Critical Mass Law Breaking.

The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

JMS wrote:
The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

Thank you. A polite post. I hope that it receives constructive responses.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:09:28 +0000, JMS wrote:

The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes up
with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the police
of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession such
that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be ignored and
obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

Just as an aside, Critical Mass rides/progressions seem to have died out
in NZ.
It would appear that no good and a lot of harm was done by large groups
of people obstructing normal commerce. Bicyclists were certainly not
getting any sympathy for their "plight"

Peter

On 17 Mar, 23:09, JMS wrote:
The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

Broadly speaking yes but what you are ignoring is that as a legitimate
procession CM should be treated by other road users and by the police
as any other procession, i.e. with respect and allowed to go through
red lights and hold up traffic.

Prior to the Law Lords ruling the police used to accompany CM and do
the corking and even ordered riders to go through red lights but now,
seemingly in a fit of pique at being defeated in law, they have washed
their hands of it. They were anyway a mixed blessing at best.

From my POV the underlying problem is that drivers usually treat
cyclists with barely concealed contempt and hate being delayed by them
so have no respect for CM as a legitimate procession, which inevitably
leads to confrontation and sometimes violence in the form of
deliberate ramming.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

On Mar 18, 7:41*am, Doug wrote:
On 17 Mar, 23:09, JMS wrote:

The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

For those that need it, here is a translation of the following reply.

Broadly speaking yes

You are right but I am going to wriggle.

but what you are ignoring is that as a legitimate
procession CM should be treated by other road users and by the police
as any other procession,

Even if the other road users do not know it is a procession.

i.e. with respect

respect is of course a two way thing.

and allowed to go through
red lights and hold up traffic.

Are processions allowed to do this & break the law & endanger people
without permission?


Prior to the Law Lords ruling the police used to accompany CM and do
the corking

control traffic

and even ordered riders to go through red lights

controlling traffic.

but now,
seemingly in a fit of pique at being defeated in law, they have washed
their hands of it. They were anyway a mixed blessing at best.

Sometimes they stopped cm doing what they wanted.


From my POV the underlying problem is that drivers usually treat
cyclists with barely concealed contempt

When you are being treated with contempt you tend to return the
feeling.

and hate being delayed by them
so have no respect for CM as a legitimate procession, which inevitably
leads to confrontation and sometimes violence in the form of
deliberate ramming.

The *R* word has to be used in a Doug post if possible


--
Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"


Marie

Marie gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

but what you are ignoring is that as a legitimate procession CM should
be treated by other road users and by the police as any other
procession,

Even if the other road users do not know it is a procession.

And therein lies the fundamental problem.

Doesn't a "procession" - especially one that is "customary" - owe some
kind of responsibility to the public to minimise disruption to those who
do not wish to participate, by publicising the route in advance? Yes, of
course it does.

I can see an argument that a "customary" procession shouldn't need to, so
long as it sticks to that well-known "customary" route, known to all.

Mind you - even unarguably "customary" processions, such as the Lord
Mayor's Show - I think 475 years trumps 16 years - fully publicise the
route and take steps to minimise conflict, confusion and delay.

and allowed to go through red lights and hold up traffic.

Are processions allowed to do this & break the law & endanger people
without permission?

That's three separate two-part questions.

1a. Allowed to do this? Yes, they can over-ride the usual rules of road
traffic, but that would tend to be in conjunction with a police-managed
road closure.
1b. Without permission? No.

2a. Allowed to break the law? No, they do not break the law. Quite the
opposite - since police assistance and management will be sought to help
minimise any such risk.
2b. Without permission? I'm intrigued by the concept of breaking the law
WITH permission...

3a. Allowed to endanger people? No, they do not endanger people. Quite
the opposite - since extensive risk assessments have to be undertaken.
3b. Without permission? Definitely not. The organisers would face severe
repercussions if anybody was injured due to inadequate risk assessment.

On 18/03/2010 07:41, Doug wrote:
On 17 Mar, 23:09, wrote:
The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

Broadly speaking yes but what you are ignoring is that as a legitimate
procession CM should be treated by other road users and by the police
as any other procession, i.e. with respect and allowed to go through
red lights and hold up traffic.

Prior to the Law Lords ruling the police used to accompany CM and do
the corking and even ordered riders to go through red lights but now,
seemingly in a fit of pique at being defeated in law, they have washed
their hands of it. They were anyway a mixed blessing at best.

From my POV the underlying problem is that drivers usually treat
cyclists with barely concealed contempt and hate being delayed by them
so have no respect for CM as a legitimate procession, which inevitably
leads to confrontation and sometimes violence in the form of
deliberate ramming.

There is zero justification for a critical wank - it simply ****es all
road users off, making it more dangerous for all cyclists.

Doug wrote:

From my POV the underlying problem is that drivers usually treat
cyclists with barely concealed contempt and hate being delayed by them
so have no respect for CM as a legitimate procession, which inevitably
leads to confrontation and sometimes violence in the form of
deliberate ramming.

Are you surprised?

JMS wrote:

The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

that was mine as well.

my take is that CM is harming what it wants to promote.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Doug posted
On 17 Mar, 23:09, JMS wrote:
The arguments about Critical Mass and their monthly activities comes
up with the same regularity on uk.rec.cycling.

Some seem to think that the House of Lords gave carte blanche to the
cyclists to do what they like on their monthly outing.

Am I right in saying that the only thing which was clarified with the
judgment was the fact that there was no obligation to inform the
police of the route in advance as in section 11 of the Public Order
Act 1986?

Was anything else clarified or specifically permitted?

The HoL judgement at
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/69.html
indicates that the issue was *only* whether the organisers were obliged
to notify the event to the police in advance.

It does not deal with any privileges attaching to such an event, only
the obligations of the organisers.

As far as I am aware they have not been categorised as a procession
such that red lights may be ignored, pedestrian crossings may be
ignored and obstruction of other vehicles is permitted.

Is my understanding correct?

Broadly speaking yes but what you are ignoring is that as a legitimate
procession CM should be treated by other road users and by the police
as any other procession, i.e. with respect and allowed to go through
red lights and hold up traffic.

Sorry, where does it say that? What is the basis of your assertion that
"any other procession" is allowed to go through red lights? Where does
the law grant "processions" these privileges?

Can I organise a procession consisting of myself and my wife, and
thereby require other drivers to "show their respect" by allowing us to
go through any red lights we choose? If not, why are your cyclists
allowed this privilege but not me?

I suppose if I notified my "procession" in advance to the police and
asked them to arrange the traffic flow to suit me, and exempt me from my
usual RTA obligations, then they might consider doing so. But as far as
I know they are not under any obligation to do so, and nor is anybody
else.

--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.