"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: johannes on 2 Mar 2010 12:05 Doug 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 And you have to go halfway around the world to find this single example of a bad motorist...
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 12:12 On 2 Mar, 16:41, "Iain" <s...(a)smaps.net> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:decea9df-9f12-44e0-8f39-07a691c8107d(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > > > Use of a public highway is not trespass. > > If you refer back to my previous post, you will find that misuse is trespass > (viz. 'The Law on Torts'). > > Further to my post, Toom qualified this, also with a quote. You really > should read posts more carefully. If you don't understand, please raise > your hand and ask! > It doesn't say its a PUBLIC highway and on further inspection of your source... ""on the ground that the plaintiff was on the highway, the soil of which belonged to the Duke of Rutland, not for the purpose of using it in order to pass and repass, or for any reasonable or usual mode of using the highway as a highway, I think he was a trespasser." It seems you are being deliberately disingenuous. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 12:15 On 2 Mar, 17:05, johannes <j...(a)sizefi83735722tter.com> wrote: > Doug 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 > > And you have to go halfway around the world to find this single example > of a bad motorist... > If you had been following these newsgroups properly you would know that such things also happen here in the UK and that CM is world wide. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: Toom Tabard on 2 Mar 2010 12:19 On 2 Mar, 17:03, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > 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. > No, because what you are doing is not a 'reasonable purpose as is usual to use the highway'. Use for a parade/procession/demonstration requiring traffic control requires permission and for the traffic control to be done by authorised persons. Deciding for a pre-arranged event that it is necessary and doing it yourself is not considered reasonable or lawful. > > 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. > No, it is not 'open to interpretation'. In an open traffic situation It is up to the car driver to decide how and when to enter a stream of traffic and to take the responsibility for doing so. It is not reasonable for an unauthorised person to dictate on their own terms and for their own reasons that the car driver may not do so until they say so. Toom
From: Toom Tabard on 2 Mar 2010 12:35
On 2 Mar, 17:12, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 16:41, "Iain" <s...(a)smaps.net> wrote:> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > >news:decea9df-9f12-44e0-8f39-07a691c8107d(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com.... > > > > Use of a public highway is not trespass. > > > If you refer back to my previous post, you will find that misuse is trespass > > (viz. 'The Law on Torts'). > > > Further to my post, Toom qualified this, also with a quote. You really > > should read posts more carefully. If you don't understand, please raise > > your hand and ask! > > It doesn't say its a PUBLIC highway and on further inspection of your > source... > > ""on the ground that the plaintiff was on the highway, the soil of > which belonged to the Duke of Rutland, not for the purpose of using it > in order to pass and repass, or for any reasonable or usual mode of > using the highway as a highway, I think he was a trespasser." > > It seems you are being deliberately disingenuous. > Road traffic offences apply to roads/highways 'to which the public has access'. That is not necessarily a public road, which is defined as a road maintained at public expense. Toom |