"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Christopher Bowlas on 3 Mar 2010 18:36 On Mar 3, 3:04 pm, "The Todal" <deadmail...(a)beeb.net> wrote: > Presumably the prosecution can only be on the basis that the pilot could > have safely brought his aircraft to a halt and should have been aware that > if he failed to do so, he was likely to cause Mr Morse's death. And > presumably the jury will decide whether or not that is what happened. Alternatively, could Mr Griffiths have been prosecuted for having assisted someone to commit suicide?
From: Doug on 4 Mar 2010 01:42 On 3 Mar, 11:17, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: > 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. > The consequences are a driver, who has superior force by using a car as a weapon, takes the law into his own hands by attacking a cyclist by ramming. And you and other motorists here are trying to pretend this was a legal act because the cyclist was deliberately corking? We all know that it is unwise to provoke violent criminals but they shouldn't be allowed on our streets in dangerous cars in the first place, let alone ignored by police when they physically attack cyclists. You and your motorist chums here seem to think our roads should be treated as some sort of jungle where might is right and physical violence should be inflicted on anyone who interferes with your precious so-called 'right to pass and repass'. And in almost the same breathe you preach courtesy, care and understanding. Yeah sure! Of the one-sided sort. Vulnerable road users must use courtesy because they will otherwise be physically attacked by bully drivers in dangerous vehicles. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Doug on 4 Mar 2010 01:56 On 3 Mar, 19:06, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> 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? > > > -- > > 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. > The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. If someone is lying unconscious in the middle of the road do you think bystanders should allow traffic to run over them because blocking might be illegal? A driver in a traffic jam who does not leave a gap at a side turning is deliberately blocking traffic but, of course, is unlikely to be rammed to allow the right of passing and repassing, unlike a vulnerable cyclist. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 02:07 Doug wrote: > On 3 Mar, 19:06, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> 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? >>> -- >>> 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. >> > The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. If someone is > lying unconscious in the middle of the road do you think bystanders > should allow traffic to run over them because blocking might be > illegal? Are you now telling us that when *corking* (aka obstruction) takes place it is because there is someone lying unconscious in the road. CM must be very dangerous if there are that many bodies lying around. > > A driver in a traffic jam who does not leave a gap at a side turning > is deliberately blocking traffic but, Are you now telling us that those doing the *corking* (aka obstruction) are not able to proceed due to a traffic jam, > of course, is unlikely to be > rammed You got the *R* word in, how unusual. > to allow the right of passing and repassing, unlike a > vulnerable cyclist. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others. > > -- Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 02:12
Doug wrote: > On 3 Mar, 11:17, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > The consequences are a driver, who has superior force by using a car > as a weapon, takes the law into his own hands by attacking a cyclist > by ramming. And you and other motorists here are trying to pretend > this was a legal act because the cyclist was deliberately corking? It's the*R* word againg > > We all know that it is unwise to provoke violent criminals but they > shouldn't be allowed on our streets in dangerous cars in the first > place, let alone ignored by police when they physically attack > cyclists. > Yes I agree somebody who throws a bike at something is a criminal. And he did it with a broken ankle. > You and your motorist chums here seem to think our roads should be > treated as some sort of jungle where might is right and physical > violence should be inflicted on anyone who interferes with your > precious so-called 'right to pass and repass'. And in almost the same > breathe you preach courtesy, care and understanding. Yeah sure! Of the > one-sided sort. > Vulnerable road users must use courtesy So their idea of courtesy is to obstruct the highway, how quaint. > because they will otherwise be > physically attacked by bully drivers in dangerous vehicles. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > -- Tony Dragon |