Traffic Law Quiz

Entai said:
Note to self, learn to keep mouth shut.
Click to expand...

Especially when they are wrong answers ;)

Entai said:
Come on Burnsy find some tricky ones
Click to expand...

Not one person got that question right, still want me to step it up a gear?

Question 8

Answer C – Section 51(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 specifies that a person may only be issued with a fixed penalty notice if the offence relates to the ‘use’ of the vehicle on the road. The system does not apply to those who ‘cause’ or ‘permit’ the use of a vehicle on a road while an offence is being committed. Therefore answers A and D are incorrect.
Fixed penalty notices may be issued to a person not driving a vehicle – most non-endorsable notices are issued to stationary vehicles, and even though an endorsable notice may not be fixed to a stationary vehicle, there is nothing to prevent one being issued to the owner of a vehicle which is, for example, parked outside a house and committing an offence. Answer B is therefore incorrect.


Burnsy
 
Last edited:
Question 9

Constable RYAN was working in uniform as part of a team preparing for a Royal visit in a city centre. An order was in place under the Terrorism Act 2000 to regulate parking along the route the Royal cortege intended taking, to prevent acts of terrorism. Constable RYAN came across a van parked outside a shop which was situated on the route and when she found the owner, she asked him to remove the vehicle before the cortege was due to arrive in two hours. Constable RYAN returned to the location an hour later and the vehicle was still parked outside the shop.

What power, if any, does Constable RYAN have to arrest the driver of the vehicle, under S. 51(3) of the Terrorism Act 2000, in these circumstances?

A. None, the driver commits no offence, as he has merely failed to remove the vehicle; he has not refused to do so.
B. Arrest the driver for failing to remove the vehicle when requested.
C. Arrest the driver of failing to remove the vehicle, provided he was given the proper warning.
D. None, the driver may only be reported for failing to remove the vehicle when requested.

Burnsy
 
Burnsy2023 said:
You're lucky I posted the answer first, so I won't be deducting points ;)

Burnsy
Click to expand...
That was lucky indeed although to be fair when I started typing my reply the answer hadn't been edited in - just so that I don't look too stupid for posting the wrong answer when the real answer is in the post above mine! :p

No idea about Q9, will have a stab at A though.
 
Jeez, these are hard! I haven't got one right dammit! lol

erm...can i choose.....hmmmmm.......

Burnsy2023 said:
Question 9
Constable RYAN came across a van parked outside a shop which was situated on the route and when she found the owner, she asked him to remove the vehicle before the cortege was due to arrive in two hours. Constable RYAN returned to the location an hour later and the vehicle was still parked outside the shop.
Click to expand...

Well according to this, Constable Ryan told the driver to remove the van before the cortege arrived (2 hours) and she has returned within 1 hour, which still gives the van driver an hour to move it, right?

I'm going to think about it and come back later.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Especially when they are wrong answers ;)



Not one person got that question right, still want me to step it up a gear?

Question 8

Answer C – Section 51(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 specifies that a person may only be issued with a fixed penalty notice if the offence relates to the ‘use’ of the vehicle on the road. The system does not apply to those who ‘cause’ or ‘permit’ the use of a vehicle on a road while an offence is being committed. Therefore answers A and D are incorrect.
Fixed penalty notices may be issued to a person not driving a vehicle – most non-endorsable notices are issued to stationary vehicles, and even though an endorsable notice may not be fixed to a stationary vehicle, there is nothing to prevent one being issued to the owner of a vehicle which is, for example, parked outside a house and committing an offence. Answer B is therefore incorrect.


Burnsy
Click to expand...

Oh well you win some you loose some :p.

I would have done them both under the following,

Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)


40A Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc

A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road when—
(a) the condition of the motor vehicle or trailer, or of its accessories or equipment, or
(b) the purpose for which it is used, or
(c) the number of passengers carried by it, or the manner in which they are carried, or
(d) the weight, position or distribution of its load, or the manner in which it is secured, is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person.”


41A Breach of requirement as to brakes, steering-gear or tyres

A person who—
(a) contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and use requirement as to brakes, steering-gear or tyres, or
(b) uses on a road a motor vehicle or trailer which does not comply with such a requirement, or causes or permits a motor vehicle or trailer to be so used,
is guilty of an offence.


So you can do them both for Section 40A (a) and 41A (a),
use of, and permitting use of, a vehicle in a dangerous condition,
and
use of, and permitting use of, a vehicle that contravenes Construction & Use Requirements, regarding condition of tyres.

So that's two endorsable offences each so you should get at least three points and a large fine each, all in all, a good days work.


Anyway, the answer to question 9 is B.
 
Last edited:
I reckon, for something like that then it'll have to be B due to the whole terrorism thing. If it was an ordinary road that they just didn't want him parked on then it'd be a different story.

B.

InvG
 
I would say A, given that the warning was to remove it before the royals arrived in two hours, and the driver still had an hour to go.

I suspect the key is in the wording there, by telling the driver he had to remove it within two hours he is not disobeying her order when she returns after one and it's still there.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Dude, you've just broken the rule: 'thou shalt not google'. :eek:

Burnsy
Click to expand...

I googled to show the reasoning behind my answer. I knew that law before I googled, it was the reason I chose my answer to that question, I just showed the actual text as opposed to my rendition of it, to show that both the owner and user of a car CAN be endorsed for a bald tyre.

I have not googled any of the answers before I have submitted them, but rules is rules I guess, and as it is only my word against, I will take it like a man, if you wish to deduct points I do not mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom