From: Mike Ross on
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:33:09 -0000, "Iain" <spam(a)> 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.

'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
From: Doug on
On 2 Mar, 16:30, Christopher Bowlas <chris.bow...(a)>
> On Mar 2, 9:40 am, Doug <jag...(a)> 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

UK Radical Campaigns
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

From: Christopher Bowlas on
On Mar 2, 12:33 pm, "Mr Benn" <nos...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Andy Leighton" <an...(a)> wrote in message
> news:slrnhopv0b.b1c.andyl(a)
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:42:39 GMT, Mrcheerful <nbk...(a)> 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
On 2 Mar, 16:33, Mike Ross <m...(a)> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 01:06:48 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)> wrote:
> >On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)> 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
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

From: Doug on
On 2 Mar, 16:39, Mike Ross <m...(a)> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:50:27 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)> wrote:
> >On 2 Mar, 11:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)> 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
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway