Can you give a citation for Davis and Scroggins, because the only reference I can find to it on the internet…is you. Not on this forum, but on others, and before you jump out of your chair, this includes checking Lexis Nexis, Westlaw and Baiili and even on Google. Two of those are professional sites that require quite a large fee to use, now given that the only information we have is the name and the year of the case (from another site 2006?) that is an awful lot of law books I would have to check to find that case.
For the record, the Human Rights Act works on every single act there is…that is why it is so fundamentally important to our country. s3(1) States:
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
The HRA requires that a court act in accordance with the Articles of the ECHR, this means that the court is bound to interpret any act as being in accordance with those articles or to make a statement that the act contravenes the HRA. Since the RTA does not contravene the HRA but the interpretation of the court would, it simply could not do that, it could not make a declaration, because it is not hte primary legislation which is contravention, it is the courts interpretation, and they have been told by the HRA that must whereever possible read and give effect to accord with the ECHR.
Gay News Ltd. and Lemon v United Kingdom Is the case which spurred me into thinking of Art 7…they failed because the court felt that the Blasphemy laws were sufficiently clarified so as not to reach the requirement for Art 7.
And yes I do study law which is why I have access to Lexis and Westlaw.
Farley is about filtering and whether overtaking a vehicle on the outside that completely obscures your view of the left hand side of the road, which results in an accident, is negligence on behalf of the motorcyclist or the driver leaving from a turning on the left. In Farley it was negligence on the behalf of the motorcyclist.
Could you explain what this has to do with double white lines or stationary traffic, which is what you claimed the case as authority for? You claimed that a high court judge approved this…Farley has since been to the Court of Appeal and they upheld the decision…but I don’t see what it has to do with the question that was posed or my answer to that question. edited to add:I am not stalking you from one bike forum to another, I simply put in Davis v Scroggins in Google and the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY hits are you on other bike forums. No where else is Davis v Scroggins on the internet, no-one else has even referred to it, except when linking to your posts.Edited again to add:It is rule 129 of the Highway code which states:You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
It is rule 123 which states:
However it is permissible to leave the engine running if the vehicle is stationary in traffic or for diagnosing faults.
So the very highway code itself defines a vehicle as stationary while in traffic.
Yet the very definition of the word changes from Rule 123 to rule 129? In 6 rules it changes from being stationary in traffic to meaning only cars that are against the curb or broken down?
