More on the NYC Critical Mass case.

[Doug[_3_]]

Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
the Law Lords..

"...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
and write tickets for traffic infractions..."

"...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
$965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
that money will cover legal fees.

New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.

"The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
don't come back the next time..."

http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10/22/110752-nyc-pay-1m-arrested-critical-mass-cyclists.htm

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
where rights are replaced by concessions.

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
> the Law Lords..
>
> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>
> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
> that money will cover legal fees.
>
> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>
> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
> don't come back the next time..."
>
> http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10/22/110752-nyc-pay-1m-arrested-critical-mass-cyclists.htm
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
> where rights are replaced by concessions.
>


So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
all cyclists'.
I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 Oct, 07:25, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
> > Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
> > the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
> > There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
> > 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
> > the Law Lords..
>
> > "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
> > infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
> > The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
> > a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
> > and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>
> > "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
> > $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
> > that money will cover legal fees.
>
> > New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
> > Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
> > even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
> > participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>
> > "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
> > and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
> > intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
> > don't come back the next time..."
>
> >http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10...
> >
> So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
> all cyclists'.
> I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
> the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.
>
You mean your motorist chums? Hardly surprising given their typical
attitude towards cyclists.

BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be supporting the
suppression of civil rights by police. Is that so?

> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
> > where rights are replaced by concessions.

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/10/2010 07:41, Doug wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 07:25, Tony > wrote:
>> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
>>> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
>>> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
>>> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
>>> the Law Lords..
>>
>>> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
>>> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
>>> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
>>> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
>>> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>>
>>> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
>>> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
>>> that money will cover legal fees.
>>
>>> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
>>> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
>>> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
>>> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>>
>>> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
>>> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
>>> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
>>> don't come back the next time..."
>>
>>> http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10...
>>>
>> So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
>> all cyclists'.
>> I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
>> the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.
>>
> You mean your motorist chums? Hardly surprising given their typical
> attitude towards cyclists.


Are you pretending to be hard of reading,
THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
at least one of them doesn't own a car.

>
> BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be supporting the
> suppression of civil rights by police. Is that so?
>
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
>>> where rights are replaced by concessions.
>

As I did not post any such thing, and you as usual are trying to twist
peoples posts to try to prove your own point of view.

You are corrected.

--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 Oct, 07:47, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 23/10/2010 07:41, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23 Oct, 07:25, Tony > *wrote:
> >> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
>
> >>> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
> >>> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
> >>> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
> >>> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
> >>> the Law Lords..
>
> >>> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
> >>> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
> >>> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
> >>> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
> >>> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>
> >>> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
> >>> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
> >>> that money will cover legal fees.
>
> >>> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
> >>> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
> >>> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
> >>> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>
> >>> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
> >>> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
> >>> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
> >>> don't come back the next time..."
>
> >>>http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10....
>
> >> So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
> >> all cyclists'.
> >> I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
> >> the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.
>
> > You mean your motorist chums? Hardly surprising given their typical
> > attitude towards cyclists.
>
> Are you pretending to be hard of reading,
> * THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
> * at least one of them doesn't own a car.
>
Who is you you have claimed? It is often the case that motorists who
occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
their fellow motorists.
>
> > BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be supporting the
> > suppression of civil rights by police. Is that so?
>
>
> As I did not post any such thing, and you as usual are trying to twist
> peoples posts to try to prove your own point of view.
>
> You are corrected.
>
Oh I am very pleased that you agree that the cyclists rightfully won
their case against NYPD/NYC, who were trying to suppress their civil
rights, but consequently I am wondering what point you are still
struggling to make here.

> >>> -- .
> >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
> >>> where rights are replaced by concessions.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
It is often the case that motorists who
> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
> their fellow motorists.

do you have any basis for that claim? If it is true, then why do you think
it occurs?

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/10/2010 07:56, Doug wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 07:47, Tony > wrote:
>> On 23/10/2010 07:41, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 23 Oct, 07:25, Tony > wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
>>>>> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
>>>>> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
>>>>> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
>>>>> the Law Lords..
>>
>>>>> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
>>>>> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
>>>>> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
>>>>> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
>>>>> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>>
>>>>> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
>>>>> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
>>>>> that money will cover legal fees.
>>
>>>>> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
>>>>> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
>>>>> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
>>>>> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>>
>>>>> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
>>>>> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
>>>>> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
>>>>> don't come back the next time..."
>>
>>>>> http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10...
>>
>>>> So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
>>>> all cyclists'.
>>>> I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
>>>> the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.
>>
>>> You mean your motorist chums? Hardly surprising given their typical
>>> attitude towards cyclists.
>>
>> Are you pretending to be hard of reading,
>> THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
>> at least one of them doesn't own a car.
>>
> Who is you you have claimed?

Translation please.

> It is often the case that motorists who
> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
> their fellow motorists.


Repeat.
THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
at least one of them doesn't own a car

>>
>>> BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be supporting the
>>> suppression of civil rights by police. Is that so?
>>
>>
>> As I did not post any such thing, and you as usual are trying to twist
>> peoples posts to try to prove your own point of view.
>>
>> You are corrected.
>>
> Oh I am very pleased that you agree that the cyclists rightfully won
> their case against NYPD/NYC,

Where did I agree that.

> who were trying to suppress their civil
> rights, but consequently I am wondering what point you are still
> struggling to make here.
>
>>>>> -- .
>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
>>>>> where rights are replaced by concessions.

No struggle at all, but to help you
You posted 'A victory for all cyclists' you do remember posting that
don't you?

From youre post'New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial
victory'
As New York cyclists are not 'all cyclists' they must be 'some' cyclists.

I then posted
"So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
all cyclists'"

Hope that help clear up your confusion.
You may continue your wriggle.
--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 Oct, 08:29, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>
> *It is often the case that motorists who
>
> > occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
> > their fellow motorists.
>
> do you have any basis for that claim? *If it is true, then why do you think
> it occurs?
>
Because we live in a car-centric society where motorists are addicted
to their car use.

-- .
World Carfree Network.
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 08:29, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>> It is often the case that motorists who
>>
>>> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
>>> their fellow motorists.
>>
>> do you have any basis for that claim? If it is true, then why do you
>> think it occurs?
>>
> Because we live in a car-centric society where motorists are addicted
> to their car use.

but why wold people that use cycles AND cars have a dislike of cyclists?
Could there be a rational explanation? such as the motorists sense of fair
play when he sees untrained, uninsured cyclists breaking the law willy nilly
with general impugnity because they are untraceable.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 23 Oct, 08:30, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 23/10/2010 07:56, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23 Oct, 07:47, Tony > *wrote:
> >> On 23/10/2010 07:41, Doug wrote:
>
> >>> On 23 Oct, 07:25, Tony > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
>
> >>>>> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
> >>>>> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
> >>>>> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
> >>>>> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
> >>>>> the Law Lords..
>
> >>>>> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
> >>>>> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
> >>>>> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
> >>>>> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
> >>>>> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>
> >>>>> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
> >>>>> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
> >>>>> that money will cover legal fees.
>
> >>>>> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
> >>>>> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
> >>>>> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
> >>>>> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>
> >>>>> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
> >>>>> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
> >>>>> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
> >>>>> don't come back the next time..."
>
> >>>>>http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10...
>
> >>>> So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
> >>>> all cyclists'.
> >>>> I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
> >>>> the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.
>
> >>> You mean your motorist chums? Hardly surprising given their typical
> >>> attitude towards cyclists.
>
> >> Are you pretending to be hard of reading,
> >> * *THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
> >> * *at least one of them doesn't own a car.
>
> > Who is you you have claimed?
>
> Translation please.
>
> > It is often the case that motorists who
> > occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
> > their fellow motorists.
>
> Repeat.
> THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
> at least one of them doesn't own a car
>
>
>
> >>> BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be supporting the
> >>> suppression of civil rights by police. Is that so?
>
> >> As I did not post any such thing, and you as usual are trying to twist
> >> peoples posts to try to prove your own point of view.
>
> >> You are corrected.
>
> > Oh I am very pleased that you agree that the cyclists rightfully won
> > their case against NYPD/NYC,
>
> Where did I agree that.
>
Perhaps you just ignored it and decided to nitpick over something much
less important instead?
>
> > who were trying to suppress their civil
> > rights, but consequently I am wondering what point you are still
> > struggling to make here.
> >
> No struggle at all, but to help you
> You posted 'A victory for all cyclists' you do remember posting that
> don't you?
>
> *From youre post'New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial
> victory'
> As New York cyclists are not 'all cyclists' they must be 'some' cyclists.
>
> I then posted
> "So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
> all cyclists'"
>
> Hope that help clear up your confusion.
> You may continue your wriggle.
>
No it doesn't clear up your confusion because this is about police
abuse of cyclists' civil rights, not about whether or not somebody
made an exaggerated claim. Headlines are just attention grabbing
headlines whether true or not.

> >>>>> -- .
> >>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
> >>>>> where rights are replaced by concessions.

[The Medway Handyman[_3_]]

Doug wrote:
> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?

What about the rights of law abiding, tax paying motorists?

> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
> the Law Lords..

A lehal loophole.

> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."

Police continue to prosecute criminals you mean.

>
> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
> that money will cover legal fees.
>
> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.

Good news. If they keep it up they may reduce the lycra clad scum to zero.
>
> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
> don't come back the next time..."

The strategy is working. Good.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/10/2010 08:54, Doug wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 08:30, Tony > wrote:
>> On 23/10/2010 07:56, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 23 Oct, 07:47, Tony > wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2010 07:41, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 23 Oct, 07:25, Tony > wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
>>>>>>> the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
>>>>>>> There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
>>>>>>> 2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
>>>>>>> the Law Lords..
>>
>>>>>>> "...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
>>>>>>> infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
>>>>>>> The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
>>>>>>> a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
>>>>>>> and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>>
>>>>>>> "...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
>>>>>>> $965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
>>>>>>> that money will cover legal fees.
>>
>>>>>>> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
>>>>>>> Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
>>>>>>> even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
>>>>>>> participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>>
>>>>>>> "The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
>>>>>>> and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
>>>>>>> intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
>>>>>>> don't come back the next time..."
>>
>>>>>>> http://topnews360.tmcnet.com/topics/associated-press/articles/2010/10...
>>
>>>>>> So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
>>>>>> all cyclists'.
>>>>>> I will tell the cyclists (who are not cyclists) next time I see them at
>>>>>> the pub, I have no doubt how impressed they will be.
>>
>>>>> You mean your motorist chums? Hardly surprising given their typical
>>>>> attitude towards cyclists.
>>
>>>> Are you pretending to be hard of reading,
>>>> THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
>>>> at least one of them doesn't own a car.
>>
>>> Who is you you have claimed?
>>
>> Translation please.
>>
>>> It is often the case that motorists who
>>> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
>>> their fellow motorists.
>>
>> Repeat.
>> THEY CYCLE, THEY ARE CYCLISTS,
>> at least one of them doesn't own a car
>>
>>
>>

So no answer to that then.

>>>>> BTW, correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be supporting the
>>>>> suppression of civil rights by police. Is that so?
>>
>>>> As I did not post any such thing, and you as usual are trying to twist
>>>> peoples posts to try to prove your own point of view.
>>
>>>> You are corrected.
>>
>>> Oh I am very pleased that you agree that the cyclists rightfully won
>>> their case against NYPD/NYC,
>>
>> Where did I agree that.
>>
> Perhaps you just ignored it and decided to nitpick over something much
> less important instead?

So you admit that I did not agree.

>>
>>> who were trying to suppress their civil
>>> rights, but consequently I am wondering what point you are still
>>> struggling to make here.
>>>
>> No struggle at all, but to help you
>> You posted 'A victory for all cyclists' you do remember posting that
>> don't you?
>>
>> From youre post'New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial
>> victory'
>> As New York cyclists are not 'all cyclists' they must be 'some' cyclists.
>>
>> I then posted
>> "So only a 'partial victory' for some cyclists then not 'a victory for
>> all cyclists'"
>>
>> Hope that help clear up your confusion.
>> You may continue your wriggle.
>>
> No it doesn't clear up your confusion because this is about police
> abuse of cyclists' civil rights, not about whether or not somebody
> made an exaggerated claim. Headlines are just attention grabbing
> headlines whether true or not.

So you admit to posting an exaggerated claim, thank you.

>
>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State,
>>>>>>> where rights are replaced by concessions.
>
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/10/2010 08:48, Doug wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 08:29, > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>> It is often the case that motorists who
>>
>>> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
>>> their fellow motorists.
>>
>> do you have any basis for that claim? If it is true, then why do you think
>> it occurs?
>>
> Because we live in a car-centric society where motorists are addicted
> to their car use.
>
> -- .
> World Carfree Network.
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Right, so what you are saying is 'cyclists dislike cyclists', how quaint.

--
Tony Dragon

[Norman Wells[_10_]]

Doug wrote:

> No it doesn't clear up your confusion because this is about police
> abuse of cyclists' civil rights

How have they done that then, Doug?

All it seems they've done is follow them.

[The Peeler]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:52:25 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
wrote:

>Clearly the NY cops were out to squash CM completely, until 2007 and
>the filing of the civil rights lawsuit. So much for civil rights eh?
>There was a similar, though not as bad, crackdown on London CM from
>2005 which stopped in 2008 when London CM won its case in appeal to
>the Law Lords..
>
>"...The 83 cyclists were among dozens arrested for mostly minor
>infractions during the "Critical Mass" rides between 2004 and 2006.
>The arrests largely stopped in 2007, the year a group of riders filed
>a civil rights lawsuit, although police continue to monitor cyclists
>and write tickets for traffic infractions..."
>
>"...The settlement, signed Oct. 14 but announced Tuesday, calls for
>$965,000 in payments ranging from $500 to $35,000 per rider. Much of
>that money will cover legal fees.
>
>New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial victory.
>Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the rides, said that
>even though the arrests have stopped, the police crackdown drove
>participation down from as many as 1,000 to an average of 30.
>
>"The strategy is the same," she said. "They have just as many scooters
>and police cars following us as they ever did. They are still using
>intimidation, which is working, because the riders who try us out
>don't come back the next time..."

The same strategy should be used in London.

[Marc[_5_]]

On 23/10/2010 09:14, Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 23/10/2010 08:48, Doug wrote:
>> On 23 Oct, 08:29, > wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>
>>> It is often the case that motorists who
>>>
>>>> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
>>>> their fellow motorists.
>>>
>>> do you have any basis for that claim? If it is true, then why do you
>>> think
>>> it occurs?
>>>
>> Because we live in a car-centric society where motorists are addicted
>> to their car use.
>>
>> -- .
>> World Carfree Network.
>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Right, so what you are saying is 'cyclists dislike cyclists', how quaint.
>
I'm a cyclist.
Doug claims to be a cyclist.
I dislike Doug.

[Steve Walker[_2_]]

Tony Dragon wrote:
> On 23/10/2010 06:52, Doug wrote:

>> New York cyclists said they could claim only a partial
>> victory. Barbara Ross, one of the core participants in the
>> rides, said that even though the arrests have stopped, the
>> police crackdown drove participation down from as many as
>> 1,000 to an average of 30.

Well that's a good result for everyone - 30 cyclists can be easily policed
into a tidy column, so they can enjoy their ride without obstructing
traffic. God Bless America, and Apple Pie.

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/10/2010 11:21, Marc wrote:
> On 23/10/2010 09:14, Tony Dragon wrote:
>> On 23/10/2010 08:48, Doug wrote:
>>> On 23 Oct, 08:29, > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is often the case that motorists who
>>>>
>>>>> occasionally cycle tend to be prejudiced against cyclists more than
>>>>> their fellow motorists.
>>>>
>>>> do you have any basis for that claim? If it is true, then why do you
>>>> think
>>>> it occurs?
>>>>
>>> Because we live in a car-centric society where motorists are addicted
>>> to their car use.
>>>
>>> -- .
>>> World Carfree Network.
>>> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>>
>> Right, so what you are saying is 'cyclists dislike cyclists', how quaint.
>>
> I'm a cyclist.
> Doug claims to be a cyclist.
> I dislike Doug.

I like your logic.

--
Tony Dragon