From: Christopher Bowlas on
On Mar 2, 9:40 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> I am still waiting to see where your assertion is enshrined in law
> about someone's 'right to a free passage' entitles them to the violent
> use of a weapon.

How about you proving you have the right to block someone's passage
without their consent?
From: Toom Tabard on
On 2 Mar, 15:43, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 10:33, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mar, 09:40, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Mar, 09:34, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 Mar, 09:06, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2 Mar, 06:35, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > > "If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds
> > > > > > > before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist...."
>
> > > > > > > More with videos:http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=141270&catid=3
>
> > > > > > If you unlawfully and without good cause block someone's right to free
> > > > > > passage, then they can use reasonable force to proceed (deciding to
> > > > > > hold your own procession and block people to let your mates pass is
> > > > > > unlikely to constitute good cause).
>
> > > > > Source?
>
> > > > > > If you further provoke by continuing to block free passage then that
> > > > > > would be regarded as mitigating circumstances in defence of anyone
> > > > > > assaulting you.
> > > > > > It is not an issue of drivers-v-cyclists pers se. Try (with or without
> > > > > > your bike) blocking a pedestrian on the pavement and refusing to let
> > > > > > him pass. Don't be surprised if he tries to push past. Try continuing
> > > > > > to block him. Don't be surprised if you end up with a fat lip. And, if
> > > > > > you've videoed the whole thing, don't be surprised if a court finds
> > > > > > you are entirely the author of your own misfortune.
>
> > > > > What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same.
> > > > > Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of
> > > > > motorists.
>
> > > > Many adults drive, and would be proportionately on a jury. That is not
> > > > their only classification. I drive/walk/cycle. As a driver and
> > > > pedestrian, I  try to give extra consideration to cyclists and their
> > > > safety. If I were on a jury in a road accident case, I'd be giving
> > > > full and fair consideration to the case for any cyclist. In an
> > > > obstruction and assault scenario, whether I'm a driver/pedestrian/
> > > > cyclist is irrelevant. Only the fairness and justice matters, and I
> > > > would not favour the case for the cyclist in the example you've given.
> > > > Similarly, in the second scenario I've given - blocking a pedestrian -
> > > > it could equally be said that the jury would consist of a majority of
> > > > pedestrians. That is equally irrelevant to the consideration of the
> > > > issues in terms of right and justice.
>
> > > > In the real world, morally, legally and in terms of natural justice,
> > > > you are backing a loser.
>
> > > I am still waiting to see where your assertion is enshrined in law
> > > about someone's 'right to a free passage' entitles them to the violent
> > > use of a weapon.
>
> > The right to use reasonable force is, in different contexts, in both
> > common law and various statutes.
>
> Such as?
>
> > The mitigation for assault, if provoked, is in sentencing guidelines.
> > It would apply on a sliding scale from action which is common assault,
> > but would not apply to causing grevious bodily harm with intent. It
> > would apply to warning someone that you were going to push past and to
> > any reasonable skirmish to do so, and particularly if it resulted in
> > no more than minor bruising, swellings, abrasion, a black eye or a fat
> > lip..
>
> Source/s?
>
Sentencing guidelines for assault and othe offences against the
person.

See e.g CPS guidelines for common assault

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/common_assult/

and other sources easily accessible by you on internet, if you really
wanted to look.

Toom

From: Christopher Bowlas on
On Mar 2, 10:38 am, Vicko Zoomba <vicko_zoo...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 07:13, Doug <jag...(a)cockup.net> wrote:
> > On 2 Mar, 07:01, Theodore <theodored...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:35:11 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >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.
>
> > > >"If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds
> > > >before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist..."
>
> > > >More with videos:
> > > >http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=141270&catid=3
>
> > > LOL! Well done that driver.
>
> > So you think that its OK for motorists to deliberately ram cyclists to
> > make them move out of the way and this should be allowed in law?
>
> Absolutely. Why should motorist have to abide by our increasingly
> strict traffic laws while cyclists are allowed to flaunt it?

Flaunt or flout?
From: Mike Ross on
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:06:48 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote:

>On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>> It is not an issue of drivers-v-cyclists pers se. Try (with or without
>> your bike) blocking a pedestrian on the pavement and refusing to let
>> him pass. Don't be surprised if he tries to push past. Try continuing
>> to block him. Don't be surprised if you end up with a fat lip. And, if
>> you've videoed the whole thing, don't be surprised if a court finds
>> you are entirely the author of your own misfortune.
>>
>What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same.
>Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of
>motorists.

Learn to bloody read: Mr Tabard was talking about two pedestrians, one
deliberately blocking the other and not letting them past on the pavement. No
car involved. So how is it relevant if the jurists in the hypothetical trial are
motorists or not? Motoring doesn't come in to it.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
From: Doug on
On 2 Mar, 15:59, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> "Ophelia" <Ophe...(a)Elsinore.me.uk> considered Tue, 2 Mar 2010 13:03:19
> -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Iain" <s...(a)smaps.net> wrote in message
> >news:7v4bkqF1t9U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> >> "Mrcheerful" <nbk...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:q_5jn.46440$Ym4.26691(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> >>> these are the main two from RTA1988:
> >>> 28 Reckless cycling
> >>> A person who rides a cycle on a road recklessly is guilty of an offence.
> >>> 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling
> >>> If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or
> >>> without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is
> >>> guilty of an offence.
>
> >>> So about 90 percent of cyclists commit offences every day, yet are not
> >>> charged, why is that? is there some sort of blind eye turned because they
> >>> are cyclists?
>
> >> I knew that I had seen a page somewhere.  From Bike for All - Cycling and
> >> the Law:
> >>http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php
>
> >> It covers all sorts of things.  I note that a shop started a campaign 'Use
> >> Your Head - Stop at Red'.
> >>http://www.stopatred.org/
>
> >> One thing I have been wondering is whether someone can carry out a
> >> citizen's arrest, say, for a cyclist going through a red light, or for
> >> cycling on the pavement.
>
> >I expect so, but only if the cyclist is much smaller than the person making
> >the arrest.
>
> Since neither are indictable offences, that would be assault and
> unlawful detention.
>
"So what?" I can hear the motorists saying to themselves, "After all
it is only a cyclist. Why not just ram them into submission instead?".
Or, to the cyclist, "If I see you doing that again I'll run over you".

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway