"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Steve Walker on 3 Mar 2010 00:58 webreader wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:52 pm, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...(a)beeb.net> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> 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. >> >> 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 priority. >> >> You can't excuse bad behaviour just by pointing at someone worse. > > How about we all turn up at the next CM as pedestrians, when the > pedestrian lights are in our favour we cross the road forcing CM to > stop. > Those who don't stop we just push off their bikes. > I recomend carrying umbrellas & walking sticks, they fit in the front > wheels of bikes quite well. > We could also have an official scorekeeper to see who bags the most > bikers in the evening. > (Extra points for felling Doug) > (Even more extra points if Doug is videoed on the ground) What a splendid idea - if bicycles are morally superior to cars, then pedestrians are clearly morally superior to bicycles - this is an opportunity to gently but firmly challenge the selfish behaviour of the lycra louts, and remind them that highways exist for everyone. Please remember to bring zimmer frames, wheelbarrows, space hoppers etc - it's important that they learn to give way to as many modes of travel as possible.
From: Doug on 3 Mar 2010 03:56 On 2 Mar, 23:05, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:52 pm, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...(a)beeb.net> wrote: > > > > > Doug wrote: > > > 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. > > > 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 > > priority. > > > You can't excuse bad behaviour just by pointing at someone worse. > > How about we all turn up at the next CM as pedestrians, when the > pedestrian lights are in our favour we cross the road forcing CM to > stop. > No problem. Some peds do it all the time. > > Those who don't stop we just push off their bikes. > I recomend carrying umbrellas & walking sticks, they fit in the front > wheels of bikes quite well. > So you too are in favour of the use of deliberate violence as a means of preventing obstructions on our roads? Do you think it should be reciprocated? I was just reading about a USA CMer who was run over, had is ankle broken and who then smashed his bike into the windscreen of his assailant. Naturally, it was the cyclist who was charged with an offence and not the driver, by the car-centric law enforcers, as usual. > > We could also have an official scorekeeper to see who bags the most > bikers in the evening. > (Extra points for felling Doug) > (Even more extra points if Doug is videoed on the ground) > Whatever. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Doug on 3 Mar 2010 03:58 On 2 Mar, 23:15, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > 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. > > They have a rights to pass and repass and to use the highway in a > reasonable or usual manner. They do not have the right to deny others > those same rights. > So if I am held up by a traffic jam due to too any cars it is the drivers who are at fault, particularly when I am trying to emerge from a side turning? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Mrcheerful on 3 Mar 2010 04:06 Doug wrote: > On 2 Mar, 23:15, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> 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. >> >> They have a rights to pass and repass and to use the highway in a >> reasonable or usual manner. They do not have the right to deny others >> those same rights. >> > So if I am held up by a traffic jam due to too any cars it is the > drivers who are at fault, particularly when I am trying to emerge from > a side turning? Stationary traffic past a side road is not the same as another road user parking across the end of the road in order to prevent people using the exit. You may find that a cycle is small enough and manouevrable enough to get through the gaps betwenn the cars and go along the outside or inside of the stationary traffic.
From: Mrcheerful on 3 Mar 2010 04:08
Doug wrote: > On 2 Mar, 23:05, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> On Mar 2, 8:52 pm, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...(a)beeb.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Doug wrote: >>>> 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. >> >>> 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 priority. >> >>> You can't excuse bad behaviour just by pointing at someone worse. >> >> How about we all turn up at the next CM as pedestrians, when the >> pedestrian lights are in our favour we cross the road forcing CM to >> stop. >> > No problem. Some peds do it all the time. >> >> Those who don't stop we just push off their bikes. >> I recomend carrying umbrellas & walking sticks, they fit in the front >> wheels of bikes quite well. >> > So you too are in favour of the use of deliberate violence as a means > of preventing obstructions on our roads? Do you think it should be > reciprocated? > > I was just reading about a USA CMer who was run over, had is ankle > broken and who then smashed his bike into the windscreen of his > assailant. Naturally, it was the cyclist who was charged with an > offence and not the driver, by the car-centric law enforcers, as > usual. >> >> We could also have an official scorekeeper to see who bags the most >> bikers in the evening. >> (Extra points for felling Doug) >> (Even more extra points if Doug is videoed on the ground) >> > Whatever. sounds like the cyclist was mentally unstable, certainly people with that much anger should not be on the streets in charge of a killing machine. |