Trains and lasers

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Move on to the topic under discussion?

I do have an opinion on that. I'd prefer if it were in the public domain as it concerns the (already public) parliamentary bill.

[grahame]

The Great Western Franchise Consultation talks about the connection to other public transport to make up toto journeys, rather that to buses.   It means "buses" in 95% of cases, of course - but it's sensible for the specification to be more general.

In the case of the laser law, does it not make sense for all sorts of public transport to be covered (indeed why not all drivers, why not anyone who's not driving) not just airline pilots?  That's presuming we need a law.

[TonyK]

The Great Western Franchise Consultation talks about the connection to other public transport to make up toto journeys, rather that to buses.   It means "buses" in 95% of cases, of course - but it's sensible for the specification to be more general.

In the case of the laser law, does it not make sense for all sorts of public transport to be covered (indeed why not all drivers, why not anyone who's not driving) not just airline pilots?  That's presuming we need a law.

I believe a law is needed, and it should be extended to all forms of passenger transport. My reasons are that although there may be a statute that could be used already, such as endangering an aircraft, endangering the safety of railway passengers, it would still help. The scope of the act and any penalty could more easily be changed in reaction to developments - who knows what will follow laser in the pantheon of available menaces? Added to that is the fact that there are no circumstances in which shining a laser into anyone's eyes is a good idea, save when it is done by a doctor for medical reasons.

I am also in favour of opening the topic to public view. The early replies may all have come from frequent posters, but that could because they ARE frequent posters, and more likely to have read and commented quickly. Other posters may bring greater wisdom to the debate.

[stuving]

I'm puzzling  over whether those comments are about this bill as written. Here's a few bits if it:

(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person shines or  directs a laser beam towards a vehicle which is on a journey, and
(b) the laser beam dazzles or distracts, or is likely to dazzle or distract, a person with control of the vehicle.
...
 (6) In this Act “vehicle” means an aircraft,  motor vehicle, pedal cycle, train, vessel, hovercraft or submarine.
(7) In relation to a motor vehicle or pedal  cycle, the reference  in subsection (1)(a) to a journey is to a journey made on a road.
(8 ) In  relation  to  an  aircraft,  the  reference  in  subsection  (1)(b )  to  “a  person  with control of the vehicle” is a reference to  any pilot engaged in controlling, or in monitoring the controlling of, the aircraft.
(9)    In relation to a vessel, hovercraft or submarine, the reference in subsection (1)(b) to “a person with control of the vehicle” is a reference to the master, the pilot or any person engaged in navigating the vessel, hovercraft or submarine.
(10) In this Act—
“aircraft” means any thing used for travel by air;
“motor  vehicle”  means   a  mechanically  propelled  vehicle  intended  or adapted for use on roads;

How wide is that? It leaves out a vehicle controlled by a person not carried by it, or by machinery - though that could still be dazzled. It looks as if it only addresses vehicles that do carry people, irrespective of how big they (meaning the vehicles) are. The few things left out entirely (sledges?) are probably not common enough to worry about.

But remember that the wording is likely to be gone over and altered quite a bit, and will and up sounding a lot more "legalish" by the time it escapes.

The guidance notes from DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are here.

[Chris from Nailsea]

With thanks to all members who have already posted in this topic, and given their consent / requests for this particular discussion to be moved from our 'frequent posters' area onto the wider public Coffee Shop forum, I have now made that move.

[ChrisB]

Thanks Chris.

Can't see the requirement for needing to be carrying passengers for a motor vehicle to be covered by this law, Stuving?....

[stuving]

Thanks Chris.

Can't see the requirement for needing to be carrying passengers for a motor vehicle to be covered by this law, Stuving?....

That's why I said "people" - as the driver at least has to be on board to be at risk.

But it's early days, and picking over the wording is what parliamentary committee stages are for - that's what makes them so exciting!

[TonyK]

I'm puzzling  over whether those comments are about this bill as written. Here's a few bits if it:

Hands up - I missed the hyperlink, googled it, and read the wrong stuff. The draft that the hyperlink CyclingSid provided, and the extract stuving posted, look both wide enough and narrow enough, if you see what I mean, to be sufficiently "legalish". Although I can imagine a lawyer trying to argue exactly what "on a journey" does or does not mean.