Acceptable Law Breaking (and other morality questions)

sprunt · 15 Apr 2019

This is 100% bar-stool lawyering, but I think the law is that it's illegal to smoke in a bus shelter (or similar partially enclosed structure) where it's 50% enclosed or more.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 15 Apr 2019

AM9 said:
If it was that easy to obtain access, the organisation would probably be in its duty of data protection.

Accessing an organisation's wifi connection has nothing to do with data protection whatsoever. Only if someone was able to access a system on that wifi which contained personal data would there be an issue.

Bletchleyite · 15 Apr 2019

bnm said:
Indeed. Signs may or may not be correct. Put there to discourage rather than necessarily being a true statement of the law.

I personally find that grossly irritating. People putting signs up should not justify them with fictional laws. It's your own rule, justify and stand behind it yourself.

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

Busaholic said:
Re parking on pavements: I believe it's illegal if an obstruction is caused, so if someone claims they're obstructed then it's illegal. Sounds like a good fudge to me!

there is no win in this case.

some streets are so narrow that you will either be obstructing pedestrians,
or obstructing traffic flow(obstruction of queens highway is also a criminal offence)

sometimes people have to semi-park on pavements to minimise the risk of damage to their vehicles,and sometimes more importantly,other road users like cyclists/motor cyclists.(I am guilty of this one with good reason..see below)
while the cyclist may not be the risk, it's usually the idiot in the car trying to overtake them and not leaving enough room that causes the accident

Anecdotal evidence here...happened to my mum's car(parked up).car tries to overtake passing motorcyclist,cuts it too fine and forces him into side of my mum's old banger.
Poor old motorcyclist goes sliding down the road and broke his leg in 6 places.He was very lucky not much traffic behind at the time or he could have easily been killed.

torn off wing-mirrors is another frequent occurrence.

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

PeterC said:
Considering the date of the article he was taking bandwidth from private users who were probably capped or even on PAYG.

Having a service that is freely available to customers abused by non customers is another matter.

there is a distinction between commercial and private here.

private internet/phone lines etc ARE illegal to tap into.
...unauthorised access of communication is basically the same as someone trying to bug your phone line/eavesdrop .Not looked on too kindly at all, security encryped or not.

commercial networks like weatherspoons etc you do so at your own risk(see disclaimer before you sign in)

AM9 · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
there is no win in this case.

some streets are so narrow that you will either be obstructing pedestrians,
or obstructing traffic flow(obstruction of queens highway is also a criminal offence)

sometimes people have to semi-park on pavements to minimise the risk of damage to their vehicles,and sometimes more importantly,other road users like cyclists/motor cyclists.(I am guilty of this one with good reason..see below)
while the cyclist may not be the risk, it's usually the idiot in the car trying to overtake them and not leaving enough room that causes the accident

Anecdotal evidence here...happened to my mum's car(parked up).car tries to overtake passing motorcyclist,cuts it too fine and forces him into side of my mum's old banger.
Poor old motorcyclist goes sliding down the road and broke his leg in 6 places.He was very lucky not much traffic behind at the time or he could have easily been killed.

torn off wing-mirrors is another frequent occurrence.

Off-topic really, but cyclists should learn how to take the prime position in narrow sections of the road. Fortunately, on some of the worst streets, experienced cyclists normally practice that rather than leaving the decision to impatient or boorish car/van/etc., drivers.

PeterC · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
there is no win in this case.

some streets are so narrow that you will either be obstructing pedestrians,
or obstructing traffic flow(obstruction of queens highway is also a criminal offence)

sometimes people have to semi-park on pavements to minimise the risk of damage to their vehicles,and sometimes more importantly,other road users like cyclists/motor cyclists.(I am guilty of this one with good reason..see below)
while the cyclist may not be the risk, it's usually the idiot in the car trying to overtake them and not leaving enough room that causes the accident
/SNIP

IIRC "obstruction" on any part of the highway is a police matter and cannot be dealt with by local authority civil enforcement. In London on the other hand parking on the footway is covered by civil enforcement and in many boroughs is pretty well guaranteed to get you a ticket.

bramling · 16 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I personally find that grossly irritating. People putting signs up should not justify them with fictional laws. It's your own rule, justify and stand behind it yourself.

Irritating or otherwise, lots of people make up their own self-important “laws” as a means of trying to get their own way. Favourites are when someone thinks they own the road near their house or doesn’t want their property appearing in a photo.

hooverboy · 16 Apr 2019

AM9 said:
Off-topic really, but cyclists should learn how to take the prime position in narrow sections of the road. Fortunately, on some of the worst streets, experienced cyclists normally practice that rather than leaving the decision to impatient or boorish car/van/etc., drivers.

motorcyclists are taught road positioning as part of their training for a full licence. it does not negate the possibility of an overly aggressive third party.

those on two wheels and less armour around them unfortunately are much more vulnerable to either mistakes or carelessness from other road users.

yes ,you get idiot motorcylists too, but those of you who ride big bikes know that even a small f*** up on clutch control can put you in REAL trouble.
a bog standard 500cc will do 0-60 in 4-5 seconds(a 600/1000cc race tuned bike will do it in 3 seconds) , and one with a snappy clutch makes for an interesting ride.

FWIW I think there should be a legally mandated proficiency test for cyclists as well.
there used to be courses like CBT with a cert at the end, but how many cyclists these days actually attended one?...hence the terrible road sense.

bramling · 16 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
motorcyclists are taught road positioning as part of their training for a full licence. it does not negate the possibility of an overly aggressive third party.

those on two wheels and less armour around them unfortunately are much more vulnerable to either mistakes or carelessness from other road users.

yes ,you get idiot motorcylists too, but those of you who ride big bikes know that even a small f*** up on clutch control can put you in REAL trouble.
a bog standard 500cc will do 0-60 in 4-5 seconds(a 600/1000cc race tuned bike will do it in 3 seconds) , and one with a snappy clutch makes for an interesting ride.

FWIW I think there should be a legally mandated proficiency test for cyclists as well.
there used to be courses like CBT with a cert at the end, but how many cyclists these days actually attended one?...hence the terrible road sense.

I’m not really convinced training would make that much difference. Most aspects of safe cycling are common sense, for example don’t undertake a vehicle that might be about to turn left.

As I get older and more cynical, I’ve come to the conclusion a proportion of people are simply moronic. This isn’t unique to cycling, some things car drivers do beggars belief, and even on foot people do daft things like stop moving at the top of an escalator, or find a nice quiet spot in the middle of two railway tracks on a foot crossing to sit down and chill out.

Oh for a nice secluded desert island to live on!

sprunt · 17 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
there is no win in this case.

some streets are so narrow that you will either be obstructing pedestrians,
or obstructing traffic flow(obstruction of queens highway is also a criminal offence)

Then they aren't suitable to be parked on at all.

sometimes people have to semi-park on pavements to minimise the risk of damage to their vehicles,and sometimes more importantly,other road users like cyclists/motor cyclists.(I am guilty of this one with good reason..see below)

No, they don't "have to". They should park elsewhere. Contrary to what many motorists seem to believe, it isn't a fundamental human right to abandon your car wherever you feel like.

Esker-pades · 17 Apr 2019

hooverboy said:
there is no win in this case.

some streets are so narrow that you will either be obstructing pedestrians,
or obstructing traffic flow(obstruction of queens highway is also a criminal offence)

sometimes people have to semi-park on pavements to minimise the risk of damage to their vehicles,and sometimes more importantly,other road users like cyclists/motor cyclists.(I am guilty of this one with good reason..see below)
while the cyclist may not be the risk, it's usually the idiot in the car trying to overtake them and not leaving enough room that causes the accident

Then don't park on that road!

I, as an able-bodied human being, can walk around the car. Someone in a wheelchair cannot. If the road is too narrow to park on, don't park on it.

AM9 · 17 Apr 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Then don't park on that road!

I, as an able-bodied human being, can walk around the car. Someone in a wheelchair cannot. If the road is too narrow to park on, don't park on it.

It's worth pointing out that the term 'The Queen's Highway', often quoted by amateur motoring lawyers, is not synonymous with a road. Except where specific signage prevent certain classes of highway users, (e.g. motorways, tunnels etc.,) the highway includes motor vehicles, some animals and pedestrians. So obstructing a public footpath with a road vehicle is as serious an offence as obstructing a road. Roads are funded from general taxation, so no user class has any authority to deny others' use of it.

AM9 · 17 Apr 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Then don't park on that road!

I, as an able-bodied human being, can walk around the car. Someone in a wheelchair cannot. If the road is too narrow to park on, don't park on it.

You do realise that you are challenging the self-entitlement 'rights' of certain types of motorists there.

etr221 · 17 Apr 2019

AM9 said:
It's worth pointing out that the term 'The Queen's Highway', often quoted by amateur motoring lawyers, is not synonymous with a road. Except where specific signage prevent certain classes of highway users, (e.g. motorways, tunnels etc.,) the highway includes motor vehicles, some animals and pedestrians. So obstructing a public footpath with a road vehicle is as serious an offence as obstructing a road. Roads are funded from general taxation, so no user class has any authority to deny others' use of it.

AIUI motorways and pedestrianised streets are both - in law - 'special roads', authorised by the same legislation (Special Roads Act, 1949). Other roads are - as stated - open to all traffic.

i4n · 17 Apr 2019

whhistle said:
I haven't ever opened anything and ate it while walking round the shop and I don't like seeing other people do it either (seriously, can you not wait until you've finished shopping?!)

I've done this a couple of times with a chocolate bar in the last 30 or so years. It was either that or go into a diabetic hypo (yes, my fault for not replenishing my normal glucose tablets I know), so no, I seriously couldn't wait.

Bletchleyite · 17 Apr 2019

i4n said:
I've done this a couple of times with a chocolate bar in the last 30 or so years. It was either that or go into a diabetic hypo (yes, my fault for not replenishing my normal glucose tablets I know), so no, I seriously couldn't wait.

Assuming you mean that you picked it up and ate it while continuing to shop, I wouldn't do that, I'd go and pay for it and then complete the rest of my shop, with the receipt in my pocket to avoid any possible confusion.

If it was an emergency, i.e. you were going into the shop, to the first sweet shelf, grabbing something, eating it to stave off the hypo, and then, once stabilised, immediately going and paying for it with an explanation of why you did, I think most people would understand that.

Bletchleyite · 17 Apr 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Then don't park on that road!

I, as an able-bodied human being, can walk around the car. Someone in a wheelchair cannot. If the road is too narrow to park on, don't park on it.

It would help if work was done to ease the parking situation in such areas. For instance, it would make sense, in grids of roads of old terraced houses, to get the yellow lines down, make all roads one way, and paint herringbone parking bays on one side of the road (at the necessary angle not to obstruct the road for a fire engine to get down), not encroaching on the pavement.

In many ways the German approach of "you can't park unless it says you can" does have merit.

i4n · 17 Apr 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Assuming you mean that you picked it up and ate it while continuing to shop, I wouldn't do that, I'd go and pay for it and then complete the rest of my shop, with the receipt in my pocket to avoid any possible confusion.

If it was an emergency, i.e. you were going into the shop, to the first sweet shelf, grabbing something, eating it to stave off the hypo, and then, once stabilised, immediately going and paying for it with an explanation of why you did, I think most people would understand that.

Again, done both. Sometimes you don't have the time to get back to the front of the shop and pay first.

I have always presented the empty wrapper to cashier and explained why though. Never a problem and always understood.

Luckily everything for me is well under control now so it's not an issue really anymore, but as a 20 something you don't always think the same as someone in there 50s (I know I don't!)

JamesT · 17 Apr 2019

DynamicSpirit said:
I think the bit I've bolded is the problem, because too often it doesn't work that way. There are lots of cases where the law requires cyclists to do something that many cyclists would feel puts themselves in danger, while the safe way to proceed is illegal. One example would be if you're compelled to cycle along a busy 70mph dual carriageway - or - worse - past a slip road or junction, but not allowed to cycle along the completely deserted footpath alongside it (To be fair that kind of situation is becoming rarer as more councils build cycle lanes - or at least paint cycle signs on what had been footpaths). Another example is with red lights: There are many places where, if you wait for the lights to turn green, you'll probably have a queue of cars behind you all anxious to overtake you but there isn't really enough room for them to safely overtake. But some cars will try it anyway. On the other hand, if you can cycle across several seconds before the lights turn green, you'll be beyond the junction and in a much safer position with the cars behind you - but that's illegal.

An alternative to rewriting the law for that situation would be to have more traffic lights set up with an advance stop line and a green cycle phase. This gives cyclists those few seconds to get going before the motor vehicles behind them do (assuming the vehicles haven't decided to ignore the bike box as many seem to do).

cb a1 · 21 Apr 2019

whhistle said:
I haven't ever opened anything and ate it while walking round the shop and I don't like seeing other people do it either (seriously, can you not wait until you've finished shopping?!).
It seems acceptable in food shops, but not clothes shops - why is this?

As someone who tends to wear things till they wear out, I have fairly often done this. Most commonly with shoes when I discover that there's a hole in the shoe on a wet day.
The time at work where I bent over and my trousers split - headed down to the shop and walked out in the new pair of trousers.
Out in town one day and misjudged how cold it was so nipped into a charity shop and bought a fleece.

I would note that I did pay for all the items bought.

More generally, I would say that I'm prepared to break laws where I perceive there is no, or unlikely to be a victim of my actions.

A couple of personal examples of situations which as far as I know didn't involve breaking any laws but where I made a different moral decision.

1. Credit Card company accidentally credits my account with a payment twice. I didn't say anything.
2. Local garage fixes two things with my car but only charges me for one. When I realised both had been fixed I went back in and demanded they charge me for fixing both items.

The first organisation is a multi--billion £ business and the 'victims' of my inaction are unknown to me.
The second organisation are a half a dozen people and I would have known exactly who the 'victims' of my inaction would have been.

whhistle · 13 Jun 2019

Here's one I have come across.

My council provide a free extra recycling bin if it's requested.
If the plan is to use that to store... say logs for a log burner (so it keeps them protected from rain), is that okay to do?
Clearly not, but are you just taking advantage of a free wheely bin offer?

It draws similarities with those people who sign up to new bank accounts, knowing full well they won't be using the account, just to get the free cash incentive.

Esker-pades · 13 Jun 2019

whhistle said:
Here's one I have come across.

My council provide a free extra recycling bin if it's requested.
If the plan is to use that to store... say logs for a log burner (so it keeps them protected from rain), is that okay to do?
Clearly not, but are you just taking advantage of a free wheely bin offer?

It draws similarities with those people who sign up to new bank accounts, knowing full well they won't be using the account, just to get the free cash incentive.

Does the Council state what that recycling bin has to be used for?

transmanche · 13 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Does the Council state what that recycling bin has to be used for?

It's a recycling bin. Its purpose is pretty clear and should need no further explanation.

Esker-pades · 13 Jun 2019

transmanche said:
It's a recycling bin. Its purpose is pretty clear and should need no further explanation.

What a silly comment.

If the Council doesn't state that the recycling bin has to be used for recycling, then the user can use their free bin to do whatever they want.

transmanche · 13 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
If the Council doesn't state that the recycling bin has to be used for recycling, then the user can use their free bin to do whatever they want.

What a silly comment.

Its people with attitudes like yours that push up the cost of Council Tax.

Esker-pades · 13 Jun 2019

transmanche said:
What a silly comment.

Its people with attitudes like you that push up the cost of Council Tax.

I did not condone any action, just explained it from a pseudo-legal perspective.
If the council is offering a second bin to people, they are allowed to claim it. It won't push up council tax.
I have zero recycling bins.

I'm not sure what you think my attitude is, or how my attitude has increased council taxes. I remain baffled.

transmanche · 13 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
I'm not sure what you think my attitude is, or how my attitude has increased council taxes. I remain baffled.

Ah, you're playing the old 'I didn't mean what I said' argument.

If the council are offering a free extra recycling bin, its purpose is clear. It's a bin. To keep recycling in. It should need no further explanation than that.

Bletchleyite · 13 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
What a silly comment.

If the Council doesn't state that the recycling bin has to be used for recycling, then the user can use their free bin to do whatever they want.

What on earth else would a "recycling bin" be intended to be used for?

This kind of attitude is precisely what has given us tight parking controls, for one thing. There is really no need to legislate on this. You should only claim one if you require it for recycling. You can see where "it doesn't say I can't park in Tesco to commute to work" has led. And if people were just sensible, reasonable and careful, every last one of those car parking companies would be out of business within a month or two.

Bletchleyite · 13 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
If the council is offering a second bin to people, they are allowed to claim it. It won't push up council tax.

Well, er, of course it will. More bins will be claimed than are necessary for recycling, so more have to be ordered. Who is going to pay for those bins if they are free at the point of distribution? It's not going to come out of the Mayor's beer and fags fund, is it?

MK Council has had to tighten up on provision of recycling bags for this exact reason - people were getting unlimited numbers of them for free and using them for all sorts of things (none of which involved recycling). Now you have to order them and are very restricted in quantities, which is only going to reduce recycling and is inconvenient. And all because people took the mick.

Acceptable Law Breaking (and other morality questions)

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member