Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interpretation of this SI please

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    1997. hardly victorian times.

    2012 actually (in it's amended form).


  • Options
    #33
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    I do apologize to the usual posters of legal. The answer was given in the first few posts before being invaded by people at the invitation of AndrewJ in a different forum. As I have received a definitive answer I believe you can lock this thread
    Thankyou


  • Options
    #34
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I do apologize to the usual posters of legal. The answer was given in the first few posts before being invaded by people at the invitation of AndrewJ in a different forum. As I have received a definitive answer I believe you can lock this thread
    Thankyou

    Oh the drama! I was here before it :D

    Very interesting to know that the scenario discussed in the other thread comes down to a reasonable person.


  • Options
    #35
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,217 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Oh the drama! I was here before it :D

    Very interesting to know that the scenario discussed in the other thread comes down to a reasonable person.

    that is quite common when it comes to interpreting the law cf. the man on the clapham omnibus.


  • Options
    #36
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,541 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I do apologize to the usual posters of legal. The answer was given in the first few posts before being invaded by people at the invitation of AndrewJ in a different forum. As I have received a definitive answer I believe you can lock this thread
    Thankyou

    Remember the good lawyer's maxim - never ask a question that you don't know the answer to.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,558 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    GM228 wrote: »
    2012 actually (in it's amended form).
    was the text from 2012, or merely the most recent amendment?
    i.e. when did that text first appear?


  • Options
    #38
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    was the text from 2012, or merely the most recent amendment?
    i.e. when did that text first appear?

    Very slight variation but essentially 1964
    29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.

    (2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.


Advertisement