Daniel Barlow wrote:
JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:
[ law regarding amber traffic lights:]

In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for
"too close to be stopped safely"?
A list of people whose job it is to judge things can probably be had by
contacting the various courts aroud the country. They're called
"judges", appropriately enough.
Post-hoc, you mean?

It is inherent in the scheme of things that road traffic offences are
judged after they have been committed (or alleged to have been
committed), yes. I think that to do otherwise would be an unacceptable
infringement of civil liberties.

Who was talking about traffic offences?

I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of traffic
lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the law says and
what it means.

You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc and
that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be legal or not.

How does the opinion of a judge, months later and in receipt of
second-hand information, help the driver or cyclist who is approaching
and nearly at a set of traffic lights which have just, this very
fraction of a second, turned amber?

It doesn't, but that's not what you were appearing to ask.

That's exactly wahat I *was* asking.

If a driver
wishes to avoid committing the offence in the first place and needs
advice on whether he can safely stop at a set of traffic lights which
has just turned amber, he may have recourse to (a) his own knowledge of
his vehicle an the road conditions, (b) the guide to stopping distances
printed on the back of the Highway Code, (c) the services of such
organisations as the BSM, the AA, and numerous independent driving
instructors, any of which would I am sure be happy to give him a
remedial course in driving skills.

So you don't actually know what "too close to be stopped safely" means?

David Hansen wrote:

On 16 Apr 2009 09:32:19 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a
country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws
governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country.

Just as well they aren't, eh?

EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK
law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland.

Nice try.

Ah, the standard Hansen admission of defeat.

However, I already knew the details.

Your reply made it clear that you do not know the details, not event he
broad-brush picture.

It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets
the little Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders
in most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there is a
pretence that they are optional.

They are not legislation. In the absence of national legislation EU
Directives are not enforceable.

Must try better. 1/10.

"David Hansen has declared that cars can run on magic moonbeams so it
must be true."

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
On 16 Apr 2009 09:32:19 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:-

If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a
country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws
governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country.

Just as well they aren't, eh?

EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes, UK
law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland.

Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically
correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little
Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in
most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there
is a pretence that they are optional.

I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little
hypocritical.

" cupra" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little
hypocritical.

Do you? I find the massive hypocrisy merely adds to the hilarity.

David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

If, for the sake of argument, one accepts the claim that the UK is a
country then by the argument above it cannot be a country. While laws
governing the UK are passed in Belgium the UK cannot be a country.

Just as well they aren't, eh?

EU directives are approved and passed into UK law by Westminster. Yes,
UK law. England, Wales, NI _and_ Scotland.

Nice try.

Indeed. Nice tries often do introduce facts to the debate.

However, I already knew the details.

Ah. My apologies. I didn't realise you were deliberately talking
********. I assumed you did it accidentally.

It is not politically correct to call laws made by the EU laws

ITYM "It is not accurate".

and there is a pretence that they are optional.

You may wish to refresh yourself on the copyright & software patents
directive from a few years ago, to name but one.

Must try better. 1/10.

You really, really must.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
" cupra" gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little
hypocritical.

Do you?

I do, in the sense that IMV it links being English to being Xenophobic about
Europe(-eans)

I find the massive hypocrisy merely adds to the hilarity.

Exactly - using HasenRules(tm) he's lost the argument!

cupra wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
[snip]

Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically
correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little
Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in
most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there
is a pretence that they are optional.

I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little
hypocritical.

And now he'll have a hissy fit and accuse you of "abusing" him which is
the other Hansen tactic for trying to escape the hole that he has dug.

JNugent writes:

Who was talking about traffic offences?

A brief survey of the thread in Google Groups indicated that Adrian was,
Mortimer (who explicitly said "going through on amber ... is not actually
an offence") was, and in quoting the legislation that creates the
offence, I obviously was too.

If you were talking about something else you might have said so.

I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of
traffic lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the
law says and what it means.

You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc
and that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be
legal or not.

In exactly the same way and to the same extent, they cannot know in
advance whether their conduct will be judged as careless driving or
dangerous driving. Yet most of us seem to get along most of the time.


-dan

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

Who was talking about traffic offences?

A brief survey of the thread in Google Groups indicated that Adrian was,
Mortimer (who explicitly said "going through on amber ... is not actually
an offence") was, and in quoting the legislation that creates the
offence, I obviously was too.

But I wasn't and it is hard to see how anyone might think I was.

If you were talking about something else you might have said so.

It was absolutely clear what my question meant.

I was asling a question about how a road user approaching a set of
traffic lights might avoid breaking the law by complying with what the
law says and what it means.
You seem to be suggesting that its meaning can only be judged post-hoc
and that no-one can know (in advance) whther their conduct will be
legal or not.

In exactly the same way and to the same extent, they cannot know in
advance whether their conduct will be judged as careless driving or
dangerous driving. Yet most of us seem to get along most of the time.

Yeeesss... but most of us will pass sets of traffic lights rather more often
than we encounter overtly dangerous situations.

Approaching a set of lights which turn amber just before we reach them is a
very common experience. It is remarkable that there is no ready case-law on
the topic.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
cupra wrote:

"David Hansen" wrote in message
news
[snip]

Nice try. However, I already knew the details. It is not politically
correct to call laws made by the EU laws, it upsets the little
Englanders (and there are the equivalent of little Englanders in
most parts of the EU). So the laws are called Directives and there
is a pretence that they are optional.

I find the expression 'Little Englanders' offensive and a little
hypocritical.

And now he'll have a hissy fit and accuse you of "abusing" him which is
the other Hansen tactic for trying to escape the hole that he has dug.

Yep, sounds about right!