"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Peter Grange on 2 Mar 2010 10:43 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:18:40 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >"Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >news:ti5qo5le0nv6lc709jrb0e4vv51bjopu16(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:33:30 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> >> wrote: > >>>Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu >>>quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting >>>his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it >>>attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the >>>person >>>making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on >>>the >>>party itself, rather than its positions. >>> >> Hang on! Doug started this rant about motorists. The motorist faction >> comes in and complains about cyclists. A cyclist responds complaining >> about motorists, the motorist faction comes back with "tu quoque". > >I'm a cyclist who also owns a car. I'm not the "motorist faction" whatever >that is. > I too am a cyclist who drives a car, I apologise for including you with the motorist faction. All too often however in here we hear cries of "tu quoque" form those who are predominantly motorists when I'm sure if I went on to a predominantly motorist-related ng and said "I'm a cyclist, why do you motorists jump red lights" the response would be "what about you cyclists". I guess the motto is "get your retaliation in first" :-)
From: Pedt "" on 2 Mar 2010 10:36 In message <1b4af04a-f94d-44e3-803b-01969f9ab4bd(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>, at 22:35:11 on Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wibbled >It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police >despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special >dispensation for drivers against cyclists? > >"...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and >Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception. >"You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist >is heard saying on a YouTube video. > >The video, shot by cyclist Matt Todd, shows the driver threatening to >strike a bicyclist with his car. Whilst two wrongs, if the second is true, don't make a right perhaps you could clarify once and for all as you usually wriggle. A simple yes or no will suffice. A) Do you approve of cyclists blocking junctions to other road users? B) Do you approve of cyclists ignoring red lights? -- Pedt I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 10:50 On 2 Mar, 11:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 10:18, "Iain" <s...(a)smaps.net> wrote: > > > > > I am sure that if you did further research, you could quite swiftly come up > > with examples of what your legal rights are if you are denied your 'right of > > free passage' by a trespasser. > > In almost all forms of trespass, the person whose rights are infringed > can use reasonable force to remove the trespass. > In the case of the right to use the highway, if you wish to enforce > that right and try to force passage or say that you wish to pass, then > anyone unlawfully denying it, and using, or threatening to use, > physical force to stop you would be the one who was commiting the > assault. > But the cyclist who was threatened with being run over by the motorist wasn't threatening physical force. > > "An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly > causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful > force. (Archbold 19-166 and 19-172)" > Use of a public highway is not trespass. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
From: Mr Benn on 2 Mar 2010 11:10 "Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:q6cqo5h78k1mn2sr4epjel6mmfaqq5uln1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:18:40 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: > >>"Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:ti5qo5le0nv6lc709jrb0e4vv51bjopu16(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:33:30 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >> >>>>Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu >>>>quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by >>>>asserting >>>>his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it >>>>attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the >>>>person >>>>making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on >>>>the >>>>party itself, rather than its positions. >>>> >>> Hang on! Doug started this rant about motorists. The motorist faction >>> comes in and complains about cyclists. A cyclist responds complaining >>> about motorists, the motorist faction comes back with "tu quoque". >> >>I'm a cyclist who also owns a car. I'm not the "motorist faction" >>whatever >>that is. >> > I too am a cyclist who drives a car, I apologise for including you > with the motorist faction. All too often however in here we hear cries > of "tu quoque" form those who are predominantly motorists when I'm > sure if I went on to a predominantly motorist-related ng and said "I'm > a cyclist, why do you motorists jump red lights" the response would be > "what about you cyclists". > I guess the motto is "get your retaliation in first" :-) If a motorist drives through a red light, he/she cannot justify it by saying that it's ok because cyclists cycle through red lights. Tu quoque would also apply in this situation.
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 11:29
On 2 Mar, 16:15, Huge <H...(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2010-03-02, Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote: > > > Whilst two wrongs, if the second is true, don't make a right perhaps you > > could clarify once and for all as you usually wriggle. A simple yes or > > no will suffice. > > > A) Do you approve of cyclists blocking junctions to other road users? > > B) Do you approve of cyclists ignoring red lights? > > I care about off-topic cross-postings. Does that count? > > (Hint: This is completely off-topic in u.r.d.) > What, a driver physically threatening a cyclist with a car-weapon, as often happens in the UK, and on a newsgroup that frequently demonises cyclists? It is difficult to imagine anything more on-topic. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist" |