Southend Critical mass arrests.

'wilfully obstructing the highway on a non-motorised vehicle'??

So is 'wilfully obstructing the highway on a motorised vehcle', i.e,
taking part in a daily traffic jam, and thus impeding the progress of
non-motorised traffic, ok? Nutz.

"sothach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

'wilfully obstructing the highway on a non-motorised vehicle'??

So is 'wilfully obstructing the highway on a motorised vehcle', i.e,
taking part in a daily traffic jam, and thus impeding the progress of
non-motorised traffic, ok? Nutz.

So apprently there's a minimum speed limit on the roads in Southend that the
cyclists were going slower than said minimum limit? Will Southend's finest
be out arresting the motorists if there happen to be more than a couple of
cars together travelling down the same road at the same time?

Thought not...

BAH!

Cheers, helen s

sothach said:

So is 'wilfully obstructing the highway on a motorised vehcle', i.e,
taking part in a daily traffic jam, and thus impeding the progress of
non-motorised traffic, ok? Nutz.

In the 6th photo down
(http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/05/340501.jpg) the only thing
you can see obstructing the highway is the police car stopped which may
be stopped on zig zags - the photo doesn't show if they're on both
sides of the road though.

peter

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340471.html

That guy's back should read "ONE FEWER CAR!"

John Rowland said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340471.html

That guy's back should read "ONE FEWER CAR!"

He was arrested by the Literacy Police!

While we're being picky...

I think the title of this thread is supposed to be
"Southend Critical Mass arrests" - as there were only a few arrested!

Julesh

"John Rowland" <[email hidden]> wrote:
| That guy's back should read "ONE FEWER CAR!"

Arguably not, but whether or not you think
he is right to have "less" if you're being
picky it would probably be better in the
"one car fewer/less" order.

sothach said:

'wilfully obstructing the highway on a non-motorised vehicle'??

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file. It also
requires drivers to "overtake" cyclists with IIRC 6ft clearence. Pity
it's not possible to find a way to get the police to enforce the second
rule! Can a private person with photografic evidence denounce a
motorist who passes without clearence?

BTW, I don't think being stuck in a traffic jam can be counted as
"wilful" obstruction ;-)

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file.

It's available on line, so point the rule out. www.highwaycode.gov.uk

(hint : it doesn't).

cheers,
clive

Roger said:

sothach said:

'wilfully obstructing the highway on a non-motorised vehicle'??

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file.

I think, though it may well have changed in recent years, cycling
two-abreast is acceptable if the traffic conditions *safely* allow it
(i.e. wide enough carriageway and no vehicles behind are obstructed
from overtaking if necessary).

Quoted message said:

BTW, I don't think being stuck in a traffic jam can be counted as
"wilful" obstruction ;-)

Unless the traffic jam is deliberate, for instance with the intention
of holding up a bullion van in Turin ;-)

David Belcher

Roger said:

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file.

It does nothing of the sort.

Quoted message said:

It also
requires drivers to "overtake" cyclists with IIRC 6ft clearence.

Again, no. It suggests "give them plenty of room" and "[give them] at
least as much room as you would a car"

R.

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

sothach said:

'wilfully obstructing the highway on a non-motorised vehicle'??

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file. It also
requires drivers to "overtake" cyclists with IIRC 6ft clearence. Pity
it's not possible to find a way to get the police to enforce the second
rule! Can a private person with photografic evidence denounce a
motorist who passes without clearence?

BTW, I don't think being stuck in a traffic jam can be counted as
"wilful" obstruction ;-)

BBBZZZT!

Is the wrong answer.

The Highway Code does nothing of the sort.

Cheers, helen s

Posted - 15/05/2006 : 13:01:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha! ha! I just watched the videoclip of the arrests at Indymedia
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340471.html, and they stopped
them on
a Pelican Crossing!!!!!!!!!! And in the background you can quite
clearly
see over five 'Motorised Vehicles' crossing the zig-zags to go around
the
blockage...

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1987/Uksi_19870016_en_6.htm

""8. Regulation 19 introduces a prohibition against the overtaking in a
"Pelican" controlled area of another moving or stationary vehicle by
drivers
of vehicles proceeding towards a "Pelican" crossing."

And (I may be wrong) out of all those officers, not one could be
bothered to
protect pedestrians by managing the traffic from what I could see as
the
camera pans around!

Well, there we go. Essex police priorities exposed...

It's really naff, and there is a lot of poetic licence, but I couldn't
resist when I saw that the Essex Police site has a law enquiry page.

"I wish to enquire about the offence of "wilfully obstructing the
highway on
a non-motorised vehicle".
I and a group of friends regularly cycle around the Epping Forest area
in
the summer and have encountered no problems with the local force (I
believe
the Met in my area).

This year we have been considering some forays into Essex. However, it
has
come to my attention through local cycling groups that arrests were
carried
out last Friday evening in Southend, using the above offence. This was
apparently carried out with no warning.

As myself and my friends are all upstanding members of the community
without
any convictions, we are worried about this situation. I would be
grateful if
you could clarify the above legislation, as we do sometimes travel in
groups
of ten or more, particularly with reference to the following points:

Is this legislation more applicable at certain times or locations?

Should we advise Essex Police in advance of any large groups cycling?
This
has certainly not been necessary on any of our trips, with law
enforcement
agencies in the Met area being pleasant and friendly and helpful
whenever
encountered. To my knowledge there is also no legal precedent for this
requirement either. If so, what would constitute a large group which
may
make us vulnerable to instant arrest and prosecution, and under which
legislation is it required?

What measures beyond those stated in the Highway Code do you require in
order to avoid the risk of prosecution?

These points are important to us, as we are somewhat restricted in the
area,
being bordered on all sides by either Essex or Greater London, and we
have
limited options of where we can go. We would be grateful if you could
clarify the above to help us to decide wether any rides into Essex are
worth
the risk of prosecution.

Many Regards

in message <[email hidden]>, Roger

(') said:

sothach said:

'wilfully obstructing the highway on a non-motorised vehicle'??

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file.

Where?

Quoted message said:

It also
requires drivers to "overtake" cyclists with IIRC 6ft clearence.

Where?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.

Come to think of it...

Wasn't it Essex Constabulary that arrested one Peter Fox of this parish
and/or told him not to cycle along the A12 or he'd be arrested?

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers, helen s

On 16 May 2006 03:33:25 -0700 someone who may be "Roger"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The highway code does require cyclists to ride in single file.

Does it really? I am familiar with Rule 51
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.htm so perhaps you could indicate
where it does "require" this of cyclists.

Quoted message said:

It also
requires drivers to "overtake" cyclists with IIRC 6ft clearence.

Does it really? I am familiar with Rule 139
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm so perhaps you could indicate
where it does "require" this of motorists.

--
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

Update.

Please send emails to:

[email hidden]

On 16 May 2006 05:59:23 -0700 someone who may be "spindrift"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Update.

To what?

Quoted message said:

Please send emails to:

[email hidden]

Send e-mails on "Southend Critical mass arrests" to someone in
Nottingham? Why?

--
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

spindrift said:

Update.

Please send emails to:

[email hidden]

???

I am so sorry, that email address is for the coroner who blamed a
cyclist who died after a driver smashed her car into him, see the cycle
helmet thread.

Many apologies, note to self, no caffeine after midday.

Sorry again.