"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: Doug on 4 Mar 2010 02:15 On 4 Mar, 07:07, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > 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. > No. > > CM must be very dangerous if there are that many bodies lying around. > No. > > > > 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, > No. > > > 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.
From: Tony Dragon on 4 Mar 2010 02:18 Doug wrote: > On 4 Mar, 07:07, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > No. >> CM must be very dangerous if there are that many bodies lying around. >> > No. >> >>> 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, >> > No. >>> 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. > > So you have no point to make then. -- Tony Dragon
From: NM on 4 Mar 2010 02:39 On 4 Mar, 06:42, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> 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? > > 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. > Doug you have finally got it, we (everyone) can and do use the roads as intended cyclists cannot block the roads without danger of conflict, that's exactly what's happening right now, so we are in agreement at last.
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 4 Mar 2010 03:34 Doug wrote: .... > The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. It is only unsafe for those who fail to observe the traffic signs and signals. > 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? There would then be a defence of necessity, which does not apply to law breakers assisting others to break the law on the grounds that breaking the law puts them in danger. > > A driver in a traffic jam who does not leave a gap at a side turning > is deliberately blocking traffic In Britain, there is no requirement to give way to traffic trying to join your stream of traffic, except as subject to road signs and traffic controls. That is not the same as intentionally blocking the road, to prevent traffic even attempting to join the traffic stream. > but, of course, is unlikely to be > rammed to allow the right of passing and repassing, unlike a > vulnerable cyclist. There are different risks for drivers who upset other motorists: http://yourshepway.co.uk/kent-news/Motorist-shot-in-stomach-during-road-rage-attack-newsinkent29354.aspx?news=local http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3937501.stm Of course, one of those perpetrators might some day be among those the cyclists stop, which will make being gently nudged by a car seem much more preferable. Colin Bignell
From: Steve Walker on 4 Mar 2010 03:44
Doug wrote: > The traffic is being blocked in the interests of safety. That's an absurd claim - if safety was the primary issue they wouldn't be conducting their arrogant traffic-disrupting promenades at all. |