Cyclists win police court battle!

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:41:32 +0100 someone who may be Conor
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I have already indicated that there is at least one place in the UK
>> where cyclists are instructed to "use the footway" by signs erected
>> by the council.
>>
>TO WALK ACROSS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RIDE ACROSS A BUSY ROAD.

Incorrect. They are instructed to ride along what the Council calls
the footway for a distance of several km.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, JNugent wrote:
>Brimstone wrote:
>> JNugent said:
>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>>No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the
>>>>minds of impressionable people.
>>>
>>>Is that why you read it?
>>
>> An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even spark the
>> thought let alone substantiate it.
>
>Remember the difference between an assertion and a question.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

 

[JNugent]

David Hansen wrote:

> Conor <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>I have already indicated that there is at least one place in the UK
>>>where cyclists are instructed to "use the footway" by signs erected
>>>by the council.

>>TO WALK ACROSS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RIDE ACROSS A BUSY ROAD.

> Incorrect. They are instructed to ride along what the Council calls
> the footway for a distance of several km.

> Next contestant please.

OK... the next contestant is David Hansen.

David... You are *instructed* to give away all your worldly goods. To a
worthy cause... let's say to CAFOD (and we know how much you like initials).

Now let's just see whether you always do as you are "instructed" and what
you think of non-statutory "instructions" in general.

 

[JNugent]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, JNugent wrote:
>
>>Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>>JNugent said:
>>>
>>>>Brimstone wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No, it's main purpose in life is scaremongering, and corrupting the
>>>>>minds of impressionable people.
>>>>
>>>>Is that why you read it?
>>>
>>>An interesting assertion given that there is no evidence to even spark the
>>>thought let alone substantiate it.
>>
>>Remember the difference between an assertion and a question.
>
>
> Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

What makes you think I have one?

 

[Tony Raven]

Huge wrote on 04/07/2006 08:27 +0100:
> On 2006-07-03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Not at all. We just think its hypocritical of motorists to complain
>> about cyclists when motorists are at least as bad at keeping within >> the law and the
consequences of their infringing is dramatically
>> worse. Clean up your own act and then you might have a leg to stand
>> on. Glass houses, stones etc.


>
> They let blind people cycle? Perhaps that accounts for your
> behaviour?
>
>

???????

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Paul Weaver]

Brimstone wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> Paul Weaver said:
> > Brimstone wrote:
> >>> Here on Earth, it is different. When I arrive at a red traffic light
> >>> in a motor vehicle, I stop irrespective of who may or may not
> >>> already be there.
> >>
> >> You do, I've no doubt. But you've also agreed that some car driver's
> >> don't.
> >
> > Some car drivers don't, some car drivers are murderers too. Some are
> > politicians. Some are (and I'm sorry to say this), LAWYERS!
> >
> > (I watched an Angel episode this weekend, there were 2 vampires in a
> > room with 20 lawyers. I felt sorry for the vampires hohoho)
> >
> > A case where a car comes to a stop at a red light, then moves off
> > through the light, are minimal. Not the case with cyclists.
> >
> > A case where a car comes to a red light that has been on for more than
> > 10 seconds, and traffic is progressing across the junction, and the
> > car forces its way through is minimal (I've never seen it happen).
> > Not the case with cyclists.
> >
> > All in my experience, I doubt there's been any survey that specific.
>
> But have you ever been at a junction when the lights turn red and a number
> of cars ignore the red light and continue across the junction?

Yes, but I wasn't denying that happens, althoguh not in the same
proportion as cyclists. IME. Happens with cyclists too. Car's don't
tend to do the two things I described though. Most cyclists, IMO, do.

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> writes
>Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 08:51 +0100:
>> Ignoring the fact that this is a strawmam, I certainly don't. I want
>>cyclists treated like the vast majority of other road users, as
>> they've repeatedly requested; I want them registered, tested (both
>> for competence and roadworthyness), to bear registration plates, to
>> have compulsory specific insurance, the law applied rigorously and
>> for them to be bled white in taxes.

>At which point we will probably all abandon cycling, take to cars and
>create loads of extra congestion for you with all the extra traffic. Is
>that really what you want?

That would imply that people only cycle because they are lawless
cheapskates. Surely not?

--
Steve Walker

 

[Clive George]

"Steve Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> writes
>>Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 08:51 +0100:
>>> Ignoring the fact that this is a strawmam, I certainly don't. I want
>>> cyclists treated like the vast majority of other road users, as
>>> they've repeatedly requested; I want them registered, tested (both
>>> for competence and roadworthyness), to bear registration plates, to
>>> have compulsory specific insurance, the law applied rigorously and
>>> for them to be bled white in taxes.
>
>>At which point we will probably all abandon cycling, take to cars and
>>create loads of extra congestion for you with all the extra traffic. Is
>>that really what you want?
>
> That would imply that people only cycle because they are lawless
> cheapskates. Surely not?

