Another car damages another house.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Doug on 31 Mar 2010 03:07 On 30 Mar, 20:35, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > Phil W Lee wrote: > > Jim A <j...(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> considered Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:40:24 > > +0100 the perfect time to write: > > >> Phil W Lee wrote: > >>> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> considered 29 Mar 2010 17:32:25 GMT the > >>> perfect time to write: > > >>>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > >>>> saying: > > >>>>> The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in > >>>>> several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know > >>>>> it. > >>>> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism > >>>> for an illegal obstruction. > > >>>> Or are you trying to deny that? > >>> If you call a road position intended to prevent vehicular assault > >>> illegal, then you are clearly in denial of reality. > > >>> Corking is used to PREVENT illegal acts by motorists deliberately > >>> driving out into the path of (and even into the side of) other > >>> vehicles on the major road, and with legal priority. > >> Two wrongs don't make a right. > > > It's only the drivers who think they should be allowed to just drive > > into more vulnerable traffic on the major road who regard corking as > > wrong. > > I regard corking as wrong, perhaps you would like to comment about the > 'corking' that stopped motorists continuing round a roundabout while CM > entered from another road over a give way line. > When the police used to be present during CM they used to cork so they must surely think it is necessary. Or do you now claim the police were deliberately wasting their own time by performing an unnecessary and illegal act? -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: Adrian on 31 Mar 2010 04:13 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism >> for an illegal obstruction. >> >> Or are you trying to deny that? > 'Obstruction' can take many forms. 'Corking' is specific. So you accept that it is indeed a euphemism for a specific form of illegal obstruction. Good. >> >> ITYF motorists, having already got a life do not indulge in CM >> >> antics such as creating disruption and delay for the hell of it. >> >> HTH >> > CM does not do it 'for the hell of it' >> So you're claiming that CM does create disruption and delay, but they >> have a reason to do so? > No they have a right to do so, as confirmed by the Law Lords. Not quite what the Law Lords judgement said. They said that it fitted the definition of a particular form of procession. They did not give participants carte blanche to unnecessarily and maliciously disrupt and delay. >> > though some of the participants may. >> I'll invite you to take this opportunity to condemn their actions in >> creating disruption and delay "for the hell of it". >> >> <waits> > Again, some participants may And they're the ones I'm asking you to condemn. > but CM as a whole does not. Did I say it did? > Having to keep on repeating this for your benefit is boring. So try answering the question then, for once. >> > What makes you imagine that a mass of cyclists should not use the >> > roads in much the same way as a mass of motorists already do >> > everyday? >> Can you tell me when and where the meeting point is for this well-known >> and regular "customary procession" "mass of motorists", deliberately >> refusing to liaise with the authorities and apparently having a reason >> to cause deliberate disruption and delay? > See above.That is not the reason. Nor is that an answer. You have claimed that there's no difference between the way this "mass of motorists" and CM act. Great. Where and when is the CM-equivalent for this "mass of motorists"? >> > Do you expect all cyclists to go around in just ones or twos? >> >> I don't "expect" it. But I do expect deliberate large groups to liaise >> with the authorities - and to work with them to minimise disruption and >> delay for other road users. The vast majority of such cycling groups do >> exactly that. It really only seems to be one particular group who >> don't. > Due to its nature it is virtually impossible for CM to liaise as you > suggest Bollocks. > and this was verified by the Law Lords. No, it wasn't. > You are wrong about such groups. Large club rides do not liaise with > authorities. Yes, they do. > As a diehard motorist you don't know much about cycling do you. As a diehard fuckwit, you don't know much about reality, do you? >> > If you do then you are making a good case for CM. >> Really? And what is that case? "Nobody else is behaving like spoiled >> children having a tantrum, so we might as well"? > The 'case' in this case is mutual protection by virtue of numbers from > people like you who obviously despise cyclists from your position of > ignorance and probably represent a serious threat to them when you are > in your car. "despise cyclists"? I _am_ a cyclist, you cretin.
From: Adrian on 31 Mar 2010 04:20 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > When the police used to be present during CM they used to cork so they > must surely think it is necessary. Or do you now claim the police were > deliberately wasting their own time by performing an unnecessary and > illegal act? <sigh> The police have the legal power to direct traffic - and that's a decision they take with the best interests of all road users and the entire traffic flow in mind. You do not, and you do not.
From: Tony Dragon on 31 Mar 2010 12:47 Doug wrote: > On 30 Mar, 20:35, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> Phil W Lee wrote: >>> Jim A <j...(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> considered Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:40:24 >>> +0100 the perfect time to write: >>>> Phil W Lee wrote: >>>>> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> considered 29 Mar 2010 17:32:25 GMT the >>>>> perfect time to write: >>>>>> Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >>>>>> saying: >>>>>>> The term 'corking' has become accepted in connection with CM and in >>>>>>> several countries. If you were familiar with the subject you would know >>>>>>> it. >>>>>> You can call it what you like. The fact remains that it is a euphemism >>>>>> for an illegal obstruction. >>>>>> Or are you trying to deny that? >>>>> If you call a road position intended to prevent vehicular assault >>>>> illegal, then you are clearly in denial of reality. >>>>> Corking is used to PREVENT illegal acts by motorists deliberately >>>>> driving out into the path of (and even into the side of) other >>>>> vehicles on the major road, and with legal priority. >>>> Two wrongs don't make a right. >>> It's only the drivers who think they should be allowed to just drive >>> into more vulnerable traffic on the major road who regard corking as >>> wrong. >> I regard corking as wrong, perhaps you would like to comment about the >> 'corking' that stopped motorists continuing round a roundabout while CM >> entered from another road over a give way line. >> > When the police used to be present during CM they used to cork so they > must surely think it is necessary. Or do you now claim the police were > deliberately wasting their own time by performing an unnecessary and > illegal act? > > -- > Critical Mass London > http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk > "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist" The police, as you well know, did not 'cork', they directed traffic, that's one of the things they do. If you feel that such direction of traffic is is necessary then all you have to do is inform the police of your intentions & they might do it for you. As for your second sentence, you know it is complete bollocks that does not deserve an answer. -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 31 Mar 2010 12:50
Phil W Lee wrote: > Marie <marie.lawrie(a)yahoo.co.uk> considered Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:02:24 > -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: > >> On Mar 31, 7:32 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: >>> 'Obstruction' can take many forms. 'Corking' is specific. >> Thank you for admiting it Doug, 'corking is a specific form of >> obstruction', which is illegal. >> > That doesn't follow. > A red traffic light is a specific form of obstruction. > Another vehicle is a specific form of obstruction. > A police officer on point duty is a specific form of obstruction. > A "give way" sign is a specific form of obstruction. > There are many others. > > Your claim that any specific form of obstruction must be automatically > illegal is patently false. Oh look Phil can't read & understand. 'corking is a specific form of obstruction', which is illegal. That form of obstruction is illegal. -- Tony Dragon |