"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 4 Mar 2010 19:22 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. So cyclists who jump a red light are put at risk by the actions of impatient drivers who proceed at a green light and not by their own actions in jumping the red lights? 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. >>> 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? As has been pointed out to you by someone with a much greater knowledge of the law, a person who has their right of passage along the highway obstructed is not comiting an assault if they use reasonable force to remove the person causing the obstruction. Nudging a bycycle with a car is likely to be deemed reasonable force. >> >>> 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. Not at all, but I understand the Highway Code, which you appear not to. Any paragraph that says you *should* do something is simply a recommendation. Only those sections that say you *must* do something are reporting what is required by law. > "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 Something that you are saying CM cyclists should not do. > * 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. I comes of starting out as psychotic individuals, who also happen to use a car. >> 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. Being shot is even more likely to lead to death than being nudged gently by a car. Colin Bignell
From: Doug on 5 Mar 2010 02:00 On 5 Mar, 00:22, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: > 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. > > So cyclists who jump a red light are put at risk by the actions of > impatient drivers who proceed at a green light and not by their own > actions in jumping the red lights? > The point you are missing is this also includes intersections where there are no lights but the problem is identical. > > 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. > >>> 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? > > As has been pointed out to you by someone with a much greater knowledge > of the law, a person who has their right of passage along the highway > obstructed is not comiting an assault if they use reasonable force to > remove the person causing the obstruction. Nudging a bycycle with a car > is likely to be deemed reasonable force. > The law is not clear on this because it does not define what is 'reasonable'. I very much doubt that deliberately using a car as a physical weapon to attack someone on a bicycle would ever be considered reasonable thouigh. On the other hand, if the law is as you suggest then it would equally well apply to drivers in a traffic jam who fail to leave an exit gap so presumably you would think it OK for them to be rammed or otherwise attacked? > > > >>> 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. > > Not at all, but I understand the Highway Code, which you appear not to. > Any paragraph that says you *should* do something is simply a > recommendation. Only those sections that say you *must* do something are > reporting what is required by law. > So equally then it is not mandatory for cyclists? > > > "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 > > Something that you are saying CM cyclists should not do. > I am merely pointing out it applies to both cyclists and drivers so should elicit a similar response. > > > * 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. > > I comes of starting out as psychotic individuals, who also happen to use > a car. > What about the fact that driving is stressful? > > >> 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. > > Being shot is even more likely to lead to death than being nudged gently > by a car. > Depends where you are shot. I suspect the risk of being run over by a driver is probably much greater than the risk of being shot. I am revelling in the fact that motorists here seriously consider that the use of violence is fully justified to remove someone who is blocking their so-called right to pass and repass. It explains so much about their attitude and general behaviour, though they are always quick to condemn the use of violence by others. -- Critical Mass London http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"
From: "Nightjar "cpb" on 5 Mar 2010 03:14 Doug wrote: > On 5 Mar, 00:22, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote: >> 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. >> So cyclists who jump a red light are put at risk by the actions of >> impatient drivers who proceed at a green light and not by their own >> actions in jumping the red lights? >> > The point you are missing is this also includes intersections where > there are no lights but the problem is identical. You have not answered the question. Do that and then we can consider what happens at other junctions. Of course, if the cyclists did stop at lights, there would be breaks in their stream that people could safely enter from the side roads. >> 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. >>>>> 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? >> As has been pointed out to you by someone with a much greater knowledge >> of the law, a person who has their right of passage along the highway >> obstructed is not comiting an assault if they use reasonable force to >> remove the person causing the obstruction. Nudging a bycycle with a car >> is likely to be deemed reasonable force. >> > The law is not clear on this because it does not define what is > 'reasonable'. I very much doubt that deliberately using a car as a > physical weapon to attack someone on a bicycle would ever be > considered reasonable thouigh. One of the few posters on uk.legal who actually seems to be a lawyer has given you the circumstances under which it would. > On the other hand, if the law is as you suggest then it would equally > well apply to drivers in a traffic jam who fail to leave an exit gap > so presumably you would think it OK for them to be rammed or otherwise > attacked? You seem to be quite incapable of seeing the difference between slowly moving traffic and the intentional blocking of the highway. However, that is crucial to understanding the difference between the two situations. >> >>>>> 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. >> Not at all, but I understand the Highway Code, which you appear not to. >> Any paragraph that says you *should* do something is simply a >> recommendation. Only those sections that say you *must* do something are >> reporting what is required by law. >> > So equally then it is not mandatory for cyclists? Correct, but someone who is standing in the road is not a cyclist for the purposes of that rule, simply because they happen to have a bicycle with them. There would be no requirement for those travelling along a major road to give way to anyone wishing to join it. That is not the same as intentionally preventing someone from having the opportunity to join the road. >>> "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 >> Something that you are saying CM cyclists should not do. >> > I am merely pointing out it applies to both cyclists and drivers so > should elicit a similar response. Agreed, so far as the cyclists travelling along the highway are concerned. It does not, however, imply that other persons, not at the moment travelling along the highway, have any right to prevent others from having access to that highway. >>> * 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. >> I comes of starting out as psychotic individuals, who also happen to use >> a car. >> > What about the fact that driving is stressful? That is a matter of temprament. I am sure there are people who find it stressful and, if you are one, that may explain some of your stance on driving. However, many people would also find running a business stressful. Personally, I find both enjoyable and relaxing. >>>> 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. >> Being shot is even more likely to lead to death than being nudged gently >> by a car. >> > Depends where you are shot. I suspect the risk of being run over by a > driver is probably much greater than the risk of being shot. Being shot anywhere in the torso, which is the most probable target, is likely to be life threatening. There is not a lot of space inside the body that does not contain soemthing vital. > I am revelling in the fact that motorists here seriously consider that > the use of violence is fully justified to remove someone who is > blocking their so-called right to pass and repass. ... If you understood the legal points put to you by Toom Tabard, you would realise that it is a simple statement of fact. Colin Bignell
From: Steve Walker on 5 Mar 2010 04:58 Ret. wrote: > This from an earlier article: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7934804.stm > > Sam Butler, a family friend and joint master of the Warwickshire Hunt, > said: "A gyrocopter had been following us for a couple of weeks and we > had made a formal complaint to the Civil Aviation Authority 10 days ago." So the huntmaster's claim that the gyrocopter was only being detained to identify it is false - they had already ID'd and complained 10 days previously. Oh dear, their story is starting to crumble.
From: soup on 5 Mar 2010 09:21
On 04/03/2010 14:26, Cynic wrote: > No. What he *could* have done is irrelevant. It's what he *should* > have done that is important. > 'Should' implies no limit of possibility . |