D
Doug
Guest
On 13 Jun, 19:57, "Mortimer" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Peter Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Not sure if Duhg has done a cut'n'paste job on this, indeed I'm not
> > even sure if he reads the law reports in The Times, but it may be of
> > interest to him.
>
> >http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article192...
>
> The problem is not whether the mass cycle rides require prior notification
> but whether the cyclists should be controlled (by enforcement of traffic
> lights and drive-on-the-left-in-single-file discipline etc) to give other
> road users as well as the cyclists access to the road. Of course, to police
> that, the police need to know route so they can deploy officers to enforce
> the law if necessary. Perhaps there needs to be a tactic of splitting the
> large nuber of cyclists into small groups that are released at intervals,
> and allowing other traffic to *share* the road with the cyclists, with any
> cyclists that are found to be deliberately impeding other traffic facing
> prosecution.
>
Firstly the police encourage lawbreaking by making riders go through
red lights so that the Mass remains in one large block, to the
detriment of pedestrians waiting to cross. At the same time on the
same rides they have ticketed riders for going through red lights.
Such anomalies seem part and parcel of the way the police continue to
harass cyclists on CM rides, not just in London but world wide. I
wonder how many of the police cyclists own cars in our motorist
dominated society? Why are motorists free to mass together every day,
not just once a month, without police harassment? Something to do with
profits no doubt.
Splitting the ride up will only lead to more congestion and time spent
on the road, as well as fragmented policing.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
> "Peter Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Not sure if Duhg has done a cut'n'paste job on this, indeed I'm not
> > even sure if he reads the law reports in The Times, but it may be of
> > interest to him.
>
> >http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article192...
>
> The problem is not whether the mass cycle rides require prior notification
> but whether the cyclists should be controlled (by enforcement of traffic
> lights and drive-on-the-left-in-single-file discipline etc) to give other
> road users as well as the cyclists access to the road. Of course, to police
> that, the police need to know route so they can deploy officers to enforce
> the law if necessary. Perhaps there needs to be a tactic of splitting the
> large nuber of cyclists into small groups that are released at intervals,
> and allowing other traffic to *share* the road with the cyclists, with any
> cyclists that are found to be deliberately impeding other traffic facing
> prosecution.
>
Firstly the police encourage lawbreaking by making riders go through
red lights so that the Mass remains in one large block, to the
detriment of pedestrians waiting to cross. At the same time on the
same rides they have ticketed riders for going through red lights.
Such anomalies seem part and parcel of the way the police continue to
harass cyclists on CM rides, not just in London but world wide. I
wonder how many of the police cyclists own cars in our motorist
dominated society? Why are motorists free to mass together every day,
not just once a month, without police harassment? Something to do with
profits no doubt.
Splitting the ride up will only lead to more congestion and time spent
on the road, as well as fragmented policing.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
