Cyclists win police court battle!

[Steve Walker]

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

Only by means of a Humpty-Dumpty definition of "right". I don't accept
that the requirement to register as a driver makes it not a right. After
all, one must also register with the authorities to vote. One may be
debarred from voting for breaking the law, and because of a lack of
competence, and because one is underage. Is voting therefore 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.

Apparently there are some sweatheads who think that the lack of training
and regulation of their hobby makes cycling a "right".

--
Steve Walker

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 10:24:12 +0100, Clive <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>,
>Yorkie <[email protected]> writes
>>I will choose the route I use, depending on which I feel is safest and
>>most suitable for me at the time. You won't tell me which route to use,
>>I will choose.
>True, but if you're having an argument with a car and a cycle track runs
>alongside, then I would have thought that would have weakened your case
>considerably.

Does a car weaken its case if a crash occurs on a road running
alongside a motorway?

 

[wafflycat]

>
> Apparently there are some sweatheads who think that the lack of training
> and regulation of their hobby makes cycling a "right".
>
> --
> Steve Walker

That's because, Stevie baby, that pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders do
indeed have a right to use the road, whereas we motorists do so in our
vehicles by way of licence and you can continue to delude yourself as long
as you want that motorists have some imaginary right to drive... but they
don't.

Kisses... helen s

 

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, wafflycat
<?@?.com.invalid> writes
>
>
>>
>> Apparently there are some sweatheads who think that the lack of
>>training and regulation of their hobby makes cycling a "right".

>That's because, Stevie baby, that pedestrians, cyclists and horse
>riders do indeed have a right to use the road

An article of faith, I see. Enjoy your religion.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:20:13 +0100, "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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?

Brother and sister.

Double cousins.

One or both already married.

Mother and son.

Father and daughter.

Nephew and aunt.

Niece and uncle.

Grandparent and gandchild.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, %steve%
@malloc.co.uk says...
> 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.

{Irrelevant bollocks}

In order to use a *motor* vehicle on the public highway, a licence is
required. For which a fee is paid and a test passed. Failure to
observe the terms and conditions under which this licence is issued may
result in said licence being revoked. Such as: having duff eyesight,
breaking the law or driving like a ****. Moreover, the /La/ is very
clear with regard to the people to whom even a provisional licence may
be issued. Try asserting your "right" to drive a motor vehicle on the
public highway when aged ten and see how sympathetic[1] Mr. Plod is.

No such strictures apply to cyclists, horse riders or pedestrians.

What is it about the concept of a "licence" that you find so difficult
to comprehend?

1 - clue: not very



--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Kinder surprise! What's the surprise? Your children are now dead.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> What is it about the concept of a "licence" that you find so difficult
> to comprehend?

No one has bothered to definw what they mean by 'right', so this discussion
will go round and round.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:51:00 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

> That's because, Stevie baby, that pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders do
> indeed have a right to use the road, whereas we motorists do so in our
> vehicles by way of licence

Incorrect, you are not licenced to use the road. A point so blindingly
obvious that only a dumb person could think that arguing about licences was
a valid counter discussion on rights.

 

[jtaylor]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:51:00 +0100, wafflycat wrote:
>
> > That's because, Stevie baby, that pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders
do
> > indeed have a right to use the road, whereas we motorists do so in our
> > vehicles by way of licence
>
> Incorrect, you are not licenced to use the road. A point so blindingly
> obvious that only a dumb person could think that arguing about licences
was
> a valid counter discussion on rights.

He's not saying that one is licensed to use the road.

He's saying that one is licensed to use a motor vehicle on the road.

Perhaps it was not obvious enough for you.

 

[iiiiDougiiii]

Mark Thompson wrote:
> > What is it about the concept of a "licence" that you find so difficult
> > to comprehend?
>
> No one has bothered to definw what they mean by 'right', so this discussion
> will go round and round.

It is already defined in law as the right to pass and repass:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990304/jones03.htm

"... conclude therefore the law to be that the public highway is a
public place which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose,
provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or
private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably
impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass: within
these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on
the highway."

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
The only opposition is on the streets.

 

[Alistair Gunn]

In uk.rec.cycling Clive twisted the electrons to say:
> Why don't you dismount and walk that section?

.... but wouldn't the motorists get even more annoyed by the cyclist
stopping in the middle of the lane, dismounting and then walking their
cycle through the pinch point (remaining in the primary position) before
remounting and setting off again? <grins>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Conor]

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.

--
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]>, Mark
Thompson says...
> > Thankyou for demonstrating that cyclists are unfit to be on the road. I
> > guess such lack of basic instruction explains why so many cyclists go
> > through red lights and ride on the pavement.
>
> With most schools not providing training, most/many/some are unfit to be on
> the road. We need better training for school kids. Hopefully we'll see an
> improvement when they get behind the wheel of a car too.
>
THe training is there...my son is currently doing a cycling proficiency
course at school. What there isn't is any interest from the kids and
their parents can't see why it is needed.

--
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]>, Tom Crispin
says...

> And what's the motorists' excuse for their vastly more frequent
> infringments of road laws and parking regulations?
>
THey have less per km travelled than bicycles.


--
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]>, Tom Crispin
says...

>
> And what's the motorists' excuse for their vastly more frequent
> infringments of road laws and parking regulations?
>
It's far easier to prosecute someone when there's a registration plate
on the vehicle.

Cyclists get away with it because it is nigh on impossible to identify
them.

--
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

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> With most schools not providing training, most/many/some are unfit to
>> be on the road. We need better training for school kids. Hopefully
>> we'll see an improvement when they get behind the wheel of a car too.
>>
> THe training is there...

I won't be happy until all schools are providing it. Not that I'm doing
anything to make that happen of course.

 

[Steve Firth]

On 29 Jun 2006 08:12:54 -0700, David Martin wrote:

> 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?

TBH, I don't give a damn about getting intop an argument about what a road
is or is not, especially since I did not enter into this discussion with an
intention fo clarifying what the term "road" means. I am however interested
in the erroneous belief that pedestrians and cyclists have more right ot
use the road than motorists. A belief that is common but based entirely on
misunderstanding.

Pedestrians and cyclists have the same rights to use roads as motorists, no
more no less.

> Hint: a public highway is not neccessarily a road, and all roads are
> not necessarily public highways.

Whatever.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:15:13 +0100, Dave Larrington wrote:

> What is it about the concept of a "licence" that you find so difficult
> to comprehend?

What is it about the concept of rights that you find so difficult to
comprehend.

Here's a clue, it is not a licence to use the road.

 

[ian henden]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.
>
It most certainly IS a right - provided the holder obets such rules asa re
appropriate to maintain the licence.

I don't have the right to go into some swanky gentleman's club on Pall Mall.

But if I satisfied certain criteria (which might include open-heart wallet
surgery), then I probably would gain the right to enter such establishments.

Of course, a woman might *never* gain such a right..... ;o)

Cheers
IanH

 

[Al C-F]

Conor wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Mark
> Thompson says...
>
>>>Thankyou for demonstrating that cyclists are unfit to be on the road. I
>>>guess such lack of basic instruction explains why so many cyclists go
>>>through red lights and ride on the pavement.
>>
>>With most schools not providing training, most/many/some are unfit to be on
>>the road. We need better training for school kids. Hopefully we'll see an
>>improvement when they get behind the wheel of a car too.
>>
>
> THe training is there...my son is currently doing a cycling proficiency
> course at school. What there isn't is any interest from the kids and
> their parents can't see why it is needed.
>

Some training is there, but the limit is the number of people prepared
to teach the training and the number of sessions that they will teach,
not the lack of interest of children or parents.