In news:68k5ihF2s63gfU1@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, "
>>> -------
>>
>> RM: As I said earlier - a bicycle is not a vehicle for the
>> purposes of S.51. Bicycles are expressly excluded.
>
>
> ** The definition of a " vehicle " does not include a bicycle - as * I
> stated * in my original post.
>
> See the words " ... or with a person or object " in relation to the
> "impact involving a vehicle" - or IOW the target of predatory
> behaviour.
> So, predatory driving involving only a person as the target and no
> vehicle is also included.
No, it is not. You don't understand the provision. But that is par for
you.
> PLUS included is the case where an " object" is the target of the
> predatory behaviour - so long as there is intent to thereby to
> injure a person.
Whatever that gibberish means...
|