cyclist holding up traffic

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:00:43 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 31/07/2013 17:55, Mrcheerful wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
"TMS320" considered Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:52:57 +0100
the perfect time to write:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...

"TMS320" wrote in message
...
"Mrcheerful" wrote
"TMS320" wrote in message
"Mrcheerful" wrote

you should post it to a car or driving group.

Hint - I have removed uk.rec.driving from this reply. Check the
headers in the rest of the thread.

(Though the blurred vision you get from the excitement of reading
reports of supposed "wrong doing" of cyclists can't be helped by
all those bottles you buy.)

I noticed too late that there were multiple groups, it is not
something that I would look at before posting and only spotted it
in the sent items. I cancelled the message within moments, but
apparently it still got through, yet does not show up for me.

Ah well. I hope you're more observant when you're driving. It's the
inability to notice small detail that causes crashes.

What are all these bottles that I buy?

...poor memory too. Y'know, the ones that weigh down your weekly
shopping.


Did I describe my weekly shopping? or just state the weight?

The weight is clue to liquid content. I doubt you buy a bag of
cement every week.

How do we know it isn't cider?
Or meths, which would explain his poor eyesight.

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet explained
how it would be viable for me to collect it using a bicycle.



I do my shopping by bike. Why not?


Are you banned from driving?

Roger Merriman put finger to keyboard:

JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2013 14:32, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the
right to
pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and
the right to make ordinary and 'reasonable use' of the highway.

By needlessly obstructing faster traffic the cyclist is not making
reasonable use of the road

That's not what "reasonable" means

Please cite the statute or regulation.

As far as I'm aware obstructing is difficult one to prove, being held up
maybe tedious, realisticly not illegal unless it went on for a very long
time, which is unlikely on a urban road to put it mildly.

Roger

ISTR someone being prosecuted for obstruction when driving at 70mph on a
motorway because he was in the outside lane, so such behaviour can be
illegal. It is certainly anti-social.

Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard:

Scion considered Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:10:06 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

Paul Cummins put finger to keyboard:

In article ,
(Mentalguy2k8) wrote:

Using the road in the manner described? Obstruction.

Not in the slightest.

Why not?

Because the cyclist is there by right, where the motorists are there
by permission.

The cyclist and the motorists are both legally allowed to use the road.

But the motorist can be chucked off if he misbehaves, whereas the
cyclist can't.

We'll assume that most of the obstructed drivers were there legally, shall
we?

The motorist can only use it by permission, where the cyclist doesn't
need permission from anyone.

Cyclists can be prevented from using roads as well, even though there's no
specific permission/test/licence requirement.


Neither has "more right" to be there than the other,

See above.

Ditto.

There is a considerable difference between being legally allowed and
having the right.
I could legally allow you into my house, but that in no way gives you a
legally enforceable right to be there,

Your house is not a public place - by default, *anyone* needs your
permission to be there.

particularly if you start making
threats (either by language or behaviour) against those who do have the
legal right to be there. Your permission would be withdrawn rather
quickly.

The same is true of your use of a road in a motor vehicle, although it
does seem to take an unreasonable length of time to get permission
revoked even for blatantly dangerous drivers.
and both must use
the
road in accordance with the law.

Quite so, but only one of them uses the road by right.

Which can be withdrawn - see above.


The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right
to pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and
the right to make ordinary and ?reasonable use? of the highway.

By needlessly obstructing faster traffic the cyclist is not making
reasonable use of the road.

Where did "needlessly" come from?

From the fact that there was a cycle lane.

He clearly felt it necessary, and it is not the motorists place to try
to second guess that.

"Not the motorists place"? I'd wager that most motorists, especially those
who are cyclists as well, are perfectly capable of judging whether someone
is needlessly obstructing them.


The offence cited is "unreasonable obstruction of the highway"

Excellent, that covers it perfectly.

So you only need to show it was unreasonable for a cyclist to be using
the highway that he has every right to be using

Tick

AND at a speed that was
entirely reasonable for him to be traveling at,

Tick

AND that others were
prevented from using it (for passing and re passing, not to reach any
particular speed) - ALL beyond any reasonable doubt.

Tick

It seems that (some) motorists need to be taught their place.

It seems that (some) cyclists are morons.

On 01/08/2013 09:38, Scion wrote:
Roger Merriman put finger to keyboard:

JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2013 14:32, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the
right to
pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and
the right to make ordinary and 'reasonable use' of the highway.

By needlessly obstructing faster traffic the cyclist is not making
reasonable use of the road

That's not what "reasonable" means

Please cite the statute or regulation.

As far as I'm aware obstructing is difficult one to prove, being held up
maybe tedious, realisticly not illegal unless it went on for a very long
time, which is unlikely on a urban road to put it mildly.

Roger

ISTR someone being prosecuted for obstruction when driving at 70mph on a
motorway because he was in the outside lane, so such behaviour can be
illegal. It is certainly anti-social.

The usual charge for the behaviour you describe is "Driving without due
consideration for other road users".

It will be under the same heading (same section of the RTA as "Driving
without due care and attention") that FPNs and penalty points will be
issued to lane hoggers when the recent or imminent law changes come into
their own.

One can only hope that it will be applied with some alacrity to pairs of
lorry drivers who arrogantly create two miles of empty road in front of
them when battling it out at 55mph on a two-lane motorway or expressway,
as though it mattered one jot if one of them had to reduce speed by 1mph.

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 22:07:47 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip the tripe



Now, now, now: It's only ten o'clockish and you've opened the sauce bottle
already. What will you be like by two o'clock tomorrow morning?

Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard:

Scion considered Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:51:18 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard:

Scion considered Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:10:06 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

Paul Cummins put finger to keyboard:

In article ,
(Mentalguy2k8) wrote:

Using the road in the manner described? Obstruction.

Not in the slightest.

Why not?

Because the cyclist is there by right, where the motorists are there
by permission.

The cyclist and the motorists are both legally allowed to use the
road.

But the motorist can be chucked off if he misbehaves, whereas the
cyclist can't.

We'll assume that most of the obstructed drivers were there legally,
shall we?

And likewise the cyclist, of course (unless you are being a raving
hypocrite).

Of course. Where did I say otherwise?


Although statistically, it's highly probable that if the number of
(temporarily forced to drive within the speed limit) drivers reached
double figures, at least one wasn't there legally.

Sadly true. A much higher probability in some parts of the country.


The motorist can only use it by permission, where the cyclist doesn't
need permission from anyone.

Cyclists can be prevented from using roads as well, even though there's
no specific permission/test/licence requirement.

What mechanism do you believe exists for banning someone from cycling?*

You know the mechanism - you've written about it at the end of your post.
Sheesh.

Does the cyclist need a permit (aka licence) to operate a bicycle on the
public highway, which can be revoked?
Maybe some offence in law of "cycling whilst disqualified"?

No, but as you acknowledge at the end of your post, the mechanism is there
to ban a person from cycling.

Can you maybe give figures for the number of illegal cyclists on our
highways?

No, no more than you can give figures for the number of cyclists who ride
illegally.



Neither has "more right" to be there than the other,

See above.

Ditto.

There is no more or less when there simply is, and is not.

Glad you agree with me on that, at least.


There is a considerable difference between being legally allowed and
having the right.
I could legally allow you into my house, but that in no way gives you
a legally enforceable right to be there,

Your house is not a public place - by default, *anyone* needs your
permission to be there.

Driving on a public highway is not a public right - by default *anyone*
needs government permission to drive there.

Once licenced (taxed/insured/roadworthy vehicle etc.) then that permission
is there, and there's no point pretending it isn't, or it is somehow a
lesser, second-rate right to use the road.

particularly if you start making threats (either by language or
behaviour) against those who do have the legal right to be there.
Your permission would be withdrawn rather quickly.

The same is true of your use of a road in a motor vehicle, although it
does seem to take an unreasonable length of time to get permission
revoked even for blatantly dangerous drivers.
and both must use
the
road in accordance with the law.

Quite so, but only one of them uses the road by right.

Which can be withdrawn - see above.

Untrue, see above.

You're simply wrong on this point.

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the right
to pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and
the right to make ordinary and ?reasonable use? of the highway.

By needlessly obstructing faster traffic the cyclist is not making
reasonable use of the road.

Where did "needlessly" come from?

From the fact that there was a cycle lane.

Which you have no idea of the quality or utility of to that cyclist at
that time and under those conditions.

He clearly felt it necessary, and it is not the motorists place to try
to second guess that.

"Not the motorists place"? I'd wager that most motorists, especially
those who are cyclists as well, are perfectly capable of judging whether
someone is needlessly obstructing them.

Then they wouldn't be ranting about it, would they?

Who said they were ranting about it?

After all, they'd be equally capable of understanding that it is the
cyclist's judgment that matters.

The cyclist can still be wrong - and his judgement is irrelevant if he is
being deliberately bloody-minded just for the sake of it.

Even the Highway Code backs that up (as has the High Court - and the
motorist in that case was a police officer).


The offence cited is "unreasonable obstruction of the highway"

Excellent, that covers it perfectly.

So you only need to show it was unreasonable for a cyclist to be using
the highway that he has every right to be using

Tick

Fail - you haven't even presented any evidence.

AND at a speed that was entirely reasonable for him to be traveling
at,

Tick

Fail - how can you judge what is a reasonable speed for that particular
cyclist under those particular circumstances?
Even if you could, you have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever..

AND that others were prevented from using it (for passing and re
passing, not to reach any particular speed) - ALL beyond any
reasonable doubt.

Tick

Fail - see above.

You haven't even raised a reasonable suspicion of it, and have fallen
far short of even reaching "on the balance of probability".
As far as "beyond reasonable doubt" is concerned - Epic fail.
All you have is one assertion from a single anonymous troll on usenet,
almost certainly a complete fabrication.

