Cyclists win police court battle!

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Nick Finnigan said:
> The Luggage wrote:
>> Steve Walker wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Personally, I think the requirement for a licence is irrelevant.
>>> It's a bureaucratic necessity.
>
> It is not even a bureaucratic necessity.
>
>> It is necesary so that people may not drive before they have been
>> trained,
>
> People do drive before they have been trained.
>
>> and so they may be prevented from driving if they are shown to
>> be incapable of following the rules.
>
> A licence does not do that either.

It provides a means of sanction should a licence holder break the rules that
go with holding that licence. Those who break the rules regarding the
holding of a licence are liable to suffer additional sanctions.

It is agreed that the only way to physically prevent someone driving is to
lock them up.

 

[jtaylor]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Steve Firth wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:48:49 -0300, jtaylor wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>Please explain why there are legislation and regulation governing
licenses
> >>for the use of motorcars, then.
> >
> > To ensure that those who operate motor vehicles on a public highway
reach a
> > defined minimum standard of competence.
>
> No, that can't be the reason, or visiting GIs would not be have the
> right to drive on UK carriageways with just their US licences.

And why would not the legislation and regulation which permits holders of
other certificates attesting to a minimum standard of competance use of the
Queen's highways be the reason?

As opposed to persons having a right ab initio to use said highways on a
bicycle?

 

[jtaylor]

"ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> >
> > "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>
> >> You seem to be somewhat mentally challenged. Larrington expressed the
> > views
> >> quoted, I'm not Conor, and Larrington is attempting to claim that a
> > license
> >> ot operate a motor vehicle in someway means that a driver has lesser
> > rights
> >> than some twonk who gets on a push bike.
> >>
> >> He is wrong. Both have the same rights to use the road.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > One has a right; the other has a license.
>
> The licence grants a formal right, so long as the licence is in force.

No, it grants permission.

Rights are things which are not granted, they exist from birth.

 

[ian henden]

"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>> >
>> > "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You seem to be somewhat mentally challenged. Larrington expressed the
>> > views
>> >> quoted, I'm not Conor, and Larrington is attempting to claim that a
>> > license
>> >> ot operate a motor vehicle in someway means that a driver has lesser
>> > rights
>> >> than some twonk who gets on a push bike.
>> >>
>> >> He is wrong. Both have the same rights to use the road.
>> >
>> > Wrong.
>> >
>> > One has a right; the other has a license.
>>
>> The licence grants a formal right, so long as the licence is in force.
>
> No, it grants permission.
>
> Rights are things which are not granted, they exist from birth.

And anyone at birth has the right to look forward to passing a test eighteen
years later and thus gaining the right to drive on the public highway.
>
>

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>, jtaylor
<[email protected]> writes

>Rights are things which are not granted, they exist from birth.

Vote. Marry. Have sex. Buy alcohol, tobacco, solvents, sharp objects.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Nick Finnigan]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:48:49 -0300, jtaylor wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please explain why there are legislation and regulation governing
>
> licenses
>
>>>>for the use of motorcars, then.
>>>
>>>To ensure that those who operate motor vehicles on a public highway
>
> reach a
>
>>>defined minimum standard of competence.
>>
>> No, that can't be the reason, or visiting GIs would not be have the
>>right to drive on UK carriageways with just their US licences.
>
>
> And why would not the legislation and regulation which permits holders of
> other certificates attesting to a minimum standard of competance use of the
> Queen's highways be the reason?

What?

> As opposed to persons having a right ab initio to use said highways on a
> bicycle?

Is use of a highway on an electrically assisted bicycle a right or a
privilege?

 

[Steve Firth]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:07:46 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2006 02:27:54 -0700, The Luggage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>you cannot be banned from cycling
>>
>>
>> Untrue, there are many public highways from which cyclists are banned. You
>> may not cycle on a motorway, nor on bridleways.
>>
>
> You may cycle on bridleways.

Sorry you're right, I'm wrong. The point remains however that cyclists are
banned from using many highways.

 

[jtaylor]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Steve Walker said:
> > In message <[email protected]>, Brimstone
> > <[email protected]> writes
> >
> >> If a licence is needed to pursue an activity then there is no
> >> "right" to carry out that activity.
> >
> > If you define "right" in that way. If we're into making our own
> > definitions up
>
> We're not. You are.
>

Exactly.

Rights exist.

Permissions require licences.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:06:22 +0100, Brimstone wrote:

> AIUI the requirement for a licence to drive a motor car is to ensure that
> drivers of such vehicles have a certain level of competence so that they do
> not present a danger to other road users.

Indeed, it is not however a licence to use a road nor does the presence or
absence of a licence affect ones right to use a road.

No matter how the cyclists howl, cyclists, pedestrians and motorists all
have the same right to use the road.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Indeed, it is not however a licence to use a road nor does the
> presence or absence of a licence affect ones right to use a road.

I think, and I may be wrong here, that the licence gives you the right to
use a motor vehicle on the road. You appear to be saying that motorists
have as much right to use the road as peds, simply 'cos they walk down the
road. The debate is about driving down the road Vs walking or cycling.

I'm pretty sure I've misunderstood you thobut.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
ian henden said:
> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>>
>> "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>>>>
>>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be somewhat mentally challenged. Larrington expressed
>>>>> the views quoted, I'm not Conor, and Larrington is attempting to
>>>>> claim that a license ot operate a motor vehicle in someway means
>>>>> that a driver has lesser rights than some twonk who gets on a
>>>>> push bike. He is wrong. Both have the same rights to use the road.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> One has a right; the other has a license.
>>>
>>> The licence grants a formal right, so long as the licence is in
>>> force.
>>
>> No, it grants permission.
>>
>> Rights are things which are not granted, they exist from birth.
>
> And anyone at birth has the right to look forward to passing a test
> eighteen years later and thus gaining the right to drive on the
> public highway.