Ummm - nope. Your inference is incorrect. People cycle for various reasons.
However if you punitively increase the cost ("bled white in taxes") you will
deter people from doing it - eg "may as well take the car now - it doesn't
cost any more".

clive

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, Clive
George <[email protected]> writes
>"Steve Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
>><[email protected]> writes
>>>Huge wrote on 03/07/2006 08:51 +0100:
>>>> Ignoring the fact that this is a strawmam, I certainly don't. I
>>>>want cyclists treated like the vast majority of other road users, as
>>>> they've repeatedly requested; I want them registered, tested (both
>>>> for competence and roadworthyness), to bear registration plates, to
>>>> have compulsory specific insurance, the law applied rigorously and
>>>> for them to be bled white in taxes.
>>
>>>At which point we will probably all abandon cycling, take to cars and
>>>create loads of extra congestion for you with all the extra traffic.
>>>Is that really what you want?
>>
>> That would imply that people only cycle because they are lawless
>>cheapskates. Surely not?
>
>Ummm - nope. Your inference is incorrect. People cycle for various
>reasons. However if you punitively increase the cost ("bled white in
>taxes") you will deter people from doing it - eg "may as well take the
>car now - it doesn't cost any more".

Surely "may as well take the car now - it doesn't cost any more" means
that apart from the cost there is no other reason to cycle? Otherwise it
would be "may as well cycle - it costs the same but it's more fun /
saving the planet / keeping me fit / inflating my insufferable smugness
/ etc"?


--
Steve Walker

 

[jtaylor]

"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
> says...
>
> > >The fact that you claim that (your) safety is not threatened by
cyclists,
> > >sorry... I mean selfish yobs riding bikes on the footway. You just
don't
> > >want to admit that it's dangerous because you have a vested interest.
> >
> > One fatality in four years prove it not to be dangerous -
>
> Same as 3500-ish fatalities for all the billions of miles travelled by
> cars per year.
>

You have data on the number of pavement miles traveled by cyclists? Please
share...

 

[[email protected]]

I happened to be in London on the occasion of the last Critical Mass
obscenity last October.

It reduced the Capital to a standstill, including all surface public
transport for around two hours.

For a judge to assess this as a legal activity makes him as stupid as
the insensitive, arrogant, obstructive, idiots who seem to think it fun
to delay. and inconvenience their fellow citizens, pedestrians,
passengers, and motorists alike.

I'm glad I shan't be there to see it, and I hope the police will be on
hand to ensure that whilst it may not be an event, that anything that
can be described as obstruction, threatening behaviour etc - of which I
saw plenty of examples last year - is suitable dealt with.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 3 Jul 2006 13:10:36 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2006-07-03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
> > On 3 Jul 2006 07:43:44 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 2006-07-02, Brimstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > In news:[email protected],
> >> > JNugent said:
> >> >> Steve Firth wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I support the prosecution of any motorist who drives along the
> >> >>> pavement. I support the prosecution of any cyclist who rides along
> >> >>> the pavement. I support the prosecution of any motorist who runs a red
> >> >>> light.
> >> >>> I support the prosecution of any cyclist who runs a red light.
> >> >>> Go on, try and make out that this is somehow unjust.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is my position also.
> >> >>
> >> >> It *ought* to be everyone's position.
> >> >>
> >> >> But is it?
> >> >
> >> > The number of motoring
> >>
> >> To quoque. Irrelevant.
> >
> > Wow, you actually went to the bother of misleadingly trimming
>
> Wrong. The *moment* someone, anyone, mentions motoring when discussing
> the behaviour of cyclists, the posting immediately becomes "tu quoque".

Don't be silly. He mentioned motoring when talking about motoring.
It was in response to an observation about motoring - one that is
still quoted. The position quoted above is clearly nopt the position
of everyone, as demonstarted by the number of motoring offences
prosecuted.

That is a coherent, non-fallacious statement.

He also mentioned cycling. It is possible to mention motoring in a
post which also mentions cycling and it not to be tu quoque. As
demonstrated by teh post which set you off.

Try this:

Some cyclists ride blue bicycles very slowly while other people driove
cars.

There, I managed to mention motoring in a sentence discussing the
behaviour of cyclists, and there was no tu quoque fallacy involved,
despite you assertion that this is absolutely impossible.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 3 Jul 2006 13:14:43 GMT, Huge <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2006-07-03, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
> > The question is, why do you bother?
>
> Because I intensely dislike liars and hypocrites.

You bother making untrue accusations about fallacies that don't exist
because you dislike liars and hypocrites?

> > Why is it that whenever anyone
> > says anything remotely positive about cyclists and even only
> > indirectly negative about motorists, you start hopping up and down and
> > shrieking 'tu quoque'?
>
> Untrue. All I care about is the constant assertion that it is OK for
> cyclists to ignore the law because motorists do. It isn't. End of
> debate.

Absolutely. It isn't OK. I'm not debating that with you.

The post which started you shrieking about tu quoque made no such
claim. Most of the posts that set yopu off make no such claim.
You're apparently so vehemently opposed to this behaviour you see it
where it doesn't exist.

