From: Doug on
On 2 Mar, 17:19, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
In the case of London Critical Mass, as I keep on pointing out over
and over again, it has been deemed by our Law Lords to be a
'customarily held procession' which does not require police
permission. Moreover, in the USA this very issue of a permit being
required is being fought in the courts and the San Francisco ride has
been in existence longer than London's, namely 18 years.
>
> > > 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.
>
Again...

"170

Take extra care at junctions. You should

* watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/
mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.
Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are
approaching from behind
* watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are
turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
* watch out for long vehicles which may be turning at a junction
ahead; they may have to use the whole width of the road to make the
turn (see Rule 221)
* watch out for horse riders who may take a different line on the
road from that which you would expect
* not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming
from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make
sure
* look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road
until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely

171

You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a ‘Stop’ sign and a
solid white line across the road. Wait for a safe gap in the traffic
before you move off.

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 16]
172

The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle
marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when
emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road."

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25]

Where does it say you can use threats or try to run them over if they
delay you? And what about "Do not cross or join a road until there is
a gap large enough for you to do so safely". Obviously if cyclists are
blocking your path there is no gap.

You motorists here seem to imagine that the 'right to pass and repass'
give you carte blanche to do as you like regardless. Let me tell you,
it does not.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: Tony Dragon on
Doug wrote:
> 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"

So you can hear people talking to themselves over usenet, that's a
clever thing to do.
But this little rant you just posted is because you hardly got anybody
agreeing with you.

That in itself is not surprising,how long will it be before you accuse
people of not being 'real cyclists' just because they do not agree with
you about your off topic post?

--
Tony Dragon
From: Doug on
On 2 Mar, 17:35, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
A road which is publicly owned is not subject to the law of trespass
and the public have permission to be there anyway.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"





From: "Nightjar "cpb" on
Theodore wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:35:11 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad(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.

I think it shows great personal bravery on the part of the cyclists to
risk antagonising random unknown strangers, any one of whom might turn
out to be a armed, psychotic gangster. After all, the Kray brothers were
motorists and I doubt many drug dealers favour bicycles over cars as
their chosen mode of transport.

Colin Bignell
From: Tony Dragon on
Doug wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 17:19, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> In the case of London Critical Mass, as I keep on pointing out over
> and over again, it has been deemed by our Law Lords to be a
> 'customarily held procession' which does not require police
> permission.

Could you please cite the law that allows such a procession to break the
law (ignoring red lights, cycling the wrong side of keep left signs,
obstruction, not giving way to pedestrians, etc)

> Moreover, in the USA this very issue of a permit being
> required is being fought in the courts and the San Francisco ride has
> been in existence longer than London's, namely 18 years.
>>>> 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.
>>
> Again...
>
> "170
>
> Take extra care at junctions. You should
>
> * watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/
> mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see.
> Be aware that they may not have seen or heard you if you are
> approaching from behind
> * watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are
> turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
> * watch out for long vehicles which may be turning at a junction
> ahead; they may have to use the whole width of the road to make the
> turn (see Rule 221)
> * watch out for horse riders who may take a different line on the
> road from that which you would expect
> * not assume, when waiting at a junction, that a vehicle coming
> from the right and signalling left will actually turn. Wait and make
> sure
> * look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road
> until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely
>
> 171
>
> You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a �Stop� sign and a
> solid white line across the road. Wait for a safe gap in the traffic
> before you move off.
>
> [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 16]
> 172
>
> The approach to a junction may have a �Give Way� sign or a triangle
> marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when
> emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road."
>
> [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10(1),16(1) & 25]
>
> Where does it say you can use threats or try to run them over if they
> delay you? And what about "Do not cross or join a road until there is
> a gap large enough for you to do so safely". Obviously if cyclists are
> blocking your path there is no gap.
>
> You motorists here seem to imagine that the 'right to pass and repass'
> give you carte blanche to do as you like regardless. Let me tell you,
> it does not.
>
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

At the risk of raising a 'tu quoque' comment cm often breaks the rules
you have just quoted.

--
Tony Dragon
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway