Another car damages another house.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Dragon on 29 Mar 2010 14:31 Doug wrote: > On 29 Mar, 10:05, Derek Geldard <d...(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> >> wrote: >> >>>>> As the video shows the taxi had been corked >>>> obstructed >>> Semantics. >> <snip> >> >> Then why not use plain English then? >> >> You know, where the words have meanings which are commonly and >> mutually accepted accepted for the better mutual comprehension of all. >> > 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. Calling obstruction something else, does not stop it being obstruction. >>> See above. >>>> Any comments on the lawbreaking that you have filmed? >>> No. Its similar both to other processions and other types of road >>> user, such as motorists, so not really deserving of comment. Do you >>> have a point? >> 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', though some of the > participants may. 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? Do you expect all cyclists to go around in just > ones or twos? If you do then you are making a good case for CM. > > -- > Critical Mass London > http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk > "Whose roads? Our roads!" > If they use the road in a legal way with consideration for other road users, I would have no problem. By the way, you have still not commented on whether you agree with the lawbreaking that you have videoed. -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 30 Mar 2010 02:14 Phil W Lee wrote: > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 29 Mar 2010 17:32:25 GMT the > perfect time to write: > >> Doug <jagmad(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. Check some of the videos that Doug has made, traffic should give way to vehicles on a roundabout unless otherwise marked. Many of these videos show cyclists stopping traffic on the roundabout to enable cyclists to enter the roundabout, now that act is illegal, they are preventing a legal act. -- Tony Dragon
From: Jim A on 30 Mar 2010 02:40 Phil W Lee wrote: > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 29 Mar 2010 17:32:25 GMT the > perfect time to write: > >> Doug <jagmad(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. -- www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
From: Adrian on 30 Mar 2010 13:41 Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> 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. Given that your definition of "the drivers who think they should be allowed to just drive into more vulnerable traffic on the major road" seems to be flexible enough to include "any and everybody who isn't part of CM", it's not really a great surprise you think that way.
From: Brimstone on 30 Mar 2010 14:19
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message news:1uc4r5t78rip1k355s7kv16muu8q2bncf8(a)4ax.com... > Jim A <ja(a)averyjim.myzen.co.uk> considered Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:40:24 > +0100 the perfect time to write: > >>Phil W Lee wrote: >>> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> considered 29 Mar 2010 17:32:25 GMT the >>> perfect time to write: >>> >>>> Doug <jagmad(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. Not so. I've never witnessed a CM ride from any vantage point and I consider the illegal obstruction of traffic to be wrong. |