That sounds slightly disproportionate.
Oh, I don't know. It would at least make sure drivers stop at a red light and may even slow down rather than accelerate on amber.
That sounds slightly disproportionate.
Yes and no, I quite often see riders dawdling along who are not concerned with their speed but they still go through red lights in order to save a little time.
So far as I'm aware, when a judge speculates about what the outcome of a case might have been, had the facts of the case been different, that is obiter dictum.
GC
He didn't speculate, he reached a judgement. Have you read the case transcript at all?
- In my judgment the observations of Lord Denning MR in Froom and others v. Butcher above should apply to the wearing of helmets by cyclists.
What were Lord Denning's obeservations in Froom and Others v Butcher? What were the facts and the legal issues being debated? Your reference to this case means nothing unless you give the context ie was it a construction case where a worker was injured by a brick falling on his head and a hard hat would have meant he survived or was not seriously injured, so the worker was contributory negligent under Health and Safety at work legislation.
You have still glossed over my point that the judge in Finch seems to have gone off totally into an area which needs Parliament to debate. Do you not think that if Parliament's intention was for cyclists to wear a helmet then it would have legislated for this? It is not for judges to make new law through precedent.
If a cyclist does have their damages reduced because of this stupid judges remarks then I would expect the case to be appealed and leave given to do so. You CANNOT get away from the fundamental point that it is NOT currently a legal requirement to wear a cycling helmet where as all the examples you have dragged up such as seat belts must be worn when driving. Period. End of. No dispute. The fact is we have some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament. Cycling helmets are such an important and emotive issue that making wearing of them mandatory needs to be debated by parliament or select committee.
Lets hope this anomoly of (Finch) is soon shown to be bad law and also the judge who has created uncertainty in the law where previously it did not exist is severely criticised by the Court of Appeal or Supreme court if it goes all the way.
Why don't you read them yourself - they are readily available on-line - and then you might be able to have an informed conversation about it rather than guessing and making it up?
But first you'll have to overcome your complete ignorance of how English Law works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law might be a good place to start your education.
More of the same ignorance and making things up as a pretence for knowledge. Why don't you read the Smith v Finch transcript including the parts about helmets and the lack of a legal requirement to wear them in it? And while you are at it why don't you try to find the Act Parliament has passed on that far more important and emotive issue of murder. Or perhaps you think that all the judges who sentence people for murder are stupid people who are undermining Parliament who would surely have debated and passed a law of murder if they meant people to go to prison for it.
And the claim will not be small:
http://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/people/details-clive-hyer-10680
Ehh? You are off your trolley tonight Redlight.
What has murder got to do with this case???? I don't follow.
Oh Wikipedia the omnipresent authoritative legal source for wanabee lawyers. Is this what you use? LoL! You crack me up. You haven't yet answered my question about what legal training/experience you have?
The fact is we have some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament.
You weren't cloistered away with all thise QCs and legal eagles as a defendent, I hope... :-)I'm not off my trolley but you are way out of your depth in a subject you try to profess to have knowledge of but don't.
You claim for example:
L
English law (and the law in most other countries) is mainly case law set by judges in Court, not statutory law set by Parliament. What happened in Smith v Finch and Froom v Butcher before it is at the heart of the way English law works, not some aberration as you seem to see it. Setting precedents in Court is the way it works.
Murder is one of the best examples of that. You will not find an Act of Parliament on the offence of murder. The offence comes from case law. But you would seem to think the offence of murder was just "some stupid judge thinking he can re-write the law via case law and undermining Parliament" because surely if it was that important Parliament would have debated it and passed a law of murder.
And since you insist I have run, in a corporate context, a number of cases in both English and US courts up to and including the level of the Appeal Court which have set significant legal precedents. I have spent more hours than I would like to admit sat in chambers with the QCs and legal teams I engaged going over this stuff to know a bit about what I am talking about. Now since you insisted that I disclose my credentials, would you care to reciprocate and tell us what legal training/experience you have? Thought not! We know it doesn't even go as far as Wikipedia but that might be a good place for you to start.
You weren't cloistered away with all thise QCs and legal eagles as a defendent, I hope... :-)