Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Vulpes Argenteu]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 15:44:03 +0100, Richard <[email protected]>
wrote:

>No. However, if someone taps you on the shoulder and says,
>"Hey, I want to nick that nice flatscreen monitor in your
>office. Leave the window open for me and the alarm turned
>off tonight, there's a good chap.", then I contend
>(although I may be wrong) that you're guilty of aiding and
>abetting his theft if you follow his suggestion.

You may indeed be wrong.

The insurance company would be less than impressed. The
police would find a subsequent charge of burglary against
the bad guy much harder to make stick - you have just
provided him with a great defence. Difficult to see how a
crime is being committed unless there is a third party
involved - e.g. your employer owns the office - in which
case you would be guilty.

You might just be found guilty of being stupid.

However, this is an inadequate avenue to explore when
looking for illumination on the original problem. There:

i) You are not involved in any way in the offence,
save for just being there at the time

ii) There is no meaningful communication between
you and the offending driver in order to
establish collusion

iii) You have no established 'mens rea' for the offense -
the act of pulling over is just too easy to
interpret in terms of self-preservation (that's why
I would pull over)

All three of these are present in your burglary example

Cheers

Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email

 

[Steve Firth]

Vulpes Argenteus <[email protected]> wrote:

> iii) You have no established 'mens rea' for the offense -
> the act of pulling over is just too easy to
> interpret in terms of self-preservation (that's why
> I would pull over)

And pulling over to let other drivers past is advocatd by
the police.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.

 

[Richard]

Vulpes Argenteus wrote:

> You may indeed be wrong.

*resigned sigh* Typical.

> However, this is an inadequate avenue to explore when
> looking for illumination on the original problem. There:

<snipped three points I hadn't considered>

Thanks for the illuminatory correction.

cheers,
R.

 

[Roger Hughes]

Gawnsoft wrote:

> On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:19:45 +0000 (UTC), Roger Hughes <roger@hughes-MYSPAMFILTERSWORKPRETTYWELLANYWAY-
> translations.com> wrote (more or less):
>
>
>>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct
>>>drivers who wish to pass. The only ones I can think of
>>>are horse box drivers who drive at walking pace round the
>>>twisty bits then floor it and move to the middle of the
>>>road as soon as it gets straight.
>>
>>Not going to hold you up as long as a loaded horse box
>>lying flat right across the road would, is it?
>
>
> And we all know how driving down the middle of the road
> (as opposed to staying in lane) is important to stop a
> horsebox from lying flat across a road. And flooring on
> the straights, thats important for keeping it uprigh too.
> (It's the stabilising gyroscopic effect of the trailer
> wheels, no doubt...)

I'm sure you've had some genuinely terrible experiences
with horse boxes, and I've never driven one, being as I
haven't even got a car licence yet, but I would imagine
that if you're pulling a trailer with a rather top-heavy
load of substantial financial and/or sentimental value
which is furthermore likely to spontaneously redistribute
its weight (especially when it encounters unfamiliar and
inexplicable changes in the direction of gravity, and
remember we're talking about a species with a tendency to
be scared of black bin liners and/or shiny crisp packets
here) then you're going to feel a need to be pretty bloody
careful round corners. And then one would normally
accelerate on the straight bits, obviously, since you are
presumably trying to get somewhere. As for the rest, your
guess is as good as mine.

Cheers

Roger

 

[Alan G]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 09:46:03 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>scott wrote:
>
>> The same goes for driving, whether you are there in the
>> road, and pull over to let a speeder past, or are not
>> there at all won't make any difference, the offence will
>> still have been committed. I fail to see how pulling over
>> counts as "aiding" a speeder in any way.
>
>Indeed, people have been convicted for sitting in L3 on
>the motorway at 70mph and refusing to move into a nearside
>lane when clear to do so. The Magistrates/Judges comment
>was to the effect that it is not the motorists job to
>enforce the law.
>
And that is a sad state of affairs because at one time the
enforcement of the law was the duty of every citizen.

 

[Vulpes Argenteu]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:16:45 +0100, Alan G <[email protected]> wrote:

>And that is a sad state of affairs because at one time the
>enforcement of the law was the duty of every citizen.

At what time?

Presumably not later than the establishments of the 'modern'
police force in the mid-19th century. Probably not a duty
even earlier than that - given that cities and towns had
separate (if perhaps arbitrary) law enforcement functions
before then.

When were you thinking of and how is that apparent duty
expressed in the absence of a written constitution? (i.e.
where is the legislation backing this view?)

Upholding of the law I can agree with ... but that means
something _very_ different !

Cheers

Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email

 

[Alan G]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:32:12 +0100, Vulpes Argenteus
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:16:45 +0100, Alan G
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>And that is a sad state of affairs because at one time the
>>enforcement of the law was the duty of every citizen.
>
>At what time?

>
>Presumably not later than the establishments of the
>'modern' police force in the mid-19th century.

According to my reading that was when the rot set in.

>Probably not a duty even earlier than that - given that
>cities and towns had separate (if perhaps arbitrary) law
>enforcement functions before then.
>
>When were you thinking of and how is that apparent duty
>expressed in the absence of a written constitution? (i.e.
>where is the legislation backing this view?)

The same place as the unwritten constitution.

>
>Upholding of the law I can agree with ... but that means
>something _very_ different !

The law and duty as a citizen are not the same.

>
>Cheers
>
>Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)

 

[Conor]

In article <1ge1gkl.hb17cm1twb13sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
usenet- [email protected] says...

> It's stupid to obey laws for the sake of obeying laws.
>
As long as you're happy accepting the
fines/points/criminal record.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.

 

[Stevie D]

Martin wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> I actively obstruct drivers wishing to pass where it
>> would put me in danger if they tried to pass.
>
> Serious risk of injury here!
>
> I would never do that and I survived being a child too!

Then you won't make a good cyclist.

If you can see that it is unsafe for following traffic to
overtake you, you *have* to move further out from the kerb,
and place yourself clearly in their line of vision, to
prevent them from squeezing past you.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing
dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common
hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////___________-
__________________________________

 

[Steve Firth]

Conor <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1ge1gkl.hb17cm1twb13sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
> usenet- [email protected] says...
>
> > It's stupid to obey laws for the sake of obeying laws.
> >
> As long as you're happy accepting the
> fines/points/criminal record.

If that is the price of protest then that is how it must be.
I'm sure that the truckers who committed a crime by
obstructing the flow of traffic on roads throughout Britain
thought it was worth the possibility of
fines/points/criminal record to make their point, for
example. And I for one woudl uphold their right to protest
peacefully even if that protest means some inconvenience for
the public and the breaking of a law or two.

However, in my case I obey the law relating to speed limits
because (mostly) I agree with it. However the speed limit
applied to motorways is a farce and long overdue for review.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need
help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to:
uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free
environment.

 

[Jnugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "Russ" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Clearly speeding is one of the things which dangerous
>> drivers do. To jump from there to all speeding drivers
>> are driving dangerously is a step of logic that takes
>> extrapolation to the (unjustified) extreme which is what
>> you are seeking to imply without actually stating.

> No, I am stating what I am stating: there is a strong
> correlation between multiple speeding convictions and
> crashing.

Is there any evidence for that?

> That means that dangerous drivers are more likely
> to speed:

Only if there is evidence for your first proposition.

Is there any?

> a good justification for speed cameras, as they appear,
> quite by chance, to catch more dangerous drivers than safe
> drivers.

Your (so far) unsupported hypothesis fails to address the
issue of the driver with multiple speeding convictions and
no history of TAs.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.686 /
Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

 

[Jnugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Dave J <[email protected]> wrote

>>>> They also say I should not cause a hazard by sitting in
>>>> front of someone that wishes I wasn't.

>>> Fundamental error. The hazard is not you, it is the
>>> aggressive speedophile behind you.

>> And the position of greatest hazard is... ?
>> - Right in front of him or her.

> Immaterial. You are not causing the hazard.

So... does risk to *you* not matter if you are not
causing it?

S'funny... I take a different view - specific risk to me
(and mine) matters *very much* - especially if someone else
is causing it.

Such people are better in front of me, where I can see
their every move (whilst I retain eyeball contact, that is)
and where the risk of a collision is more in my hands than
in his/hers.

> If and when they get past you they will merely be a hazard
> to someone else.

In the Great Scheme Of Things, that can be better. I do not
wish to risk harm or loss, either to myself or to my family.
Harm or loss to others is to be regretted, but I am not
required to sacrifice my wellbeing, or my family's
wellbeing, to (theoretically) protect others.

> In some ways you could see it as your civic duty to
> restrain their urge to speed...

Indeed, why not force every car to be equipped with a blue
flashing light and give every driver an absolute duty to
stop excess-speeders and effect a citizen's arrest?

>>> Their reactions and attitude are entirely wrong, and it
>>> will be their driving, not yours, which is most likely
>>> to cause a crash.

>> But it will be my lack of politeness and common sense
>> that causes them to crash into *me*.

> never been the best policy for dealing with them.

You first, old chap.

Do let us know how you get on (and what hospital food is
like these days).

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.686 /
Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

 

[Jnugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

[ ... ]

> The assumption that driving lawfully is "deliberately"
> obstructing his progress assumes a disturbing level of
> paranoia on the part of your

[ ... ]

> ... a driver going at the speed limit is obstructing
> nobody.

I bet you wouldn't stick out on the crown of the road at an
indicated 30 if there was a police car, ambulance or fire
appliance behind you giving you blues'n'twos.