The claim you maintain you are countering does not exist in teh
posting you responded to.

> Sigh. So, your response to one logical fallacy, and that's its name,
> like it or not, is *another* logical fallacy - ad hominem this time.

"liars and hypocites" is not remotely ad hominem, of course, but
observing that huge knows some foreign words but apparently does not
know how to apply them accurately is horribly ad hominem. Well, at
least that's got that sorted out.

> (Stop altering the newsgroups line without saying so.)

(Stop telling me what to do).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[jtaylor]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I happened to be in London on the occasion of the last Critical Mass
> obscenity last October.
>
> It reduced the Capital to a standstill, including all surface public
> transport for around two hours.
>
> For a judge to assess this as a legal activity makes him as stupid as
> the insensitive, arrogant, obstructive, idiots who seem to think it fun
> to delay. and inconvenience their fellow citizens, pedestrians,
> passengers, and motorists alike.
>

Actually no.

It makes him a person who measures the actions against the law and finds
that there was no violation.

You are welcome to stand for parliament and effect any changes you are able.

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 04/07/2006 13:17 +0100:
> I happened to be in London on the occasion of the last Critical Mass
> obscenity last October.
>
> It reduced the Capital to a standstill, including all surface public
> transport for around two hours.
>
> For a judge to assess this as a legal activity makes him as stupid as
> the insensitive, arrogant, obstructive, idiots who seem to think it fun
> to delay. and inconvenience their fellow citizens, pedestrians,
> passengers, and motorists alike.
>
> I'm glad I shan't be there to see it, and I hope the police will be on
> hand to ensure that whilst it may not be an event, that anything that
> can be described as obstruction, threatening behaviour etc - of which I
> saw plenty of examples last year - is suitable dealt with.
>

I happened to be in London on the occasion of the Rush Hour
obscenity last week.

It reduced the Capital to a standstill, including all surface public
transport for around two hours.

To allow this as a legal activity is as stupid as
the insensitive, arrogant, obstructive, idiots who seem to think it
normal to delay. and inconvenience their fellow citizens, pedestrians,
passengers, and motorists alike.

I'm glad I shan't be there to see it this week, and I hope the police
will be on hand to ensure that whilst it may not be an event, that
anything that can be described as obstruction, threatening behaviour etc
- of which I saw plenty of examples last week - is suitably dealt with.

--
Tony ;-)

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Al C-F]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
>
>
>>If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
>>shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?
>>
>
> Big wide path. Clearly defined areas.
>
>

And those that are not big, wide, or with clearly defined areas? Say,
three feet wide, obstructed by lamp posts, no lines marked?

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:47:38 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
>
>>Though making unfounded accusations about an individual's conduct and
>>then berating him for it seems a fairly consistent approach to argument
>
>
> Among cyclists.

So the accusations from the residents of uk.t that I cycle on the
pavement were mere figments of my imagination. Glad to get that cleared up.

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven says...
> Conor wrote on 03/07/2006 17:40 +0100:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
> >
> >> If it is so dangerous, please will you explain the existance of
> >> shared-use (cyclist and pedestrian) paths?
> >>
> > Big wide path. Clearly defined areas.
> >
>
> Thus instantly proving your lack of knowledge of shared used paths!
>
I can only go on what I see.


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
says...
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:41:32 +0100 someone who may be Conor
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> I have already indicated that there is at least one place in the UK
> >> where cyclists are instructed to "use the footway" by signs erected
> >> by the council.
> >>
> >TO WALK ACROSS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO RIDE ACROSS A BUSY ROAD.
>
> Incorrect. They are instructed to ride along what the Council calls
> the footway for a distance of several km.
>
Proof.


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,
jtaylor says...
>
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I happened to be in London on the occasion of the last Critical Mass
> > obscenity last October.
> >
> > It reduced the Capital to a standstill, including all surface public
> > transport for around two hours.
> >
> > For a judge to assess this as a legal activity makes him as stupid as
> > the insensitive, arrogant, obstructive, idiots who seem to think it fun
> > to delay. and inconvenience their fellow citizens, pedestrians,
> > passengers, and motorists alike.
> >
>
> Actually no.
>
> It makes him a person who measures the actions against the law and finds
> that there was no violation.
>
How many stopped in a yellow box junction ?

http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/critical-mass-11.jpg
http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/critical-mass-16.jpg
http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/critical-mass-18.jpg

Riding on the wrong side of the road:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/critical-mass-15.jpg

Riding on the pavement:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/critical-mass-31.jpg
http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/crit43.jpg
http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/crit11.jpg

Cycling through red lights:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/critical-mass-35.jpg

Causing an obstruction on the pavement:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/critical/images/crit11.jpg

No lights on after dark:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2005/10/326625.jpg

Dangerous bike:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2005/10/326629.jpg

"Croggying"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2005/10/326632.jpg


--
Conor
Sig under construction. Please check back when Duke Nukem Forever ships
and/or Windows Vista is released.

Cashback on online purchases:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm