Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Toom Tabard on 3 Mar 2010 04:15 On 2 Mar, 17:37, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 17:19, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > That referred to the required authority under the Public Order Act, and the case was largely prompted by police concerns about the history of mobbing of and provocation towards other road users. The judgement does not per se otherwise allow you to take over the highway and control traffic. If traffic control is seen by you to be necessary, you'd need prior notification to and agreement with the police and for the traffic to be controlled by authorised persons (the police). > > > > 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." > Indeed, these refer to normal traffic situations. They do not apply to dealing with unlawful obstruction. The other road users are required and permitted to e.g. observe stop and give way signs under their own judgement and responsibility. These section do not permit an unauthorised person to enforce observance on others. Also in the Highway Code - applying to all drivers, motorcyclists, CYCLISTS and horse riders. 147 Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users 151. In slow-moving traffic you should allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion etc,etc. > > 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. > I am, in order of chosen modes of locomotion, a pedestrian first, a bus-user second, a cyclist third, and lastly a motorist. Not untypically, I try to act with courtesy, care and consideration towards other road users. If all others did the same the roads would be a lot safer. CM consists largely of prats acting in a manner counter to this. Toom
From: Doug on 3 Mar 2010 04:19 On 3 Mar, 09:06, "Mrcheerful" <nbk...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > It is in effect, particularly if they intentionally do not leave an exit space. > > 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. > Cycles are not always small enough to squeeze through the gaps left by drivers, particularly kerb-hugging drivers and those who don't leave sufficient space between lanes. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Toom Tabard on 3 Mar 2010 04:21 On 2 Mar, 17:55, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 17:35, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > 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. > It does not matter if in different contexts it is trespass or obstruction. In both and most cases there is the right to use reasonable force to remove the trespasser or a person causing unlawful obstruction. Having 'permission to be there' does not confer permission to disregard the rights of others using the road for lawful purposes. You are still, morally, legally and in terms of justice, backing a loser. Toom
From: Doug on 3 Mar 2010 04:36 On 3 Mar, 09:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 17:55, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > On 2 Mar, 17:35, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > > It does not matter if in different contexts it is trespass or > obstruction. In both and most cases there is the right to use > reasonable force to remove the trespasser or a person causing unlawful > obstruction. Having 'permission to be there' does not confer > permission to disregard the rights of others using the road for lawful > purposes. > > You are still, morally, legally and in terms of justice, backing a > loser. > Where does it say that a member of the public can use reasonable force and what is considered reasonable? Is threatening to run over a cyclist and then ramming them considered 'reasonable'? Source? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Toom Tabard on 3 Mar 2010 05:21
On 3 Mar, 09:36, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 3 Mar, 09:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 2 Mar, 17:55, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > On 2 Mar, 17:35, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > It does not matter if in different contexts it is trespass or > > obstruction. In both and most cases there is the right to use > > reasonable force to remove the trespasser or a person causing unlawful > > obstruction. Having 'permission to be there' does not confer > > permission to disregard the rights of others using the road for lawful > > purposes. > > > You are still, morally, legally and in terms of justice, backing a > > loser. > > Where does it say that a member of the public can use reasonable force > and what is considered reasonable? The right to use reasonable force would be upheld at common law. If you are lawfully proceeding and someone inlawfully blocks your progress, then if you state you wish to proceed, they do not step aside, and you use reasonable force to proceed, exactly what offence would you have committed? If the person causing obstruction, rather than allowing you to proceed, threatened you or forcibly prevented you proceeding, then they would be the one committing an assault. What is considered reasonable depends on the circumstances. Google the appropriate and obvious terms for more information if you really want it, though I doubt that you do. >Is threatening to run over a cyclist and then ramming them considered 'reasonable'? Depends on the action and wording of what constitutes the notification that force will be applied, and the form and degree of force actually used. Source? Case law on the use of reasonable force, and sentencing guidelines on mitigating factors of provocation of assault. Again, Google, or go to a law library. Toom |