OTOH, perhaps you would.

After all, you just said you would.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.686 /
Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

 

[Jnugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If there's a queue built up behind them, then - yes -
>> they should. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml#145

> You forgot to include
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 - and the
> meaning which attaches to the word "MUST" in the
> Highway Code.

> Obviously you wouldn't stand on an advisory rule in the
> Highway Code to require people to allow others to break a
> law which is also described in the Code - that would be
> hypocritical.

Which particular bit of "...*Never* obstruct drivers who
wish to pass..." [my emphasis] is difficult to understand?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.686 /
Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

 

[Jnugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>> It also says in Rule 144, "never obstruct drivers who
>> wish to pass". It doesn't say it is acceptable to
>> obstruct drivers who wish to pass if they appear likely
>> to exceed the speed limit.

> As far as I can see very few people actively obstruct
> drivers who wish to pass. The only ones I can think of are
> horse box drivers who drive at walking pace round the
> twisty bits then floor it and move to the middle of the
> road as soon as it gets straight.

That sounds to be passive (non-deliberate) obstruction at
worst.

Now, what about addressing this isue of the HC saying:
"Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass" rather than "it is
acceptable to obstruct drivers who wish to pass if they
appear likely to exceed the speed limit"?

> I have to resort to my mantra: "it is not a race, your
> ***** will not drop off if you are not in front".

No, you don't have to.

You *could* answer the question.

But that would be hard from over there in that unpainted
corner, wouldn't it?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.686 /
Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

 

[Jnugent]

Conor wrote:

> peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk says...

>> Just zis Guy, you know?
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> PeterE wrote:

>>>>> I propose revoking the license of anybody incapable of
>>>>> understanding the simple and unambiguous text of rule
>>>>> 145. All in favour?

>>>> Nah, we'd have no truckers left, so nothing would get
>>>> delivered.

>>> There would be nothing to deliver anyway as all the
>>> tractors would be off the roads.

>> IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding
>> of the principle of Rule 145.

> You don't live in East Yorks do you?

Do they have a different version of the Highway Code there?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.686 /
Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:58:22 +0000 (UTC), Roger Hughes <roger@hughes-MYSPAMFILTERSWORKPRETTYWELLANYWAY-
translations.com> wrote (more or less): ...
>I'm sure you've had some genuinely terrible experiences
>with horse boxes, and I've never driven one, being as I
>haven't even got a car licence yet, but I would imagine
>that if you're pulling a trailer with a rather top-heavy
>load of substantial financial and/or sentimental value
>which is furthermore likely to spontaneously redistribute
>its weight (especially when it encounters unfamiliar and
>inexplicable changes in the direction of gravity, and
>remember we're talking about a species with a tendency to
>be scared of black bin liners and/or shiny crisp packets
>here) then you're going to feel a need to be pretty bloody
>careful round corners. And then one would normally
>accelerate on the straight bits, obviously, since you are
>presumably trying to get somewhere. As for the rest, your
>guess is as good as mine.

Just to clarify - the middle of the road was about straight
bits, not corners.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Tony Raven]

Stevie D wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> I actively obstruct drivers wishing to pass where it
>>> would put me in danger if they tried to pass.
>>
>> Serious risk of injury here!
>>
>> I would never do that and I survived being a child too!
>
> Then you won't make a good cyclist.
>
> If you can see that it is unsafe for following traffic to
> overtake you, you *have* to move further out from the
> kerb, and place yourself clearly in their line of vision,
> to prevent them from squeezing past you.

As recommended in Cyclecraft published by HMSO.

Tony

 

[Conor]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> > peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk says...
>
> >> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> PeterE wrote:
>
> >>>>> I propose revoking the license of anybody incapable
> >>>>> of understanding the simple and unambiguous text of
> >>>>> rule 145. All in favour?
>
> >>>> Nah, we'd have no truckers left, so nothing would get
> >>>> delivered.
>
> >>> There would be nothing to deliver anyway as all the
> >>> tractors would be off the roads.
>
> >> IME many tractor drivers have a very good understanding
> >> of the principle of Rule 145.
>
> > You don't live in East Yorks do you?
>
> Do they have a different version of the Highway Code
> there?
>
THey have alot of tractor drivers who've never read it.

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.

 

[Conor]

In article <1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>,
usenet- [email protected] says...
> Conor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1ge1gkl.hb17cm1twb13sN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> > > It's stupid to obey laws for the sake of obeying laws.
> > >
> > As long as you're happy accepting the
> > fines/points/criminal record.
>
> If that is the price of protest then that is how it must
> be. I'm sure that the truckers who committed a crime by
> obstructing the flow of traffic on roads throughout
> Britain thought it was worth the possibility of
> fines/points/criminal record to make their point, for
> example.

Completely different and not applicable to daily life
though isn't it?

--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing
anything worthwhile.