From: NM on
On 4 Mar, 17:52, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 17:46, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Walker wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> > > You are suddenly changing the story to make the initial collision into a
> > > deliberate assault by the driver (rather than an accident).   If there is
> > > evidence of that then of course the driver should be prosecuted.
>
> > Well he has already lied by telling us the cyclists were not moving even
> > though the video was shot by a moving cyclist.
>
> Not only are you confusing two incidents but you are deliberately
> misrepresenting one of them. In the case of the video it was a shot of
> stationary cyclists corking and being physically threatened by a
> violent driver who happened to be a cop.
>
It gets better and better, the driver was a cop , I missed that bit if
it was mentioned earlier.

From: Steve Walker on
Doug wrote:

> Wrong again. It is rendered unsafe when an impatient driver forces his
> way from a side-road into a mass of cyclists who are passing and
> repassing on a main road, that is why they are prevented from doing so
> by a few corkers.

If a certain group of road users decide that they're going to defy traffic
laws for their own amusement, that's wrong. It's wrong when cyclists have
their whiny protest rides, and it's wrong when stupid spoilt kids have their
'cruises'. It's wrong when fuel-protestors jam up the motorway, and when
thieves use residential areas for twoc racing. It is the duty of the
Police to arrest and prosecute whenever someone breaks traffic laws,
excepting a degree of discretion for unintended or isolated incidents. All
of the above can and should be punished.

Regardless of the Police attending, criminal behaviour is still criminal.
Any citizen is entitled to act to prevent it, and/or to refuse to submit to
it. That means that your precious, sanctimonious 'corkers' are putting
their heads in a noose by standing at the front. Any passing citizen may
use reasonable force to clear the highway and/or prevent breach of the
peace, and it's vanishly unlikely that they will be criticised by courts,
media or community.

Drivers of London, if one of these dickwads blocks your journey in defiance
of the traffic signals don't just sit there fuming, get out and go and deal
with them. They're whiny peace-niks, you won't need to take a weapon.
And the rest of you, get out of your cars and go and help! Imagine if the
next time they do it several hundred fed-up drivers and passengers just walk
over, pick them up and dump them onto the kerb with contempt. Don't strike
them, don't abuse them, just move them out of the way like the
attention-seeking toddlers they are.






From: Steve Walker on
Mrcheerful wrote:
> Mike Ross wrote:
>> On 04 Mar 2010 17:24:25 GMT, fburton(a)nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <otlvo59i512shodq6bd1o41s7146se7oso(a)4ax.com>,
>>> Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote:
>>>> finally get my license this summer), and amateur gas turbine
>>>> engineer. Currently building a gas turbine / electric hybrid car.
>>>>
>>>> Out-of-date turbine stuff is here:
>>>> http://www.corestore.org/turbine.htm
>>>
>>> I assume you don't use the BMW/MAN ground power unit to run the
>>> PDP11 computer(s)! :-) (I recognized the corner of the RK05 disk
>>> drive.)
>>
>> Good for you, and no. Though I did once toy with using a larger
>> turbine to generate 3-phase for the pdp-10...
>>
>> Sanity (FSSVO 'sanity') prevailed and I got a rotary converter
>> instead...
>>
>> Mike
>
> How do you find the time and space for your projects?

That's what I thought - you're an exceptional man, Mike.


From: Tony Dragon on
Doug wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 08:34, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Wrong again. It is rendered unsafe when an impatient driver forces his
> way from a side-road into a mass of cyclists who are passing and
> repassing on a main road, that is why they are prevented from doing so
> by a few corkers. The irony is that the driver would be delayed even
> more when he finds himself trapped amid a mass of slow moving cyclists
> but then some have been known to also ram in such circumstances.

So by waiting for the cyclists to clear & following them is quicker than
joining them, interesting concept.

>>> 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.
>>
> See above. What about breaking the law in order to put others in
> danger, like physically threatening and assaulting them with a car
> weapon?
>>
>>> 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.
>>
> You obviously have failed to see the quote from the HC given
> previously about leaving a gap in slow moving traffic to allow exiting
> from a side road, which applies to drivers as well as cyclists and is
> rarely observed by drivers in traffic jams.

So why don't CM do this?

>
> "151
>
> In slow-moving traffic. You should
>
> * reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to
> maintain traffic flow
> * never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop
> safely
> * leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in
> front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past
> * not change lanes to the left to overtake
> **** allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will
> add to congestion
> * be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on
> either side"
>>> 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-ro...
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3937501.stm
>>
> That some drivers suffer from violent road-rage. It sees to go with
> the territory, due no doubt to them being accustomed to getting from A
> to B in the quickest possible time regardless of the law.
>> 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.
>>
> Being deliberately rammed by a driver is never preferable as it might
> lead to being run over and even injury or death. Not that the
> motorists on these NGs seem to care so busy are they trying to justify
> it.
>
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
>


--
Tony Dragon
From: Tony Dragon on
NM wrote:
> On 4 Mar, 17:52, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 4 Mar, 17:46, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Walker wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>> You are suddenly changing the story to make the initial collision into a
>>>> deliberate assault by the driver (rather than an accident). If there is
>>>> evidence of that then of course the driver should be prosecuted.
>>> Well he has already lied by telling us the cyclists were not moving even
>>> though the video was shot by a moving cyclist.
>> Not only are you confusing two incidents but you are deliberately
>> misrepresenting one of them. In the case of the video it was a shot of
>> stationary cyclists corking and being physically threatened by a
>> violent driver who happened to be a cop.

They were moving * the camera was on a moving bike.

>>
> It gets better and better, the driver was a cop , I missed that bit if
> it was mentioned earlier.
>

According to those who edited the video.

--
Tony Dragon
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway