"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Mike Ross on 2 Mar 2010 11:46 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:09 -0000, "Iain" <spam(a)smaps.net> wrote: >There may even be an offence of dangerous riding! I leave it to you to >prove me wrong! I believe the charge you're looking for is the curious and archaic "wanton or furious cycling", the cycling equivalent of "dangerous driving". I think you can also get "wanton or furious riding/driving" when a horse/carriage is involved. Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within'
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 11:47 On 2 Mar, 16:30, Christopher Bowlas <chris.bow...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > 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? > I maintain that blocking someone on a highway for a few minutes is a much lesser offence than their use of threats of violence and actual physical violence, especially with the aid of a car as a weapon. Though obviously several motorists here are seen to disagree, as would no doubt many motorists who are also police who take no action in such cases. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Christopher Bowlas on 2 Mar 2010 11:53 On Mar 2, 12:33 pm, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > "Andy Leighton" <an...(a)azaal.plus.com> wrote in message > news:slrnhopv0b.b1c.andyl(a)azaal.plus.com... > > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:42:39 GMT, Mrcheerful <nbk...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> I think that if cyclists are going to deliberately obstruct roads then > >> they are going to get a painful shock, From a cheap and chippy chopper? > >>and there will be little sympathy from the general public. > > > Would you also support people giving inconsiderate drivers who block the > > highway (as described above) a similar painful shock? Would you expect > > the same lack of sympathy? > > > I don't think motorists are arguing from a position of moral superiority, > > which certainly doesn't excuse poor behaviour in others, but does make > > their anti-cyclist moralising much weaker. > > 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. Would an appropriate response be, therefore, "et soror tuum"? Or is a better retort, "tu QUAE???"?
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 11:53 On 2 Mar, 16:33, Mike Ross <m...(a)corestore.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:06:48 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(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. > And here was I thinking this thread was supposed to be about motorists and cyclists. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 12:03
On 2 Mar, 16:39, Mike Ross <m...(a)corestore.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:50:27 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > >On 2 Mar, 11:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> 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. > >> "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. > > You snipped the judgement which Iain posted which said: > > > "The right of the public in respect of a highway is limited to the use of > it for the purpose of passing and repassing and for such other reasonable > purposes as it is usual to use the highway..." > So it comes down to what is considered 'reasonable'? CMers maintain that corking is reasonable for the protection of riders and the motorist's violent response would seem to support that idea. > > I don't think 'deliberately blocking others from using the highway without > lawful authority' would come under the 'reasonable purposes' for which you're > allowed to use the highway. 'Use' of a public highway is not trespass, I agree, > but as I understand it the case under discussion concerns deliberately blocking > the public highway, which is not a legitimate 'use'. > Once again its open to interpretation. Neither is it reasonable for a car to enter from a side road against a stream of oncoming traffic, particularly by the use of force. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist" |