Another 'Critical Mass' of cars.

On 8 Jan, 15:14, JNugent wrote:


The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?- Hide quoted text -

The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

I still maintain that the driver need not answer questions about his
demeanour on the road or the start & finish points of his journey.
Nor do I believe that passengers in a motor vehicle are obliged to
identify themselves or explain their presence in the vehicle (with the
exceptions stated in my earlier post).

I'm pretty certain I'm right but if you can cite evidence to the
contrary I'll be happy to have learned something new.

Calum

calum wrote:

JNugent wrote:

The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?

The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

You are wrong.

I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it applied to motorists in Pakistan,
Colombia, Burkino Faso or Scotland.

The incident took place in England.

I still maintain that the driver need not answer questions about his
demeanour on the road or the start & finish points of his journey.
Nor do I believe that passengers in a motor vehicle are obliged to
identify themselves or explain their presence in the vehicle (with the
exceptions stated in my earlier post).

I'm happy to let you think what you like.

On Jan 8, 3:42*pm, JNugent wrote:
calum wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?
The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

You are wrong.

I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it applied to motorists in Pakistan,
Colombia, Burkino Faso or Scotland.

The incident took place in England.

I still maintain that the driver need not answer questions about his
demeanour on the road or the start & finish points of his journey.
Nor do I believe that passengers in a motor vehicle are obliged to
identify themselves or explain their presence in the vehicle (with the
exceptions stated in my earlier post).

I'm happy to let you think what you like.

Yet you seem reluctant to substantiate your claim. There is no
obligation (yet) to account for yourself to the police if you are not
suspected of any crime. They may ask, you needn't answer.

wrote:

JNugent wrote:
calum wrote:
JNugent wrote:

The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?

The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

You are wrong.
I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it applied to motorists in Pakistan,
Colombia, Burkino Faso or Scotland.
The incident took place in England.

I still maintain that the driver need not answer questions about his
demeanour on the road or the start & finish points of his journey.
Nor do I believe that passengers in a motor vehicle are obliged to
identify themselves or explain their presence in the vehicle (with the
exceptions stated in my earlier post).

I'm happy to let you think what you like.

Yet you seem reluctant to substantiate your claim. There is no
obligation (yet) to account for yourself to the police if you are not
suspected of any crime. They may ask, you needn't answer.

Of course not.

Actually, you understate the position - you needn't answer even if you've
been arrested for bank-robbery "in the act". I thought that this was well-known.

On 8 Jan, 15:42, JNugent wrote:
calum wrote:
JNugent wrote:
The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?
The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

You are wrong.

I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it applied to motorists in Pakistan,
Colombia, Burkino Faso or Scotland.

That's just plain silly.


The incident took place in England.

Fair enoughski, England it shall be:

1. "Additionally, the driver may be questioned about his demeanour on
the road..."

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).


2. "...and about the origin and destination points of his journey."

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).


3. " He may also be required to listen to advice about his driving
and behaviour.

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

4. " He may not leave the scene until authorised to do so by the
police officer concerned. "

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

5. "Passengers in the vehicle may also be required to identify
themselves and
their presence in the vehicle explained. "

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

Calum

On 8 Jan, 15:33, calum wrote:
On 8 Jan, 15:14, JNugent wrote:



The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?- Hide quoted text -

The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

I still maintain that the driver need not answer questions about his
demeanour on the road or the start & finish points of his journey.
Nor do I believe that passengers in a motor vehicle are obliged to
identify themselves or explain their presence in the vehicle (with the
exceptions stated in my earlier post).

I'm pretty certain I'm right but if you can cite evidence to the
contrary I'll be happy to have learned something new.

Calum

I seem to recall that at a roadside census you were required to stop
but did not have to give any details, the police would only be there
to direct cars to the census point.
I don't recall if it is the same if stopped by police.

Francis

calum wrote:

JNugent wrote:
calum wrote:
JNugent wrote:

The incident in question *did* take place in London, didn't it?
The incident did, but your assertions began with "The driver of *a*
motor vehicle..." suggesting this applied to all motorists.

You are wrong.
I wasn't for one moment suggesting that it applied to motorists in Pakistan,
Colombia, Burkino Faso or Scotland.

That's just plain silly.

You're the one who insists that everything is different in Scotland. Please
read my remarks as of application only in England and Wales (particularly
when commenting upon something that apparently happened in London).

The incident took place in England.

Fair enoughski, England it shall be:

It was England. It doesn't matter whether you agree or think it "fair enoughski".

1. "Additionally, the driver may be questioned about his demeanour on
the road..."

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

Are you alright?

What legislation would *prevent* the police from asking him about it?

2. "...and about the origin and destination points of his journey."

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

See above.


3. " He may also be required to listen to advice about his driving
and behaviour.

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

See below.

4. " He may not leave the scene until authorised to do so by the
police officer concerned. "

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

Please see below.

5. "Passengers in the vehicle may also be required to identify
themselves and their presence in the vehicle explained. "

Please cite the applicable legislation (act(s) and section(s)).

See below.

Now read this very carefully, because I shall type it only once.

I don't know what happens in Scotland (though I have never found it very
different from the rest of the UK whilst driving there), but in England and
Wales, the police have the powers to address errant driving behaviour,
including obstruction. They also have the powers to address car-theft and
crime in general. And as well as that, they have the powers to address
*suspected* cases of all of those. And they have the powers to stop drivers
at random in order to check documents, driving entitlement, etc.

Every thing I listed above falls within the categories of thing the police
have powers to "do something about", either under the Road Traffic Acts and
other highway legislation, or under the Theft Act or the law concerning
offences agaisnt the person. I have no intention of descending to your level
and giving the verbatim details in each case. It's all there if you search
for it.

But... if you don't believe me, I throughly recommend that the next time you
are stopped by the police whilst driving (whther in Scotland or south of the
border), you have the courage of your convictions and refuse to utter a word,
to get out of your vehicle or even to stop for very long.

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:20:21 -0800 (PST), francis
wrote:


I seem to recall that at a roadside census you were required to stop
but did not have to give any details, the police would only be there
to direct cars to the census point.
I don't recall if it is the same if stopped by police.

But at a roadside census you _are_ stopped by the police. The officer
directs you to the census point, where you are not obliged to answer
the questions.

Doug wrote:
You see! Motorists do it too!

Duhg, you're a snivelling whining hypocritical turd, just to ensure you
dont reply!

--
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also. Duhg Bollen.

It didn't happen. The whole thing was fabricated in a movie studio by
Jewish film directors using realistic dummies to gain international
sympathy and thus grab and retain a chunk of Arab territory and
accumulate weapons of mass destruction with help from a complicit US.
Duhg Bollens view of the Holocaust.

Duhg Bollen promised a report on how Vince can reduce his carbon
emissions by moving in November 2007. We're still waiting.

On 8 Jan, 09:34, Adrian wrote:
Tony Dragon gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

You see! Motorists do it too!

"Hey, while in London this evening, flashing blue lights drew my
attention to about 20 cars with Palestinian flags stuck on their
windows driving along the embankments tooting horns.
Yes but was it organized?
Was it a demonstration?
Was it a procession?
Was it anything to do with this NG?

Was it deliberately obstructing as many other road users as possible?

I wonder how many of the demonstrators stopped their cars in the middle
of busy junctions, got out, and waved the cars above their heads?

Still, it's good to know that 20 protestors is now regarded as a
"critical mass"...

Probably takes up as much road space as 100 cyclists so yes I would
call a convoy of 20 congesting cars a 'critical mass'.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"More bikes, fewer cars!".