"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Doug on 3 Mar 2010 05:24 On 3 Mar, 09:15, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > 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). > > Corking by CM has been customary world wide for the last 18 years. Why should it be needed to be changes now, particularly bearing in mind the difficulties in notifying police when there are no organisers? The police tried to enforce prior notification in London and failed in the highest court in the land. > > > > > > 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 > So this would also apply to drivers in traffic jams who do not leave a gap. So why are they not threatened and rammed? Do you think they should be, as happens with CM? Or does it only apply to vulnerable cyclists in your mind? > > > > 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. > As apparently do prat drivers in traffic jams. So, your point? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Doug on 3 Mar 2010 05:36 On 3 Mar, 10:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > True but in this case it is the one who is obstructed who is using force, with a car as a weapon no less. > > 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. > The driver wasn't being assaulted. On the contrary he committed the assault. > > Again, Google, or go to a law library. > OK let me do your work for you. "Reasonable force Opinions differ on what is a reasonable amount of force but in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to decide how much force is reasonable because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack.." Hang on, the driver wasn't under attack! and "The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as legal force." So 'reasonable force' usually applies to self defence and not to the so-called 'right to pass and repass'? -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: Toom Tabard on 3 Mar 2010 05:52 On 3 Mar, 10:24, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 3 Mar, 09:15, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > 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). > > Corking by CM has been customary world wide for the last 18 years. Why > should it be needed to be changes now, particularly bearing in mind > the difficulties in notifying police when there are no organisers? The > police tried to enforce prior notification in London and failed in the > highest court in the land. > Irrelevant to the point at issue. Even if it has been customary worldwide, and doesn't here need permission under the Public Order Act, any necessary control of traffic would still need prior agreement with the police authority. Individuals have no legal authority to choose to direct or to wilfully obstruct traffic for their own purposes. > > 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 > > So this would also apply to drivers in traffic jams who do not leave a > gap. So why are they not threatened and rammed? Do you think they > should be, as happens with CM? Or does it only apply to vulnerable > cyclists in your mind? > Indeed it applies to them all. Most drivers will have experienced and extended common courtesy in such circumstances in drivers allowing vehicles in from side streets. And normal traffic situations are totally different from deliberately, wilfully, and unlawfully blocking access by one type of traffic. > > > 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. > > As apparently do prat drivers in traffic jams. So, your point? > My point is clearly made. It is that we should try to act with courtesy, care and consideration towards other road users. If all road users did the same the roads would be a lot safer. The fact that there are other categories of prat does not alter the fact that CM consists largely of prats acting in a manner counter to this. Toom
From: Toom Tabard on 3 Mar 2010 06:16 On 3 Mar, 10:36, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 3 Mar, 10:21, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > 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. > > True but in this case it is the one who is obstructed who is using > force, with a car as a weapon no less. > I'm clearly discussing the general case UK and particularly English law in relation to the tactics and problems of CM. > > 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. > > The driver wasn't being assaulted. On the contrary he committed the > assault. > > > Again, Google, or go to a law library. > > OK let me do your work for you. > You don't need to. I already know all that > "Reasonable force > > Opinions differ on what is a reasonable amount of force but in all > cases, the defendant does not have the right to decide how much force > is reasonable because the defendant would always maintain they acted > reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary > members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable > in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant > was under pressure from imminent attack.." > And that refers to reasonable force to resist imminent or actual attack. This is a separate issue of the right at common law to use reasonable force to make lawful progress when you are unlawfully obstructed. There are several categories where reasonable force can be used e.g. to remove trespassers, again where imminent attack does not have to be a factor. Don't confuse the issues - it is disingenuous, or perhaps your lack of understanding of the law, but detracts further from your already meritless case. > Hang on, the driver wasn't under attack! > I'm clearly discussing the general case UK and particularly English law in relation to the tactics and problems of CM. and in particular the issue of corking in that context. I've made no comment on this individual instance. > and > > "The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property. > Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or > property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful > aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to > defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses > excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, > he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. > Reasonable force is also known as legal force." > > So 'reasonable force' usually applies to self defence and not to the > so-called 'right to pass and repass'? > It does usually so apply, because that is the context in which it usually arises. That makes no difference to the general position which I've clearly stated. "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." The issues you are now raising are irrelevant and obfuscatory. The law and general legal principles are clear and I have clearly stated them. I'll happily leave others to judge which statement are correct and verifiable. I repeat again - your views and justification have no merit morally, at wrong at law, and are incompatible with justice. I'll leave to freely fire further irrelevancies with your scatter gun. Re-read what I've said if you ever want to actually know the legal position. Toom
From: NM on 3 Mar 2010 06:17
On 3 Mar, 08:56, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > 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. Good, sounds like he deserved it, I hope the motorist was also compensated for his damage. What is so hard to understand? If you cause deliberate congestion you will get a reaction, remedy is so simple a child (but not apparantly a lycra loon) could understand, don't do it and if you do accept the consequences. |