Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver is a criminal offence.

Section 21(2)(a) of the 1991 Act.

The get out is:

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

Standard of proof (as I understand it) is 'no reasonable doubt' as to the failure to provide the information, but the wording of the getout is clearly designed to place the onus on you to demonstrate that you could not with reasonable diligince have found out who it was. And obviously the magistrate (was it a District Judge?) decided that you could have found out with reasonable diligence - whether that's justified, I know not ;)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I don't want them outside schools either.

What's the point people slowing to 30 outside schools? All it does is minimise the damage if you hit someone. And why is hitting and killing or maiming a child so much worse than hitting and killing or maiming an adult?

As usual with this country, it's 'blame blame blame'. The solution is NOT more cameras, it's for more parents to give a damn about their wretched kids instead of seeing them as a means to get a free house and tons of cash off the taxpayer.

Parents need to drum it into their kids that you DO NOT GO NEAR roads as they are DANGEROUS. Instead we get this modern crap about them having 'the right to do what they like' even if that means playing on main roads, and then punishing anyone who dares to impinge upon that. Pathetic.

Whether we like it or not, roads have cars on them. Moving cars can kill you. Therefore pedestrians need to stay away from roads unless absolutely necessary, and even then with a due sense of danger and caution.

Bring back the Green Cross Code!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I spoke to my dad, an ex-copper about it. He said that speeding isn't a civil offence, or a criminal offence, it is a motoring offence, which is different from the 2. The more serious motoring offences like driving under the influence, etc are criminal.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

It never went away - it's here!!
Complete with hedgehogs too. ;)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Bah, I remember we had a talking robot back in our day. Kids wouldn't listen to an adult, unless he was wearing a robot costume, but it bloody worked.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Aha - you mean this one! :D Or perhaps not - but probably he appealed more to the boys than the hedgehogs do!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I meant this fella:

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/imag...greencross.jpg

I don't remember the guy. Although that website said he starred in the ads in 1976, before I was born. The robot was like mid-80s.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Is this post for real? If I'm understanding this a child should have more road sense than an adult behind the wheel of a one tonne speeding heap of metal?

You are not living anywhere near the real world. My kids play out on the side street (we don't have a garden) where I live. It's a 20mph zone with cobbles (not good for your pimped up ride). Yet idiot drivers still drive totally recklessly around here. Why? How much quicker are they going to get anywhere? We're talking seconds. But that's not the point. It's big and its clever. Woo hoo big boys. This is not 'modern crap'; there are a hell of a lot more cars on the road than when I was a kid, and millions more idiot drivers who think they are King of The Road and can handle driving at speed. And my kids have nearly been wiped out by a bloke taking a roundabout too fast and very nearly hitting them on the pavement, where cars are not supposed to. Driving brings with it a big responsibility which many appear unable to realise and/or accept.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

True, but 20 cameras outside a school won't help with any of that, will they? Unless you live next door to the school.

It's a media hysteria type reaction to say 'more cameras outside schools'. Waste of time. Most schools have a crossing patrol at peak times so there'd be little need anyway.

There's certainly driver education needed but this is no substitute for parents actually telling kids to keep the hell away from busy roads. This is not done these days. The attitude seems to be, if you get run over we'll sue and be rich. Abominable. It's always someone else's fault of course.

Kids need the green cross code...as I said. It was great, it was drummed into you, and it worked.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Little need anyway because of the lollipop lady? Where do you live? We're surrounded by busy roads. And where's this 20 cameras thing come from? If you can't keep to urban speed limits (no substitute for driver training?!!) you shouldn't be allowed to drive. but you are.... so more cameras please.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Plenty of cameras already. More police catching burglars first please.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

we had a Lollipop Lady killed by a van, here, it was given a verdict of accidental death due to the driver being blinded by the direct low sunlight, - people still run the red light at that crossing........

kids don't understand that a tonne of metal will hurt them - and they should.

but I agree that drivers should drive according to the conditions - which may involve going below the speed limit in an urban setting or exeeding it on an empty dry motorway ;)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I usually pick my 5 year old grandson up from school. The school is on a hill and 75 yards aove the school they have just erected new traffic lights. There are flashing school warning lights at the times when children are going to and from school and a lollipop lady is usually there but not always. I have seen many near misses when traffic has just kept on going when the lollipop lady in her flourescent yellow coat has been walking to the centre of the road and the driver has been speeding along at way over the speed limit. This has got worse since the traffic lights were switched on as drivers go even faster to catch the lights at green. I am sure that some drivers have the attitude that beating the lollipop lady is a game that they must win and that nobody has the right to slow their progress on the road. On a couple of occasions there has been the squeel of locking wheels as a driver has suddenly realised he cannot make it and jammed on the brakes. One of these days a driver will lose control when doing this and may wipe out a few kids on the pavement who know and are practising the green cross code.
__________________

Not enough cameras, although they would not be needed if everyone stuck to the speed limits. I would sooner have a burgler get away with it than have a child, or anyone, killed by a speeding motorist.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Cookie, My gripe here is that "reasonable doubt" is a
n issue. I tried, but the bench decided I didn't try hard enough. I have more than "reasonable doubt as to their fairness.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

This again is based on the incorrect assumption that burglars don't kill or injure people.

They do, and frequently.

Besides, I don't really care what anyone says on this subject, burgling a house *is* more serious than doing 33mph in a 30 zone. Period.