From: Steve Walker on 2 Mar 2010 15:25
Peter Grange wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 15:18:40 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid>
>> "Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> Hang on! Doug started this rant about motorists. The motorist faction
>>> comes in and complains about cyclists. A cyclist responds complaining
>>> about motorists, the motorist faction comes back with "tu quoque".
>> I'm a cyclist who also owns a car. I'm not the "motorist faction"
>> whatever that is.
> I too am a cyclist who drives a car, I apologise for including you
> with the motorist faction.
I own approximately 3 bicycles, 1 pram and a zimmer frame (well, they're all
tangled on my bull-bars anyway).
Does that count me in?
From: Steve Walker on 2 Mar 2010 15:42
> Take extra care at junctions. You should
Please indicate which of these duties do not apply to cyclists.
From: Steve Walker on 2 Mar 2010 15:46
> 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.
It is a common factor amongst criminals that they think that their
particular offending behaviour is somehow justifiable or not serious
compared to the behaviour of others. Same rule applies, from Dr Shipman
right down to your bullying little gangs of lycra-louts.
"CMers maintain that corking is reasonable" has the same moral value as
"muggers maintain that you should give them your wallet"
From: Steve Walker on 2 Mar 2010 15:48
> A road which is publicly owned is not subject to the law of trespass
> and the public have permission to be there anyway.
Doesn't help your case Doug - if the common law justifies mobs of cyclists
charging through regardless of the signals, then it equally justifies
drivers in doing the same thing.
From: Steve Walker on 2 Mar 2010 15:52
> On 2 Mar, 16:30, Christopher Bowlas <chris.bow...(a)googlemail.com>
>> 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.
Criminals always say that sort of thing to minimise their own culpability.
Someone who runs over a cyclist by accident will say that the Police should
be concentrating on 'real criminals' like bank robbers and murderers
instead. Bank robbers say that nonces and terrorists should be the
You can't excuse bad behaviour just by pointing at someone worse.