Absolutely, everyone has the right to have whatever dreams they choose.
However, assuming they pass the driving test (and there's no good reason
that they have to wait until they're eighteen) they still only have
permission under licence, not a right.

Rights cannot be removed (in this context at least), licences can be
revoked.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:55:51 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:07:46 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> On 30 Jun 2006 02:27:54 -0700, The Luggage wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>you cannot be banned from cycling
>>>
>>>
>>> Untrue, there are many public highways from which cyclists are banned. You
>>> may not cycle on a motorway, nor on bridleways.
>>>
>>
>> You may cycle on bridleways.
>
> Sorry you're right, I'm wrong. The point remains however that cyclists are
> banned from using many highways.

I would that the highways that cyclists cannot use are a very small minority
of the total. Even if you look at it in terms of mile of highway it would
still be a very small minority. To state "many highways" is quite clearly
deliberately misleading.


--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[ian henden]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> ian henden said:
>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>>>
>>> "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> "jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be somewhat mentally challenged. Larrington expressed
>>>>>> the views quoted, I'm not Conor, and Larrington is attempting to
>>>>>> claim that a license ot operate a motor vehicle in someway means
>>>>>> that a driver has lesser rights than some twonk who gets on a
>>>>>> push bike. He is wrong. Both have the same rights to use the road.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> One has a right; the other has a license.
>>>>
>>>> The licence grants a formal right, so long as the licence is in
>>>> force.
>>>
>>> No, it grants permission.
>>>
>>> Rights are things which are not granted, they exist from birth.
>>
>> And anyone at birth has the right to look forward to passing a test
>> eighteen years later and thus gaining the right to drive on the
>> public highway.
>
> Absolutely, everyone has the right to have whatever dreams they choose.
> However, assuming they pass the driving test (and there's no good reason
> that they have to wait until they're eighteen) they still only have
> permission under licence, not a right.
>
> Rights cannot be removed (in this context at least), licences can be
> revoked.

And, in the absence of such revocation, the licence-holder has a right to do
whatever the licence permits.
>
>

 

[Steve Firth]

On 30 Jun 2006 12:57:05 GMT, Andy Leighton wrote:

> I would that the highways that cyclists cannot use are a very small minority
> of the total. Even if you look at it in terms of mile of highway it would
> still be a very small minority. To state "many highways" is quite clearly
> deliberately misleading.

Utter bollocks, and you just did.

 

[Paul Weaver]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
>
> > Yet when x and y are correctly large values, x+y metres will usually
> > require there to be no oncoming traffic. So there is no additional
> > inconvenience due to needing x+y+z.
> >
> However there are many roads where you can safely overtake a single
> cyclist without crossing onto the other side which you would have to do
> with two abreast.

Indeed, assuming the cyclist is 1.5m from the curb, and the car gives
2m clearence, and the car is 1.5m wide, you need 5m of space.

If you overtake a car, 1m from the curb, you'll need 6m of space.

If you overtake 2 cyclists, 1.5m apart, you'll need 6.5m of space --
more than overtaking a car.

There are many roads that have the 5m of clearence, but not 6.

 

[ian henden]

"Paul Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Conor wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
>>
>> > Yet when x and y are correctly large values, x+y metres will usually
>> > require there to be no oncoming traffic. So there is no additional
>> > inconvenience due to needing x+y+z.
>> >
>> However there are many roads where you can safely overtake a single
>> cyclist without crossing onto the other side which you would have to do
>> with two abreast.
>
> Indeed, assuming the cyclist is 1.5m from the curb, and the car gives
> 2m clearence, and the car is 1.5m wide, you need 5m of space.
>
> If you overtake a car, 1m from the curb, you'll need 6m of space.
>
> If you overtake 2 cyclists, 1.5m apart, you'll need 6.5m of space --
> more than overtaking a car.

Proper cyclists don't ride two abreast in busy conditions, or when being
overtaken.

 

[DavidR]

"Clive" <[email protected]> wrote
> In message <[email protected]>, Al C-F

>>Why would I do that? It would delay my journey.
> It may save your life.

No. Making an unexpected stop to get off is far more dangerous.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:55:51 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:07:46 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> On 30 Jun 2006 02:27:54 -0700, The Luggage wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>you cannot be banned from cycling
>>>
>>>
>>> Untrue, there are many public highways from which cyclists are banned. You
>>> may not cycle on a motorway, nor on bridleways.
>>>
>>
>> You may cycle on bridleways.
>
>Sorry you're right, I'm wrong. The point remains however that cyclists are
>banned from using many highways.

I expect that the total mileage where cyclists have a right of passage
exceeds that where motorists have licensed passage.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 11:19:57 GMT, "ian henden" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>And anyone at birth has the right to look forward to passing a test eighteen
>years later and thus gaining the right to drive on the public highway.

Not if they're blind.

 

[DavidR]

"Clive" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Fod
> <[email protected]> writes
>>If your a cycle driving one or two abreast in a steady and
>>straightforward manner then you won't be in anyoneways when when they
>>overtake

> What utter tripe. Two abreast is as wide a a normal car and much
> slower, when in congested areas they should only be one abreast or they
> are causing more congestion.

Curiously enough, it matters not whether I am on a bike or in a car but I
always find that when it is congested there lots of things of car width
impeding my progress. It is quite infuriating that the drivers do not move
over when they see me coming.