantly larger than a cargo bike, but I suppose their stability (despite them tending to fall over round corners) is a selling point.
Edit: Just realised a major problem with e-rickshaws in the UK. If they’re not made to align with e-bike restrictions (i.e. with pedals and e-assist only) then you’d be needing registration, MOT and insurance which would likely make them more expensive than an e-cargo bike.
That doesn’t look right to me
That doesn’t look right to me. It’s almost like the clamp is pushing directly on the seatpost rather than pushing the frame onto the seatpost.
Images copied here for convenience:
You have to feel sorry for
You have to feel sorry for this poor driver: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/lamborghini-seized-police-m5-after-9213539
Judge criticises CPSA driver who was twice the alcohol limit and deliberately ran over a pedestrian “used his car as a weapon” a judge has said. Also driving whilst banned.
“I question why the Crown accepted this plea – ‘surprising’ is the most diplomatically way I can put it.”
“I cannot sentence him on the basis that he used the car as a weapon because of what the prosecution have done.”
CPS had accepted a plea of causing serious injury from careless driving, instead of causing serious injury from dangerous driving.
Just what do you have to do for it to be dangerous ?
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24220146.essex-man-ran-victim-argument-avoids-jail/
Why does it have to be one or the other – would it be possible to charge for both careless and dangerous driving as a matter of course when someone is seriously injured?
With this kind of thing some might say “their own misfortune is their punishment”. I hope they face further sanction.On balance I think it’s reasonable for society to pick up the tab for some behaviours of others we find objectionable – even if they’re damaging to the people themselves. That would be under principles like “freedom” and “providing care for the injured / those in danger regardless of how they got to that point”. But at some point we do have to consider the cost as these can conflict and we have finite resources.
I think with mass motoring the harms that people cause through carelessness / stupidity / “ain’t gonna do what they tell me” can be so magnified that this merits a modified approach.
With motoring, society has chosen to use insurance companies to cover the costs of driver mistakes, but the companies are going to try to avoid the costs, especially if the driver isn’t following their rules and I’d guess that deliberately driving on a closed road would invalidate their insurance. From the limited info, it seems like it was just the car that got damaged, so at least that’s a reasonable burden for the driver.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/driver-ignores-bridge-closure-signs-9196105
A car crashed on the M48 Severn Bridge this afternoon after a driver foolishly ignored signs indicating that the bridge was closed. High wind speeds forced officials to close the bridge between Bristol and Wales this afternoon, Thursday, March 28, but that one driver decided that the closure did not apply to them and attempted to make the crossing anyway.
One of the tabloids recently ran a story on some bloke getting fined for outstaying the parking restriction limits in a cinema car park, after going to watch Dune part 2
Lucky they weren’t watching Sátántangó
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/tourists-fined-taking-long-pay-9191558
Maybe there should be some kind of amnesty for parkers if the payment options aren’t working properly
I’m not convinced that it’s
I’m not convinced that it’s the roads that are dangerous – if so, then maybe they need to be re-designed. It’s more likely to be roads with dangerous drivers using them.
Had a strange one on Sunday. I was cycling on the shared use cycle path and a pedestrian told me I should have been cycling on the road, and that I was cycling too fast. I explained that it was a shared use path as you can see from the multiple signs behind his head in the picture. I have checked my speed and I was doing 17kmh which is less than the 12mph “speed limit” in the nearby Wandsworth park.If you see this man please tell him:
– There is no legal speed limit for cyclists on cycle paths or anywhere else on public roads
– There is no requirement for cyclists to have speedometers
– There is no specific speed limit on this shared use path for cyclists
– if he has problems with shared use paths to complain to Wandsworth Council
Why do people feel compelled to demonstrate their cluelessness to cyclists? It’s the same with those motorists who feel compelled to shout made up rules about where and how cyclists should get about.
Jogle wrote:
For some reason a number of websites quote S42, but that doesn’t appear to apply https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/42 HC123 says that it comes from The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 98 (which is about stopping the engine to stop noise) & 107 (which would apply if the car park is a road, which is then in RTA1988 S192(1)). I had thought that private land meant that it wouldn’t apply but now I’m very confused.Yeah, I just copied/pasted that from a cursory search and didn’t dig any deeper, but it does appear that you’re correct – idling on private land isn’t illegal (according to at least a couple of websites).
