header-logo header-logo

17 November 2017 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7770 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

Protecting the pedestrian

nlj_7770_samuels

Alec Samuels addresses an irresponsible minority & lays down the law for safer pavements

The pedestrian on the footway needs protection from the unlawful or irresponsible cyclist and mobility scooter driver. The pedestrian has been intimidated, knocked down and injured. The pedestrian may be a child, an old person, a disabled person, indeed anybody. Abuse of the footway is rife, albeit by a minority of irresponsible people.

Careless cycling is an offence (Road Traffic Act 1988 s 29, penalty level 3 fine), and dangerous cycling is an offence (Road Traffic Act 1988 s 28, penalty level 4 fine). Doing or causing to be done bodily harm by wanton or furious driving of any carriage (which includes cycle) is an offence (Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s 35, penalty maximum two years).

Charlie Alliston who caused the death of a pedestrian on the carriageway by wanton or furious driving of an unroadworthy cycle was convicted not of manslaughter but of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and sentenced in September 2017 to 18 months

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll