Another attack on a cyclist

In article ,
thirty-six wrote:

Sorry, not good enough. Where it's illegal to ride on the pavements,

you should not do so. Claiming that you break the law in places where

*you* think it's 'all right' to do so, is no better than a car driver

who says, 'I go through red lights, but only when there's nothing coming

the other way'. You can't criticise car drivers who break the law when

it suits them, if you do the same.

Licensed drivers' are contractually obliged to follow the legislation as it
apples to them. If they are caught breaking the rules they may be penalised
for contractural failure. It is assumed that the Driver agrees to the
penalty charge list as ammended from time to time, without him actually
agreeing or being advised of such changes, which is rather strange, but they
make it up as they go along according to what they can easily suck out of the
common man. Special court sessions for motoring/driving are held apart from
other hearings as the befuddlement of the commoner is everyday routine.

Riders of bicycles are not as a rule under any contract with gubmint but if
riding to or from work, directly employed by the crown or one of it's agents,
most certainly it may be assumed that the employment contract also extends
for the journey to and from home as registered at the beginning of the
contract, unless agreement has been formed to say otherwise. If you have
accaepted part-payment for a cycle through a gubmint scheme to use that cycle
to journey to and from workplace, you are most surely contracturally obliged
w.r.t. highway-ro^h^hlaw. If it could be shown that the "part-payment"
made by employer/gubmint is simply a relief on taxation then it SHOULD be
clear that the acceptance of such "aid" is nothing more than that necessary
to function as it should be in a free and just society and that no agreement
has been formed by the non-collection of those taxes.

The question always has to be, Do you understand? You may choose your
answer!

in law MUST is MAY and May is commonly known as the month for gathering
nuts. ;-)

You're a fruitcake.

On Friday, 30 August 2013 10:40:44 UTC+1, Andy Watson wrote:
In article ,

thirty-six wrote:



Sorry, not good enough. Where it's illegal to ride on the pavements,



you should not do so. Claiming that you break the law in places where



*you* think it's 'all right' to do so, is no better than a car driver



who says, 'I go through red lights, but only when there's nothing coming



the other way'. You can't criticise car drivers who break the law when



it suits them, if you do the same.



Licensed drivers' are contractually obliged to follow the legislation as it

apples to them. If they are caught breaking the rules they may be penalised

for contractural failure. It is assumed that the Driver agrees to the

penalty charge list as ammended from time to time, without him actually

agreeing or being advised of such changes, which is rather strange, but they

make it up as they go along according to what they can easily suck out of the

common man. Special court sessions for motoring/driving are held apart from

other hearings as the befuddlement of the commoner is everyday routine.



Riders of bicycles are not as a rule under any contract with gubmint but if

riding to or from work, directly employed by the crown or one of it's agents,

most certainly it may be assumed that the employment contract also extends

for the journey to and from home as registered at the beginning of the

contract, unless agreement has been formed to say otherwise. If you have

accaepted part-payment for a cycle through a gubmint scheme to use that cycle

to journey to and from workplace, you are most surely contracturally obliged

w.r.t. highway-ro^h^hlaw. If it could be shown that the "part-payment"

made by employer/gubmint is simply a relief on taxation then it SHOULD be

clear that the acceptance of such "aid" is nothing more than that necessary

to function as it should be in a free and just society and that no agreement

has been formed by the non-collection of those taxes.



The question always has to be, Do you understand? You may choose your

answer!



in law MUST is MAY and May is commonly known as the month for gathering

nuts. ;-)



You're a fruitcake.

Thank you for the compliment, that's preferable to a person or a thing. You may have butter on your cake.