Police Acknowledge Drivers at Fault - So Hand Out Hi-Viz!

[dawesome]

Oh, redlight's post proves me wrong, bugger.

 

[Recycler]

Already in progress.

That has nothing to do with EHRC and there is not even a mention of Human Rights in that article.. A corporate manslaughter charge based on non compliance with design standards is not a Human Rights issue.

Sorry, but you have got it completely wrong.

 

[Red Light]

That has nothing to do with EHRC and there is not even a mention of Human Rights in that article.. A corporate manslaughter charge based on non compliance with design standards is not a Human Rights issue.

Sorry, but you have got it completely wrong.

​

1.12 The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the first sentence of Article 2(1) ECHR as laying down a positive obligation on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. ​

1.13 This positive obligation to protect life includes a duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. This positive obligation includes an obligation to put such effective measures in place to protect individuals against threats to their life not just from activities of the State but also from other private parties.​

<.....>​

Where it is established that the negligence attributable to State officials or bodies … goes beyond an error of judgment or carelessness, in that the authorities in question, fully realising the likely consequences and disregarding the powers vested in them, failed to take measures that were necessary and sufficient to avert the risks inherent in a dangerous activity …, the fact that those responsible for endangering life have not been charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted may amount to a violation of Article 2, irrespective of any other types of remedy which individuals may exercise on their own initiative. ​

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/246/24604.htm

 

[Recycler]

Clip, clip, clip

​

Fine. You think you have a case.​

Why not put your money where your mouth is and take it to court?​

Let us know how you get on.​

 

[Red Light]

Fine. You think you have a case.​

Why not put your money where your mouth is and take it to court?​

Let us know how you get on.​

No need, as I have already pointed out, as its currently in progress. HRA only comes into play if its not backed up by the legal processes.

 

[Electric_Andy]

The "Think bike" campaign has been running for some time now.

Wasn't "Think Bike" for Motorcyclists? The big difference here is the speed. I can't quote any research in this, but in my view it is often that the driver sees the cyclist but underestimates the speed he/she is doing. Some also assume that the cyclist will be meek and "hold-off" from making any major manoeuvres in case we are hit. Obviously not the case, but many (dare I say older drivers) still assume that we will take our bicycle clips off and go onto the pavement at every roundabout to avoid the traffic.

 

[Recycler]

Wasn't "Think Bike" for Motorcyclists? .

You're right; "Think Bike" has primarily been aimed at motorcyclists. I only raised it in reply to the earlier post which was calling for publicity for both pedal cyclists and motor cyclists.

I agree on the other point. Some car drivers do seem to try to "bully" their way through. "I'm a lump of steel, he'll have to get out of my way". Unfortunately traffic volumes are so great that sometimes we have no choice but to tackle a manoeuvre the "assertive" way rather than the "meek and mild" way.

 

[ufkacbln]

Talking to a Police Constable today, he was describing how his brightly coloured Police car compete with a resplendent aray of flashing blue and red lights and loud sirens had not been seen by a driver!