Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Vulpes Argenteus]

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:

> 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*.

> No, it will be their innate ****wittedness. Pandering to bullies has
> 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
> mythical ****wit.

[ ... ]

> ... 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
<[email protected]>
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 <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.

 

[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.

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
'JNugent' wrote:

>> ... 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.

The only difficult bit there is to work out if it's an ambulance, fire
engine or police car. In the case of the last, I prefer to behave like
the rest of the country behaves toward me. Trundle.. This is MY road
trundle trundle trundle..

Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that are worthy of
respect, the odds are huge that by doing so I am a benefit to the
community.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> within
uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:

>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.

Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against peaceful protest.

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Dave J <[email protected]> typed:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving,
> 'JNugent' wrote:
>
>>> ... 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.
>
> The only difficult bit there is to work out if it's an ambulance, fire
> engine or police car. In the case of the last, I prefer to behave like
> the rest of the country behaves toward me. Trundle.. This is MY road
> trundle trundle trundle..
>
> Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that are worthy of
> respect, the odds are huge that by doing so I am a benefit to the
> community.

And obviously police cars are rushing to enforce petty laws, like armed
robberies, burglaries where the burglar's still present, robberies where the
thief is still close by, etc.

Or maybe even chasing some who's not paid their TV licence.

A

 

[Brimstone]

Dave J wrote:
> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> within
> uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against peaceful protest.

There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.

 

[David Martin]

On 20/5/04 11:42 am, in article [email protected],
"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Dave J wrote:
>> In MsgID<1ge2227.5kn1y61pmlyvxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk> within
>> uk.rec.driving, 'Steve Firth' wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Especially since there ought to be *no* laws against peaceful protest.
>
> There aren't any laws agains *peaceful* protest.

unless you mean 'non-violent' by peaceful instead of 'have no significant
impact on anyone else'. Obviously I could sit in front of a shop with 400
other people protesting about that shop and effectively prevent it from
doing business. Perfectly peaceful (non-violent) but probably illegal.

...d

 

[Dave J]

In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving, 'Ambrose
Nankivell' wrote:

>> Given the ratio of petty obstructive laws to those that are worthy of
>> respect, the odds are huge that by doing so I am a benefit to the
>> community.
>
>And obviously police cars are rushing to enforce petty laws, like armed
>robberies,

Armed roberry very rare.

>burglaries where the burglar's still present,

I've heard of a good few cases the case has been categorised as a
'normal' burglary even though the caller has stated that the criminal
was still on the premises and response has only happened several hours
later.

>robberies where the
>thief is still close by, etc.

>Or maybe even chasing some who's not paid their TV licence.

But most likely of all they're chasing someone without a tax disk,
someone they think might have a crumb of pot, someone whose rear light
is broken, someone who did forty through a thirty zone or any number
of petty things where the 'culprit' has thought 'stuff them I'll soon
get rid'

So, while it could be the one in a thousand chase of someone worthy of
the effort, the odds are strongly in favour of it just being about
enjoyment of the excuse to exert some power and race their car about
the place.

The odds are also therefore strongly in favour of this being one
socialy favourable time to follow the numbskull 'pro-obstructivity'
advice.

Just look upon it as the prevention of an accident..

--
Dave Johnson - [email protected]