"If you don't move I'll run you over".
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 2 Mar 2010 09:17 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:35:11 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >Critical Mass London I think you are a bunch of self righteous tosses who only see one side of the argument. -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: Theodore on 2 Mar 2010 09:55 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:13:44 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >On 2 Mar, 07:01, Theodore <theodored...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:35:11 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police >> >despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special >> >dispensation for drivers against cyclists? >> >> >"...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and >> >Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception. >> >"You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist >> >is heard saying on a YouTube video. >> >> >The video, shot by cyclist Matt Todd, shows the driver threatening to >> >strike a bicyclist with his car. >> >> >"If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds >> >before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist..." >> >> >More with videos: >> >http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=141270&catid=3 >> >> LOL! Well done that driver. >> >So you think that its OK for motorists to deliberately ram cyclists to >make them move out of the way and this should be allowed in law? Would >you say you are a typical motorist? No, but as I've already made clear, I'm not in favour of cyclists unlicensed and untaxed on car's roads.
From: Mr Benn on 2 Mar 2010 10:18 "Peter Grange" <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:ti5qo5le0nv6lc709jrb0e4vv51bjopu16(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:33:30 -0000, "Mr Benn" <nospam(a)invalid.invalid> > wrote: >>Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu >>quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting >>his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it >>attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the >>person >>making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on >>the >>party itself, rather than its positions. >> > Hang on! Doug started this rant about motorists. The motorist faction > comes in and complains about cyclists. A cyclist responds complaining > about motorists, the motorist faction comes back with "tu quoque". I'm a cyclist who also owns a car. I'm not the "motorist faction" whatever that is.
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 10:41 On 2 Mar, 10:18, "Iain" <s...(a)smaps.net> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:cf67e91e-0e4f-4bfd-b367-a795ef0dba2c(a)e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On 2 Mar, 09:34, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > ... > > > > What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same.. > > > Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of > > > motorists. > > > Many adults drive, and would be proportionately on a jury. That is not > > their only classification. I drive/walk/cycle. As a driver and > > pedestrian, I try to give extra consideration to cyclists and their > > safety. If I were on a jury in a road accident case, I'd be giving > > full and fair consideration to the case for any cyclist. In an > > obstruction and assault scenario, whether I'm a driver/pedestrian/ > > cyclist is irrelevant. Only the fairness and justice matters, and I > > would not favour the case for the cyclist in the example you've given. > > Similarly, in the second scenario I've given - blocking a pedestrian - > > it could equally be said that the jury would consist of a majority of > > pedestrians. That is equally irrelevant to the consideration of the > > issues in terms of right and justice. > > > In the real world, morally, legally and in terms of natural justice, > > you are backing a loser. > > 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. > > Doug. > > ==================== > > It didn't take me long to find these: > > "In Clerk & Lindsell, The Law of Torts , 17th ed. (1995), para. 17-41 the > current state of the law as to the question of use is summarised in these > terms: > "The right of the public in respect of a highway is limited to the use of > it for the purpose of passing and repassing and for such other reasonable > purposes as it is usual to use the highway; if a member of the public uses > it for any other purpose than that of passing and repassing he will be a > trespasser." " > 'Other purposes as it is usual to use the highway', what like the monthly Critical Mass? > > and to show how long established this principle has been: > > "In Ex Parte Lewis, (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 it was held that there was no right > in the public to occupy Trafalgar Square for the purpose of holding public > meetings there. Wills J. said, at p. 197: > "The only 'dedication' in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a > public right of passage, of which the legal description is a 'right for all > Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will > to pass and repass without let or hindrance.'" > > Both from:http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/hol/reports/07/44.htm > > I am sure that if you did further research, you could quite swiftly come up > with examples of what your legal rights are if you are denied your 'right of > free passage' by a trespasser. > So where does it say you are permitted to assert that right by the violent use of a weapon? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
From: Doug on 2 Mar 2010 10:43
On 2 Mar, 10:33, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > On 2 Mar, 09:40, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > On 2 Mar, 09:34, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 2 Mar, 09:06, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On 2 Mar, 06:35, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > > > It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police > > > > > > despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special > > > > > > dispensation for drivers against cyclists? > > > > > > > "...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and > > > > > > Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception. > > > > > > "You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist > > > > > > is heard saying on a YouTube video. > > > > > > > The video, shot by cyclist Matt Todd, shows the driver threatening to > > > > > > strike a bicyclist with his car. > > > > > > > "If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds > > > > > > before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist..." > > > > > > > More with videos:http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=141270&catid=3 > > > > > > If you unlawfully and without good cause block someone's right to free > > > > > passage, then they can use reasonable force to proceed (deciding to > > > > > hold your own procession and block people to let your mates pass is > > > > > unlikely to constitute good cause). > > > > > Source? > > > > > > If you further provoke by continuing to block free passage then that > > > > > would be regarded as mitigating circumstances in defence of anyone > > > > > assaulting you. > > > > > It is not an issue of drivers-v-cyclists pers se. Try (with or without > > > > > your bike) blocking a pedestrian on the pavement and refusing to let > > > > > him pass. Don't be surprised if he tries to push past. Try continuing > > > > > to block him. Don't be surprised if you end up with a fat lip. And, if > > > > > you've videoed the whole thing, don't be surprised if a court finds > > > > > you are entirely the author of your own misfortune. > > > > > What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same. > > > > Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of > > > > motorists. > > > > Many adults drive, and would be proportionately on a jury. That is not > > > their only classification. I drive/walk/cycle. As a driver and > > > pedestrian, I try to give extra consideration to cyclists and their > > > safety. If I were on a jury in a road accident case, I'd be giving > > > full and fair consideration to the case for any cyclist. In an > > > obstruction and assault scenario, whether I'm a driver/pedestrian/ > > > cyclist is irrelevant. Only the fairness and justice matters, and I > > > would not favour the case for the cyclist in the example you've given.. > > > Similarly, in the second scenario I've given - blocking a pedestrian - > > > it could equally be said that the jury would consist of a majority of > > > pedestrians. That is equally irrelevant to the consideration of the > > > issues in terms of right and justice. > > > > In the real world, morally, legally and in terms of natural justice, > > > you are backing a loser. > > > 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. > > The right to use reasonable force is, in different contexts, in both > common law and various statutes. > Such as? > > The mitigation for assault, if provoked, is in sentencing guidelines. > It would apply on a sliding scale from action which is common assault, > but would not apply to causing grevious bodily harm with intent. It > would apply to warning someone that you were going to push past and to > any reasonable skirmish to do so, and particularly if it resulted in > no more than minor bruising, swellings, abrasion, a black eye or a fat > lip.. > Source/s? -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others. |