In news:68is20F2tg1glU1@mid.individual.net,
Phil Allison typed:
> "Ray Murphy"
>>
>>> My original Q still stands as to the actual intention of the odd
>>> wording of section 51A.
>>
>> RM: Bicycles are not treated as vehicles in that section of the
>> Act, so section 51 couldn't be used.
>
> ** Shame about this bit:
>
> " (3) In this section:
>
> "impact" involving a vehicle includes:
> (a) an impact with any other vehicle or with a person or object, "
>
>
> I pointed *directly* to this but you simply did not bother to read it
> .
>
>> It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
>> the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed.
>
> ** Not weird at all - it is bleeding obvious that intent to harm a
> person must exist.
>
>
>> It's not an
>> offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
>> vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
>> bodily harm.
>
>
> ** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or
> bodily harm.
>
> It is entirely about driving behaviour and intent.
>
> The title alone tells you that.
The heading of a section is not part of the law.
> Ever considered a remedial reading course - pal ??
Complete waste of time in your case.
> Cos you .ing need one.
That would be a PKB, if you could read.
|