Cyclists win police court battle!

[jtaylor]

"Clive" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message
> <20060628090252.26e30dca.aloysius_cholmondeley_featherstonehawe@hotmail.c
> om>, Al C-F <[email protected]> writes
> >But there's seldom any glass or other debris in the constriction,
> >because the cars and 'buses sweep the road clear. The adjacent cycle
> >path is not swept in the same manner.
> So you're selfishly expecting others to remove the debris for you to
> ride in comfort. How much do you give to motoring organisations for
> the replacement of tyres on motor vehicles damaged by such debris?

None.

It is one of the considerations accepted by people who ask for permission to
use a motorcar on the Queen's highways.

 

[jtaylor]

Clive wrote:
> 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. No wonder motorists are angry with
> cyclists, I feel exactly the same as tractors that don't pull over into
> available parks whilst all the held up motorist get by.
>

Let's see, if they were not on a bicycles, but in motorcars, then there'd be
two motorcars ahead of you.

Well, that's going to reduce congestion.

 

[jtaylor]

"Paul Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> To overtake a cycle safely you must give it x metres. A cyclist's right
> arm will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> vehicle is x + y metres from the curb.
>
> To overtake two cycles, you must give the one on the right x metres.
> That cyclist will be z metres from the inside cyclist's right arm,
> which will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> vehicle needs to be x + y + z metres from the curb.
>
> Therefore to overtake cyclists two-abreast safely you need an
> additional z metres (probably arround 1 metre) than overtaking one
> safely.
>

And what's wrong with that?

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat <?@?.com.invalid>
writes

>And it's *fact* that motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to
>use the road. When motoring, we do so by virtue of a *licence*. Whereas
>pedestrains, cyclists & horseriders do so by way of a *right*.

1. A licence which everyone qualified has the right to obtain. It can't
be withheld without good reason.

2. The fact that the legal system can remove a freedom does not make it
a privilege, unless you consider not being imprisoned to be a privilege.

3. It would in any case be possible to ban someone from cycling using
ASBO legislation.

4. It's a pointless distinction which comes down to arguing over
semantics. Who cares?

--
Steve Walker

 

[Nick Finnigan]

jtaylor wrote:
>
> Rights cannot normally be extinguished.

Almost all 'rights' can be temporarily removed after due process.
Lots of people have forfeited their right to get married, which requires
a licence.

 

[Paul Weaver]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Paul Weaver" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > To overtake a cycle safely you must give it x metres. A cyclist's right
> > arm will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> > vehicle is x + y metres from the curb.
> >
> > To overtake two cycles, you must give the one on the right x metres.
> > That cyclist will be z metres from the inside cyclist's right arm,
> > which will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> > vehicle needs to be x + y + z metres from the curb.
> >
> > Therefore to overtake cyclists two-abreast safely you need an
> > additional z metres (probably arround 1 metre) than overtaking one
> > safely.
> >
>
> And what's wrong with that?

I was explaining why you need more space, in response to a question, as
you vindictivly snipped. Typical cager, only presenting half the facts
to make it look like they're right.

(Original assertion by Al C-F)
> >>Or, to put it differently, if there isn't enough space to overtake
> >>cyclists two abreast, there isn't enough space to overtake one cyclist.

(Conor wrote)
> > Yes there is. Perhaps if you'd ever had any lessons in how to use the
> > roads you ride on, you'd know.

(Al C-F)
> Perhaps you'd care to explain that assertion. Please feel free to use
> diagrams from the Highway Code if you think they'll help you.

Then I replied with an explanation. There are situations where you can
overtake one cyclist, but not two.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Nick Finnigan said:
> jtaylor wrote:
>>
>> Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>
> Almost all 'rights' can be temporarily removed after due process.
> Lots of people have forfeited their right to get married, which
> requires a licence.

Can you explain how two consenting adult (for the sake of brevity keep it to
a heterosexual male and female both born and normally resident in the UK)
can be prevented from getting married?

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
Steve Walker said:
> In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
> <?@?.com.invalid> writes
>
>> And it's *fact* that motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to
>> use the road. When motoring, we do so by virtue of a *licence*.
>> Whereas pedestrains, cyclists & horseriders do so by way of a
>> *right*.
>
> 1. A licence which everyone qualified has the right to obtain. It
> can't be withheld without good reason.
>
> 2. The fact that the legal system can remove a freedom does not make
> it a privilege, unless you consider not being imprisoned to be a
> privilege.
> 3. It would in any case be possible to ban someone from cycling using
> ASBO legislation.
>
> 4. It's a pointless distinction which comes down to arguing over
> semantics. Who cares?

Seemingly, a lot of car drivers.

 

[Al C-F]

Paul Weaver wrote:
> Al C-F wrote:
>
>>Conor wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Al C-F says...
>>>
>>>>Or, to put it differently, if there isn't enough space to overtake
>>>>cyclists two abreast, there isn't enough space to overtake one cyclist.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes there is. Perhaps if you'd ever had any lessons in how to use the
>>>roads you ride on, you'd know.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps you'd care to explain that assertion. Please feel free to use
>>diagrams from the Highway Code if you think they'll help you.
>
>
> To overtake a cycle safely you must give it x metres. A cyclist's right
> arm will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> vehicle is x + y metres from the curb.
>
> To overtake two cycles, you must give the one on the right x metres.
> That cyclist will be z metres from the inside cyclist's right arm,
> which will be y metres from the curb. Therefore the left side of your
> vehicle needs to be x + y + z metres from the curb.
>
> Therefore to overtake cyclists two-abreast safely you need an
> additional z metres (probably arround 1 metre) than overtaking one
> safely.
>

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.

 

[ian henden]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Nick Finnigan said:
>> jtaylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>>
>> Almost all 'rights' can be temporarily removed after due process.
>> Lots of people have forfeited their right to get married, which
>> requires a licence.
>
> Can you explain how two consenting adult (for the sake of brevity keep it
> to a heterosexual male and female both born and normally resident in the
> UK) can be prevented from getting married?
Ummm... because one (or both) already *are* married?
>

 

[ian henden]

"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2%[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Ummm... the licence grants the *right* to use the road? until such time
>> as
>> licence is revoked. When the right to use the road is restricted to the
>> status of cyclist/horserider/pedestrian.
>>
>
> No, it grants permission.

IOW- a right to use the road, subject to certain criteria being met.

>
> Rights cannot normally be extinguished. Permission frequently (especially
> in the case of drivers of motorcars) is.
>
>

 

[ian henden]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Steve Walker said:
>> In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
>> <?@?.com.invalid> writes
>>
>>> And it's *fact* that motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to
>>> use the road. When motoring, we do so by virtue of a *licence*.
>>> Whereas pedestrains, cyclists & horseriders do so by way of a
>>> *right*.
>>
>> 1. A licence which everyone qualified has the right to obtain. It
>> can't be withheld without good reason.
>>
>> 2. The fact that the legal system can remove a freedom does not make
>> it a privilege, unless you consider not being imprisoned to be a
>> privilege.
>> 3. It would in any case be possible to ban someone from cycling using
>> ASBO legislation.
>>
>> 4. It's a pointless distinction which comes down to arguing over
>> semantics. Who cares?
>
> Seemingly, a lot of car drivers.

Outnumbered, it would seem, by a lot of cyclists!!!

 

[JNugent]

ian henden wrote:
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In news:[email protected],
>>Nick Finnigan said:
>>
>>>jtaylor wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>>>
>>> Almost all 'rights' can be temporarily removed after due process.
>>>Lots of people have forfeited their right to get married, which
>>>requires a licence.
>>
>>Can you explain how two consenting adult (for the sake of brevity keep it
>>to a heterosexual male and female both born and normally resident in the
>>UK) can be prevented from getting married?
>
> Ummm... because one (or both) already *are* married?



Hmmm...

Can being a member of an undissolved "civil partnership" prevent one from
getting married?

 

[Nick Finnigan]

Al C-F wrote:
>
> 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.

There is if the carriageway is only w + x + y + z/2 metres wide, just
as there are roads where you can safely pass a car, but not a bus.

 

[Brimstone]

"ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In news:[email protected],
>> Steve Walker said:
>>> In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
>>> <?@?.com.invalid> writes
>>>
>>>> And it's *fact* that motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to
>>>> use the road. When motoring, we do so by virtue of a *licence*.
>>>> Whereas pedestrains, cyclists & horseriders do so by way of a
>>>> *right*.
>>>
>>> 1. A licence which everyone qualified has the right to obtain. It
>>> can't be withheld without good reason.
>>>
>>> 2. The fact that the legal system can remove a freedom does not make
>>> it a privilege, unless you consider not being imprisoned to be a
>>> privilege.
>>> 3. It would in any case be possible to ban someone from cycling using
>>> ASBO legislation.
>>>
>>> 4. It's a pointless distinction which comes down to arguing over
>>> semantics. Who cares?
>>
>> Seemingly, a lot of car drivers.
>
> Outnumbered, it would seem, by a lot of cyclists!!!

Many of both groups being members of the other apparently.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

JNugent wrote:
> ian henden wrote:
>
>> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> In news:[email protected],
>>> Nick Finnigan said:
>>>
>>>> jtaylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rights cannot normally be extinguished.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Almost all 'rights' can be temporarily removed after due process.
>>>> Lots of people have forfeited their right to get married, which
>>>> requires a licence.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you explain how two consenting adult (for the sake of brevity
>>> keep it to a heterosexual male and female both born and normally

Heterosexuality is not a requirement.

>>> resident in the UK) can be prevented from getting married?
>>
>>
>> Ummm... because one (or both) already *are* married?
>
>
>
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Can being a member of an undissolved "civil partnership" prevent one
> from getting married?

Yep, and even lack of evidence that the partner has died.

 

[wafflycat]

"Steve Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat <?@?.com.invalid>
> writes
>
>>And it's *fact* that motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to use
>>the road. When motoring, we do so by virtue of a *licence*. Whereas
>>pedestrains, cyclists & horseriders do so by way of a *right*.
>
> 1. A licence which everyone qualified has the right to obtain. It can't be
> withheld without good reason.
>

It is still a *licence* to be a motorist - not a *right*


> 2. The fact that the legal system can remove a freedom does not make it a
> privilege, unless you consider not being imprisoned to be a privilege.
>
> 3. It would in any case be possible to ban someone from cycling using ASBO
> legislation.
>
> 4. It's a pointless distinction which comes down to arguing over
> semantics. Who cares?

Apaprently there's some petrolheads who seem to think that having a driving
licence is a right... which it isn't.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Steve Firth]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:48:49 -0300, jtaylor wrote:

> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:42:41 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>> motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to use the
>>> road.
>>
>> That's untrue, but a common misunderstanding.
>
> 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. Sadly for the majority maintaining
that minimum standard for more than a few weeks seems beyond them.

However the requirement to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle does not
have any bearing on a motorists right to use the road.

I suppose your dumb enough to believe that pedestrians have a right to use
the road without restriction?

 

[Steve Firth]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:24:37 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, %steve%
> @malloc.co.uk says...
>> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 11:42:41 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>>
>>> motorists (and I am one) don't have a *right* to use the
>>> road.
>>
>> That's untrue, but a common misunderstanding.
>
> You are this: wrong.

No.

===========================================================================

http://www.dorset.police.uk/infocentre/faq/display.shtml?id=51

Carriageway
A highway, other than a cycle way, over which the public have a *right* to
pass and repass in or on vehicles.
===========================================================================

http://www.alzscot.org/pages/info/driving.htm

British law assumes as its starting point that you have a *right* to drive.
===========================================================================

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Improving Rights of Way in England and Wales
Consultation Paper

Annex B Rights of Way

A "public right of way" in England and Wales is a way over which the public
have a right to pass and repass. The way itself may or may not be on
private land. In many cases, these are ancient public rights, rooted in
common law as well as statute, going back to the Middle Ages and beyond.

(My Note: A byway is a way over which the public have the *right* of access
using a motor vehicle.)

===========================================================================

http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?Articleid=353

For your information:
There is a common law right to pass and repass along highways at all times.
Footpaths and bridleways, byways, and restricted byways are highways. They
differ from other forms of highway, such as roads, by the type of traffic
entitled to use them and the resources available to maintain them. Lack of
use has no effect on the legal existence of a right of way.
===========================================================================

 

[David Martin]

Steve Firth wrote:

> I suppose your dumb enough to believe that pedestrians have a right to use
> the road without restriction?

And the definition of a 'road' is?
Hint: a public highway is not neccessarily a road, and all roads are
not necessarily public highways.

...d