relry_r125
Answer
This is a bit complicated! The Department for Transport have produced a factsheet to help, but this is the basic situation:
Road Legality: The law relating to this dates back to 1983, and covers what you can legally use on public roads in the UK.
The limits are: 200W continuous power (250W for tricycles and tandems), 15mph maximum assisted speed, maximum weight 40kgs (60kgs for tricycles and tandems).
As long as your cycle is within these limits, and you are over 14, you can ride your bike legally on UK roads with no restrictions. This law is laid down in the Road Traffic Act, and the police have the power to enforce it.
Type Certification & Construction Regulations: This covers what manufacturers like us build and sell - in that respect, itâs similar to the old Kitemark or CE mark. This law has recently been revised and standardised across Europe, and is a matter for Trading Standards.
Basically, all road vehicles are supposed to be Type Certified - this is a series of standards and tests the vehicle has to pass, like an MOT, but the manufacturer can get one certificate to cover all the bikes of one model they make.
Because this process is very expensive, there is an exclusion for some electric bikes, which do not need Type Approval. To avoid it, the cycle must be under 250W continuous power, 25km/h maximum assisted speed, and must have a pedal sensor which cuts the motor when the rider stops pedalling.
In addition, the UK also has regulations about the construction of electric bikes which are used on UK roads - basically, they have to be constructed to the same standards as non-electric cycles, to comply with BS6102 part 1.
So what is the situation for various bikes? Some examples:
200W, 15mph, with pedal sensor: Completely legal to use on UK roads (and European, for that matter). Legal for the manufacturer to supply without a type approval certificate.
200W, 15mph, without pedal sensor: Completely legal to use on UK roads (but not European). The manufacturer should supply a type approval certificate.
250W, 15mph, with pedal sensor: Only legal on tricycles and tandems in the UK, NOT bicycles - a bicycle can only be used on the road with a license plate, tax, insurance, moped helmet and moped license for the rider. The manufacturer does not need to supply a type approval certificate.
250W, 15mph, no pedal sensor: As above, but the manufacturer should supply a type approval certificate.
Above these limits: As above.
What about kits? The UKâs road-legality legislation still applies - so you can have 200W continuous power (250W for tricycles and tandems), 15mph maximum assisted speed, maximum weight 40kgs (60kgs for tricycles and tandems).
The whole Type Certification quagmire doesnât apply, however - the powers that be have decided that kits are outside their remit.
Statutory Interpretation?
dunningman
The United Kingdom has been concerned at the amount of fatal injuries that have recently happened because of people not wearing safety helmets when riding bikes. In 1995 the United Kingdom became a signatory to the People Safety Treaty (fictitious). Parliament has recently passed the People Safety Act 2009 (fictitious) so that the People Safety Treaty (fictitious) has become legally binding. Section 1(1) of the Act states:
It shall be an offence to fail to wear a safety helmet whilst in control of a bicycle, skateboard or other such vehicle
Consider this provision with regards to:
1.Tom, who was delivering a bicycle to a bike shop. He was carrying the bike and the police arrested him. He was convicted and appeals.
2.Dick was riding a bike but had a safety hat (from a construction site) on. He, like Tom, was arrested and convicted and also appeals.
3.Harriet had just bought a new hover board, which floats on the air and does not have wheels. These were not available for purchase before the Act was passed. She was not wearing a safety helmet and was convicted. She also wants to appeal the decision.
Counsel for the appellants wishes to cite a Canadian Supreme Court case (fictitious) that defines what type of headgear that can be classed as a safety helmet. They also wish to cite the American Civil Safety Code (fictitious) which provides a comprehensive list of safety helmets. There is also a recent Australian negligence case (fictitious) that states that a hover board is not the same as a bike because it is mechanically propelled.
Discuss the rules and other aids used in statutory interpretation which the judges, in the Court of Appeal, could use to help them arrive at a decision in each of the appeals.
Really Stuck on this???
Answer
1) Tom has excellent grounds for appeal. He can claim 'false arrest' although that phrase could vary depending on which English speaking country. It is no different to carrying a large box with or without a helmet. The principle or 'spirit of the law' was violated because it was intended for helmets to be worn while riding a bicycle and such. YOU would have to read the rest of that assignment to see if there are additional clauses in that legislation. I know it's only an assignment but no Act contains only a few lines. (Politicians aren't clear communicators in the written language). You will need to look up your country's laws on citizens' rights, police powers, criminal appeal rights, etc. for the right lingo. Any honest magistrate would laugh the stupid constables out of court.
2) Dick also has grounds to appeal but not as strong as the guy in #1. However, that would depend on what the helmet looks like. Some construction site safety helmets don't have straps built-in to strap firmly under the chin. A bicycle, skateboard type helmet requires that strap so that those flimsily designed helmets don't fly off. Some construction safety helmets are really tough and better than a bicycle helmet with more padding inside. That hypothetical law simply states "safety helmet" so arguing on semantics and type of helmet could work for construction helmets to be worn as an alternative. The attorney could use that Canadian case as a relevant example in the UK since their helmet law there is new and the definition of what is a "safety helmet" isn't clear. The lawyer might have some but not as much help from the American Civil Safety list because many of the helmets listed won't have a strap. It would only be helpful in terms of the general definition of "safety helmet" as stated in the hypothetical Act. Now, a motorcycle helmet in Australia also needs to be strapped but I think in the USA they can still wear such helmets without the extra stability of a strap because motorcycle helmets are heavy and wouldn't easily fly off the head without a chin strap. But the idea is that if a person falls off a moving pushbike or bike their helmet will still be attached in order to reduce the severity of head injury, possibly leading to death, from the helmet flying off or loosened to expose a previously covered part of the cranium.
3) A hover board wouldn't be acceptable as a road worthy vehicle in Australia, fictional or not. They would be allowed on footpaths only. So, if there is no law about cyclists on footpaths wearing helmets then she wouldn't need a helmet too if she was arrested while on the footpath. However, a bicycle helmet is required for riding a bicycle even on a foothpath in Australia. It all depends on whether the UK, where you are, has a law about wearing helmets when riding a bicycle on footpaths. But if she was arrested while on the road not wearing a helmet, not only could she be said to have broken that new law, she could also be accused of violating the law that defines what vehicles are allowed on roads. Then again, re-read that hypothetical piece of law. It doesn't say either 'road' or 'footpath.' She could say that she accidentally veered onto the road without a helmet when the police saw her because any hover board is difficult to control/steer. Those are the mechanically propelled and non-road vehicle arguments she could use in her favour. However, the police prosecutor could be pedantic and say that a hover board can be controlled simply because of the steering aspect regardless of not having wheels. Also, they could say that even with limited steering she could endanger herself if she fell off or some vehicle hit her. But I think after much pontificating from both sides, she could escape the fine because a hover board is more like a toy, if that is argued clearly. Besides, it doesn't rise off the ground as high as bicycle wheels do and it definitely doesn't go fast. This is 2010 not 2085 like the "Back to the Future II" movie. Plus the hover board doesn't have any wheels, or brakes I add, which all road worthy vehicles, including bicycles must have - even though bicycles are allowed on footpaths.
You really need to do your own chapter readings and research-reading on other possibly relevant Acts that I've given clues on above. You also need to dig up some past cases if you're actually majoring in law, intending to become a lawyer. I don't have the jargon, as mentioned before, or the "rules and other aids used in statutory interpretation" at my fingertips. Those aren't easily and quickly found online. Yet, I didn't give you false info like the guy who quoted figures without a source. I do know that I've given you more than enough to understand this assignment and to actually plagiarise the many discussion points I've raised and answered as well as could be outside the L & E section. Oo, I got a feeling that I'm going to get top marks for you when you get your graded paper back! (Maybe I could've been a lawyer, LOL, if I had found that interesting).
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
