Charged: Cycling without due consideration for other road users

[Bob Downie]

Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.

http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4020/index.php
--
Bob Downie
Devotee of the wheel
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly

 

[Peter Clinch]

Bob Downie wrote:
> Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.

Seems a bit daft. If you're at the front you can just say you were out
for a ride and everyone else just followed you... not your doing!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ziggy]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 09:11:50 +0100, Bob Downie
<BobMail@downie-geo#n0spam#.co.uk> wrote:

>Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.
>
>http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4020/index.php

I see the idiot tendency are posting in the comments section:

"The cyclists should have stayed in single file - two abreast is
illegal. If I had been driving along, well, I 'm in a car, with crumple
zones to protect me - the cyclists have only their skin; of course they
should get out of the way. Unless and until cyclists start riding
safely, I will not get out of their way - I know who'll get hurt more!"

Shades of Simon Finnigan!

 

[Coyoteboy]

Bob Downie proclaimed to uk.rec.cycling ...


> Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.
>
> http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4020/index.php
> --
> Bob Downie
> Devotee of the wheel
> please remove #n0spam# to reply directly

Serves them right IMO, we should all try to get along on the road - causing
mass rallys of cyclists blocking the highways does nothing for the cyclists
cause and just frustrates the general non-cycling public. CM is just a
childish response, and they deserve to be punished like children IMO.

 

[Bob Downie]

In message <[email protected]>, Coyoteboy
<[email protected]> writes
>Bob Downie proclaimed to uk.rec.cycling ...
>
>
>> Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.
>>
>> http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4020/index.php
>> --
>> Bob Downie
>> Devotee of the wheel
>> please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
>
>Serves them right IMO, we should all try to get along on the road - causing
>mass rallys of cyclists blocking the highways does nothing for the cyclists
>cause and just frustrates the general non-cycling public. CM is just a
>childish response, and they deserve to be punished like children IMO.

Not that I am a great fan of critical mass but surely there is a right
to use the roads in a lawful manner whenever you like? So what that
dozens of cyclists choose to do so at the same time once a month?

Consider, car drivers in their hundreds of thousands block the roads
twice a day. Then it is called not critical mass but rush hour. Do they
get charged? No, they get sympathy and governments bending over
backwards to find excuses to build them new roads.

--
Bob Downie
Devotee of the wheel
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 01 May 2007 10:13:17 +0100, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Downie proclaimed to uk.rec.cycling ...
>
>
>> Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.
>>
>> http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4020/index.php
>
> Serves them right IMO, we should all try to get along on the road - causing
> mass rallys of cyclists blocking the highways does nothing for the cyclists
> cause and just frustrates the general non-cycling public. CM is just a
> childish response, and they deserve to be punished like children IMO.

Whether or not CM is a good or a bad thing - people should only be
punished for breaking the law. From the indymedia report it appears
that the bikes had stopped at a red traffic light and were probably
otherwise obeying the law. Also the police were reported to pick
cyclists out at 'random' from the front of the queue. Unless they
come up with some specific incident the sum total of their argument
seems to be "riding along the road with lots of other cyclists". An
argument which could equally be applied elsewhere - maybe against
people like you.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Dan Gregory]

Bob Downie wrote:
> Shades of the Daniel Cadden case.
>
> http://scotland.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4020/index.php
and after San Francisco went so well last Friday!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/28/MNGF2PHDCK1.DTL&feed=rss.news

 

[p.k.]

Bob Downie wrote:
>
> Not that I am a great fan of critical mass but surely there is a right
> to use the roads in a lawful manner whenever you like? So what that
> dozens of cyclists choose to do so at the same time once a month?


That is the point at issue: is a deliberate pre planned mass cycle with the
intention of clogging the road lawful?

> Consider, car drivers in their hundreds of thousands block the roads
> twice a day. Then it is called not critical mass but rush hour. Do
> they get charged? No, they get sympathy and governments bending over
> backwards to find excuses to build them new roads.

Car drivers do not WANT to clog the road for other users, but that is a key
point behind CM - claiming the road for cyclists.

pk

 

[Ziggy]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 11:25:52 +0100, "p.k." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bob Downie wrote:
>>
>> Not that I am a great fan of critical mass but surely there is a right
>> to use the roads in a lawful manner whenever you like? So what that
>> dozens of cyclists choose to do so at the same time once a month?
>
>
>That is the point at issue: is a deliberate pre planned mass cycle with the
>intention of clogging the road lawful?
>
>> Consider, car drivers in their hundreds of thousands block the roads
>> twice a day. Then it is called not critical mass but rush hour. Do
>> they get charged? No, they get sympathy and governments bending over
>> backwards to find excuses to build them new roads.
>
>Car drivers do not WANT to clog the road for other users, but that is a key
>point behind CM - claiming the road for cyclists.

Yes, there's always something a little worrying about these CM events.

You could spin it as cyclists saying:

"We want to persuade people to show more consideration for cyclists.

How are we going to do that?

By being very inconsiderate to motorists."


OTOH it can be very visually impressive.

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> Car drivers do not WANT to clog the road for other users, but that is a key
> point behind CM - claiming the road for cyclists.

The motorists may not /want/ to clog the road, but they know they
*will*, and go and do it anyway. Intent is not the thing, it is the
pre-realised outcome.
CM only /wants/ to provide enough presence to make sure cyclists get
space and their due attention, they don't necessarily /want/ to hold
anyone up.

The above is, of course, silly to an extent, but you've got to apply the
law similarly to different people, and if riding in the knowledge you'll
hold people up is illegal, then the same should be true of driving.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> Car drivers do not WANT to clog the road for other users, but that
>> is a key point behind CM - claiming the road for cyclists.
>
> The motorists may not /want/ to clog the road, but they know they
> *will*, and go and do it anyway. Intent is not the thing, it is the
> pre-realised outcome.
> CM only /wants/ to provide enough presence to make sure cyclists get
> space and their due attention, they don't necessarily /want/ to hold
> anyone up.
>
> The above is, of course, silly to an extent, but you've got to apply
> the law similarly to different people, and if riding in the knowledge
> you'll hold people up is illegal, then the same should be true of
> driving.


INTENTION is the point.

Motorists do not set out with the intention of getting into a jam.

pk

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>
>>> Car drivers do not WANT to clog the road for other users, but that
>>> is a key point behind CM - claiming the road for cyclists.
>> The motorists may not /want/ to clog the road, but they know they
>> *will*, and go and do it anyway. Intent is not the thing, it is the
>> pre-realised outcome.
>> CM only /wants/ to provide enough presence to make sure cyclists get
>> space and their due attention, they don't necessarily /want/ to hold
>> anyone up.
>>
>> The above is, of course, silly to an extent, but you've got to apply
>> the law similarly to different people, and if riding in the knowledge
>> you'll hold people up is illegal, then the same should be true of
>> driving.
>
>
> INTENTION is the point.
>
> Motorists do not set out with the intention of getting into a jam.

And CMers can say they don't /intend/ to delay other vehicles. Where is
your *proof* otherwise? And how can the same "proof" not be applied to
motorists?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[dkahn400]

On May 1, 9:43 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Seems a bit daft. If you're at the front you can just say you were out
> for a ride and everyone else just followed you... not your doing!

Being arrested for waiting at a red traffic light must be a first.
Plenty of grounds on which to fight that one I should have thought.

--
Dave...

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>
>> INTENTION is the point.
>>
>> Motorists do not set out with the intention of getting into a jam.
>
> And CMers can say they don't /intend/ to delay other vehicles. Where
> is your *proof* otherwise? And how can the same "proof" not be
> applied to motorists?


Come now, lets stay on planet reality!

Say to the driver: Go that way and you will cause a jam, or go the other way
and travel freely: the driver will go the other way

Say to CM: Go that way and you will cause other traffic no problem, go the
other way and you will clog the roads for motor traffic: which way will CM
go?

pk

 

[p.k.]

dkahn400 wrote:
> On May 1, 9:43 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Seems a bit daft. If you're at the front you can just say you were
>> out for a ride and everyone else just followed you... not your doing!
>
> Being arrested for waiting at a red traffic light must be a first.
> Plenty of grounds on which to fight that one I should have thought.

Perhaps arrested while stopped at a red light for offences observed earlier?

pk

 

[Daniel Barlow]

p.k. wrote:
> INTENTION is the point.
>
> Motorists do not set out with the intention of getting into a jam.

I mostly agree with you, but where do you draw the line? Whether they
want to contribute to a traffic jam or not they set out anyway in the
full knowledge that they'll do so. If congestion was held to be a
social evil in the same way as, say, accidents, then this attitude would
be negligent or even reckless behaviour.

As I said at the start, I pretty much agree with you regarding CM - the
"waving bikes above heads" tendency leaves me cold - but I don't think
drivers are blameless here either. We don't let drunk or unlicensed
drivers off if they claim "but I was making an essential journey, I had
to get to work", and if we're serious about congestion we should maybe
regard a few more of those claims that drivers have "no choice"
similarly sceptically. (A small part of me says also that if we're
_not_ going to be that serious about congestion, why's everyone so up in
arms about CM? But two wrongs don't make a right)


-dan

 

[dkahn400]

On May 1, 12:10 pm, "p.k." <[email protected]> wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:

> > Being arrested for waiting at a red traffic light must be a first.
> > Plenty of grounds on which to fight that one I should have thought.
>
> Perhaps arrested while stopped at a red light for offences observed earlier?

Perhaps, but unlikely if the report is anything like accurate.

--
Dave...

 

[Peter Clinch]

p.k. wrote:

> Say to CM: Go that way and you will cause other traffic no problem, go the
> other way and you will clog the roads for motor traffic: which way will CM
> go?

I don't know, I'm not CM. But did the police say that to them, or just
randomly pick people to get?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[p.k.]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> p.k. wrote:
>
>> Say to CM: Go that way and you will cause other traffic no problem,
>> go the other way and you will clog the roads for motor traffic:
>> which way will CM go?
>
> I don't know, I'm not CM. But did the police say that to them, or
> just randomly pick people to get?
>

I'm not talking the specific case here, but the general CM casing jams or
motorist causing jams.

pk

 

[Paul Boyd]

dkahn400 said the following on 01/05/2007 12:02:

> Being arrested for waiting at a red traffic light must be a first.

I read it as being arrested *whilst* waiting at a red light, not *for*
waiting at a red light. I still think the whole situation is a farce
though. Sunday club rides will be the next target.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/