Cyclists win police court battle!

[Al C-F]

Conor wrote:
> 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.
>

Your answer fails to address the question in any coherent manner. Care
to try again?

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Firth wrote:
> 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.

The old Conor approach of putting words into someones mouth, and then
beating them up for saying those words.

It's good that you can rely on such things in life.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

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.

 

[Clive]

In message <[email protected]>, Dave
Larrington <[email protected]> writes
>Do you HAVE a driving licence?
>
>If so, how did you obtain it?
>
>And have you ever noticed that it can be revoked?
1. Yes. 2. pass a test for each category held. 3 not without good
reason.
--
Clive

 

[Steve Firth]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:34:13 +0100, Al C-F wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The old Conor approach of putting words into someones mouth, and then
> beating them up for saying those words.
>
> It's good that you can rely on such things in life.

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.

 

[JNugent]

Steve Firth wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:34:13 +0100, Al C-F wrote:
>
>
>>Steve Firth wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>The old Conor approach of putting words into someones mouth, and then
>>beating them up for saying those words.
>>
>>It's good that you can rely on such things in life.
>
>
> 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

...ie, they both have to comply with the rules of the road, like keeping
left and letting faster traffic pass (slowing down if necessary).

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:06:49 +0100, Conor <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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.

I currently have a consultation document out about cycle training for
120 6/7/8 year olds as part of the PE curriculum - i.e. compulsory[1]
cycle training. I'll post statistical reults and comments to
uk.rec.cycling and uk.tosspot if people are interested.

[1] Just like swimming lessons, parents can opt their child out of the
training, but no consent is required and the default position is that
all children will partake in the lessons.

The consultation letter is as follows:

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

28th June 2006


Dear Year 1 and 2 Parents,

Continued funding from Transport for London means that National
Standard Level 1 cycle training can be given to all Year 2 and 3
pupils as part of the PE curriculum. The proposal is that Year 3
pupils will be given the training during the Autumn Term 2006 and Year
2 pupils during the Summer Term 2007.

If the project goes ahead, all children who cannot yet ride a bike
will be taught to ride a bike, either in the Autumn Term or Summer
Term. The classes will be divided into groups of 15 and each group
will be given two full afternoon playground cycle training lessons.
The school will provide bicycles.

The Level 1 cycle training can be followed up with Level 2, on-road
cycle training, in Year 4 and Level 3, advanced on-road cycling, in
Year 6.

Please complete the slip below to indicate your child's level of
cycling proficiency and any comments you have about the proposal.

Many thanks,


Tom Crispin




Name of Child ___________________________________


Level of cycling proficiency:

Never ridden a bike

Can ride a bike with stabilisers

Can ride a bike for at least 10 metres


Comments on the proposal:

 

[jtaylor]

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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

Wrong.

The mere existence of a license to use a motorcar disproves this.

 

[ian henden]

"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.
>
>

 

[jtaylor]

"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.

 

[jtaylor]

"ian henden" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >
> > 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.
>

No, it is not a right.

People are born with rights.

There are no criteria which one must satisfy _before_ using a bicycle on the
Queen's highways.

There are such before using a mototcar.

 

[Brimstone]

In news:[email protected],
ian henden said:
> "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.

However, there is no requirement for pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders
to have a licence.

If a licence is needed to pursue an activity then there is no "right" to
carry out that activity.

 

[Steve Walker]

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 you could just as well argue that there is no "right" to
own a car, bicycle or a horse, and therefore no "right" to use any of
them.

Personally, I think the requirement for a licence is irrelevant. It's a
bureaucratic necessity.

--
Steve Walker

 

[The Luggage]

Steve Walker wrote:
[snip]
> Personally, I think the requirement for a licence is irrelevant. It's a
> bureaucratic necessity.

It is necesary so that people may not 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.

Cycling requires no licence because anyone can do it (although I would
recommend training), and you cannot be banned from cycling (though no
doubt some court will eventually give someone an ASBO to do it...)

TL

 

[Nick Finnigan]

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.

 

[Steve Firth]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:39:49 -0300, jtaylor wrote:

> "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.

<sigh>

The licence is not a licence to use the road. It is a licence to operate a
mechanically propelled vehicle.

I have already posted the references that declare that in law motorists
have a right to pass and repass on a public road, all you have done so far
is to assert your flawed understanding of licensing.

 

[Steve Firth]

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 have however identified a weakness in the law which is that there is no
compulsory registration of bicycles hence the nutters who ride them ignore
traffic law and are a danger to other road users. I welcome your implied
agreement that such registration is long overdue.

 

[Brimstone]

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.

> you could just as well argue that there is no "right"
> to own a car, bicycle or a horse,

Yes there, is.

> and therefore no "right" to use any
> of them.

You don't seem to understand the way things are done in UK society. To put
it in suitably simplistic terms, one is allowed to do anything, unless there
is a law against it. There is a law against driving a motor vehicle on the
public highway without the appropriate licence. There are no such laws
against walking, riding a bicycle nor riding or driving a horse on the
public highway.

> Personally, I think the requirement for a licence is irrelevant. It's
> a bureaucratic necessity.

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. If you feel that is wrong then I'm
sure the Secretary of State for Transport will listen to your ideas with
interest.

 

[Al C-F]

Steve Firth wrote:

>
> <sigh>
>
> The licence is not a licence to use the road. It is a licence to operate a
> mechanically propelled vehicle.
>

Yet you don't need a licence to operate a mechanically propelled vehicle
on private land. So the licence must be to operate in a public place.

 

[Al C-F]

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.