|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 26, 2018 21:59:11 GMT
Original Highway Code post 1988 legislation.... No distance prescribed by law or Highway Code    |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 26, 2018 22:12:38 GMT
The sender of the goods and or employer prescribe the delivery distance for each delivery. as the doctor prescribes the medical exemption certificate for each driver. Not the Highways authority who only write the law which facilitates such prescriptions being accountable to each instance.  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 16, 2019 23:04:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 17, 2019 9:05:17 GMT
There are 2 different perspectives on this practically..
The first assumption that the seat belt exemption is only for delivery of door to door parcels and letters at 50 meters distances.. When such deliveries would be done on foot not in a vehicle... Is ridiculous because..
What about goods vehicle's over 3.5 tonnes?
When it's apparently been compulsory for wearing the seat belt in vehicles under 3.5 tonnes.. Which would make Royal mail have to wear a seat belt?
The exemption in Relation to goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes must be for purposes of checking load straps and goods very quickly in case of emergency or a trailer connected or anything.. For safety purposes.. And that would be at any point on a journey.. To any address.
But, this theory should apply to all goods vehicles.. For example.. A motor car, fitted with a tow bar.. Becomes converted to a goods vehicle and load bearing capability according to the Road traffic act and construction and use.
So, when pulling a trailer.. Its a goods vehicle.. Somebody might use this instead of a van.
You may need to attend the trailer very quickly in an emergency.. At any point in a journey to any address.. For example to secure a loose strap, if a tyre goes flat and the trailer tilts over, or if the wind blows something off.. Or even the trailer were to become detached.
Also in the case of vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.. Many have ladders to climb up or steps and the seat belt would make the time required to get in and out too long in circumstances.
This theory is in line with the true extent of the exemption.
Not the singular theory of local mail delivery. Which in light of the EU law (now omitted as of 2019) seems ridiculous to claim the exemption was for local delivery rounds only when small delivery vehicles under 3.5 tonnes would have had to wear a seat belt.
I think the new 2019 legislation is a move in the right direction..
But the 2003 exemption should be declared to be the right and proper law. Not the 2005 wording which I don't believe is enforceable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 21, 2019 23:37:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Mar 24, 2019 1:57:04 GMT
I'm thinking this seat belt law is a bit like a card game with the 4 pieces of legislation.. It's a bit like the "ace of spades" As you are working..  That is, if you get the ace (validation of the exemption) |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 15, 2019 11:56:38 GMT
Road traffic act 1988 says the Secretary of state may only make regulations for seat belts...under these provisions... It says "As may be prescribed". Well.. the framework, meaning & provisions are already prescribed in one act The 1988 act... "as prescribed" & meant.. So they cannot just "amend" the Wearing of seat belts regulations in 2005.. to try to make it mean something different.. When the 1988 act and the 2003 amendment to that 1988 act already mean & prescribe one thing... Because the 2005 amendment is thereby in contradiction & conflict to a pre-existing & unchanged act.. Which remains the same.. So it an unlawful change in the legislation & therefore the 50 meter distance for goods vehicles drivers is not valid.  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 6, 2019 16:38:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 6, 2019 16:55:37 GMT
It does NOT say that Prescribed refers to a "provision" of law.. It says "regulations" made by the secretary of state.. It does not say in which act or regulations... So its important that.. in 2003 it refers to prescribed .. But there is nothing prescribed in that act.. It without doubt refers to the routes , addresses & journeys & areas set out in the Goods Vehicles areas they are allocated to drive around in their operating licences. All through 2003, 2004 and part of 2005.. we have this.... It refers to something elsewhere. You cannot just make a provision of 50 meters in 2005 and suddenly claim "that" is the location of anything prescribed.. When an existing law is indicating something elsewhere and that meaning & intention is the same. Because by leaving that in effect.. (without changing that law itself) it still refers to what it did in 2003 & 2004. It has to. Also the entire purpose & reason of the exemption, in light of the other exemptions, in context must make sense.. It is an important exemption with purpose & wider use. You cant just start issuing fines against people.. And the Government.. Sir Henry Bellingham involved also.. and Alistair Darling are in fact engaging in Professional Negligence and misconduct in 2005 in fact Misconduct in public office & perverting the course of justice.  |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 6, 2019 17:00:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Aug 6, 2019 17:31:30 GMT
|
|
It is Protected under Law from YouTube Policy. By Disclaimer
Feb 25, 2023 17:05:42 GMT
It is Protected under Law from YouTube Policy. By Disclaimer
Feb 25, 2023 17:05:42 GMT