"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 12:37 NM wrote: > On 3 Mar, 16:01, Cynic <cynic_...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> There is also the possibility that the gyrocopter is not sufficiently >> controllable to allow the pilot to avoid an accident in such a >> situation, but that the hunt-supporter incorrectly assumed that it was >> as controllable as a car and therefore placed himself into more danger >> than he believed he was in. > > That is a very good point, in order to 'steer' effectively the pilot > will need quite an airflow over it's rudder and enough forward speed > for the differential brakes to take effect (assuming this model has > wheel brakes). Thus revs are required to manoeuver and at low speed > that will not be precise or control action instant. I suppose that with having the prop at the rear, there would be a pronounced 'yaw' when turning hard (like a motor boat). So if the pilot executed a hard left turn to go safely around the protester chap, then the rear of his aircraft would initally turn to the right. The pilot presumably would've known about this, but it's easy to to imagine the protester thinking mistakenly that he could step forward into what appeared to be vacated space and then being surprised by the rear of the aircraft yawing towards him. Should the pilot have anticipated that the protester might make this mistake? Perhaps he did, but didn't allow a wide enough margin for it. Perhaps he expected that the protestor would have a frightening 'near-miss' or that a ground-cre worker would usher him back to safety. It's going to be a very difficult case for the jury unless there is independent evidence to indicate the pilot's awareness and intentions during a confusing confrontation.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 3 Mar 2010 12:54 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? No, because traffic jams are a usual manner of use of the highway in many areas and anyone is free join in that particular use of the highway. Being held up in a side road by the weight of traffic is simply being part of the traffic jam. Colin Bignell
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 3 Mar 2010 12:59 Toom Tabard wrote: ..... > > "The right to use reasonable force would be upheld at common law. ... Doug has previously expressed the belief that common law is the law that the common man thinks should apply. .... > The issues you are now raising are irrelevant and obfuscatory. ..... In other words, a typical post from Doug. Colin Bignell
From: Tony Dragon on 3 Mar 2010 14:06 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? > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > You know very well that there is a difference between a deliberate act of blocking traffic & the result of a traffic jam. -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 3 Mar 2010 14:18
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? Could deliberately riding across a red light at a pedestrian be considered an assult, if so the pedestrian would ba allowed to defend himself. > > 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. > His ankle was broken yet he managed to lift his bike and throw it at the car? -- Tony Dragon |