It seems that (some) motorists need to be taught their place.

It seems that (some) cyclists are morons.

You are the one posting irrational (and untruthful) anti cycling
sentiment in a cycling newsgroup.

Not anti-cycling. Anti-obstruction. Anti-anti-social. Anti-cyclist-whose-
behaviour-deliberately-antagonises-motorists-thus-making-the-roads-less-
safe-for-all-cyclists.


Hardly the most intelligent of actions.

Are you a compulsive liar, or just a deluded idiot?


I'll let you decide, as you've clearly got more experience in both areas.


*There was once a single case where a person was temporarily barred from
cycling on a few roads as part of an ASBO.

That was an extremely exceptional case, in which the alternative was
apparently to bar him from all roads altogether (apart from as the
passenger in a prison van, of course).

And I doubt it was enforceable in any case - if he hadn't indulged in
his particular brand of misbehaviour while cycling on those roads, I
doubt if they could have touched him, or would have wanted to waste
their own and the court's time by trying.
And if he had indulged in his peculiar brand of misbehaviour, that would
have been what he'd have been arrested for and charged with.

So all it proves is that one magistrate once thought he had that power
(and maybe that the idiot concerned believed him, although there are
plenty of other explanations for there being no further news of him),
not that it actually exists.
He could just as easily have moved, emigrated, been run over by a car,
turned over a new leaf, or started (or stopped) taking some medication
as been persuaded not to cycle on those streets during that ASBO, for
all we know.

JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2013 23:12, Roger Merriman wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 31/07/2013 14:32, Paul Cummins wrote:
In article , lid (Scion)
wrote:

The law provides a specific right to use a public highway: the
right to
pass and re-pass along the highway (including the pavement), and
the
right to make ordinary and 'reasonable use' of the highway.

By needlessly obstructing faster traffic the cyclist is not making
reasonable use of the road

That's not what "reasonable" means

Please cite the statute or regulation.

As far as I'm aware obstructing is difficult one to prove,

Even if it were, so what?

Would that make it right?

it means that it might be anti social/selfish but not illegal.

being held up
maybe tedious, realisticly not illegal unless it went on for a very long
time, which is unlikely on a urban road to put it mildly.

"realisticly not illegal"?

Have you heard yourself?

so make your case that it's legally a obstruction! this topic has comes
up at least every other month.

where are the cases of folks being done for obstruction?

all the links and what not that folks have dug up over the years suggest
that a moving vehical is hard to prove to be a obstruction.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Mrcheerful wrote:

snips

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet explained
how it would be viable for me to collect it using a bicycle.

fairly sure folks have pointed out options, this said if we're getting a
weekly shop we either get a delivery or drive to the local supermarket,
normal bikes are fine for bits a bobs, I do pick up catfood, and maybe a
few other things, which fit fine in the bag.

doing a large weekly shop by bike does tend to require either a number
of trips or stuff like trailers and what not.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:15:04 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:55:18 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet
explained how it would be viable for me to collect it using a
bicycle.

Yes they have.

No they haven't, I need to be able to throw it in the boot and get home
within 5 minutes, not half an hour.

Where do you live?

There are few places I can think of where driving a complete trip of
five minutes is six times faster than cycling.

Even a long journey, such as London to Portsmouth, takes me 2 hours by
car and 10 hours by bicycle.

And why the *need* to complete the supermarket run in five minutes?
Surely you could sacrifice some of your time on urc to make a more
pleasurable event of shopping?

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 08:15:04 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:55:18 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Even if my shopping was entirely strong spirits, no-one has yet
explained how it would be viable for me to collect it using a
bicycle.

Yes they have.

No they haven't, I need to be able to throw it in the boot and get
home within 5 minutes, not half an hour.

Where do you live?

There are few places I can think of where driving a complete trip of
five minutes is six times faster than cycling.

Even a long journey, such as London to Portsmouth, takes me 2 hours by
car and 10 hours by bicycle.

And why the *need* to complete the supermarket run in five minutes?
Surely you could sacrifice some of your time on urc to make a more
pleasurable event of shopping?

acyual jouney is only one part of the slowness of using a bicycle. I get
out of my car and push a button and it is locked, immobilised and alarmed.
Try doing that with any bicycle and trailer.
I come up to the car and press a button, the boot opens and everything can
go in within a few moments, no need to pack it carefully, fix it down, cover
it up, put it in cool bags or any other sodding about.
I get into the car and drive it away easily, no faffing about with
unlocking, gears, potholes etc. etc.

I drive easily and quickly home, the boot take moments to empty and get
freezer stuff away. One press of the button and the car is locked and
secure.

I go indoors and do not need a shower and change of clothes.

Why on earth anyone would sod about with a bicycle to do regular shopping in
an urban area is absolutely beyond me. and as for pedalling up a hill with
a trailer and 25kg of shopping, you would have to be really daft if you have
cars available.