Lawbreaking cyclists

On 04/03/2012 10:37, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:17:45 -0000, "Mr. > wrote:
>
>> "Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> On 03/03/2012 09:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am a normal cyclist
>>>
>>> Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
>>> wrong way down one-way streets?
>>
>> I certainly don't cycle on pavements. And I stop at traffic lights when
>> they are red. Always. I don't understand why the militants find obeying
>> the law so difficult to comprehend.
>
> Good.
>
> I am glad we can agree on a definition of a "normal cyclist" as one
> who rides as you do, and a "militant" cyclist as one who breaks the
> law...

....or vigorously campaigns or argues for the law to be rigged in their favour.

Not even members of the Militant Tendency necessarily broke any laws.

On 2012-03-04, JNugent > wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 05:03, Brent wrote:
>> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > wrote:
>>> "Brent" wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > wrote:
>>>> "Brent" wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > wrote:
>>>>> "Brent" wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > wrote:
>>>>>> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
>>>>>> rules?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tyranny of the majority. How quaint. 51% decide to take everything the
>>>>> other 49% have, or murder them outright. That's the essence of
>>>>> "democracy".
>>>>>
>>>>>> So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
>>>>>> rides according to the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
>>>>> your hate has nothing to do with the law.
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a normal cyclist and I only hate militant cyclists (psycholists).
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, cyclists make up far less than 49% of road users - more like 0.5% in
>>>>> most places.
>>>>
>>>> In a democracy that means that if the majority wants to kill them,
>>>> that's a-ok.
>>>> =========================
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely not.
>>>
>>> Then it's not a democracy.
>>> ============================================
>>>
>>> I have no idea what the hell you are on about.
>>
>> It's quite obvious you don't because you don't know what a democracy is.
>> A democracy is simply majority rule. If a person's rights are recognized
>> or not depends on if the majority chooses to do so. If the majority
>> chooses not to, then that's just the way it goes in democracy.
>>
>> If the majority in a democracy decides bicyclists as a group don't have
>> rights then it's open season on bicyclists. That's how democracy rolls.
>
> That is theoretically possible.
>
> In practice, however? No.
>
> Minorities, even delinquent minorities, are accorded certain personal (not
> group) rights which may - in serious enough cases - transcend the political
> rights of the majority. Hence the spectacle of national leaders and
> high-ranking officials being hanged by the neck in a Nuremburg gymnasium.

Without a war where outsiders were victorious that would have been
unlikely. The internal attempts to stop that government failed.

How long the condition would persist isn't really relevant, only that
such a system would permit it to happen in the first place.

On Mar 3, 6:35*am, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
> rules? So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
> rides according to the law. Every single one I see cuts through red lights
> like a knife through butter. It is almost as if they do this to target
> pedestrians deliberately, as they then switch straight on to the pavement,
> and then back and forth to the road.

That is not unlawful. It may be classed as an offence under the road
traffic act etc etc, blah de blahn but it is certainly not unlawful.

>
> Let's consider the law? It's illegal to ride without lights. It's illegal to

be a knob, shut up!

> ride without a helmet and high visibility clothes. It's illegal to ride more
> than 30cm from the kerb. It's illegal to ride the wrong way down one-way
> streets, to squeeze past standing traffic, pavement ride and run the lights.
> Rule 169 of the Highway Code also insists that cyclists must give way to
> motorists as they are faster. £20 billion of damage to business is caused by
> traffic jams and cyclists are the main cause.
>
> The government has said that it plans to throw a whopping £26 million at
> these rogues "to make them safer." How about spending some money on the poor
> down-trodden motorist?
>
> I propose a vote, since we're living in a democracy. I propose we have a
> referendum on cycling (even if it is just a local one that results in a
> by-law) and we vote to outlaw bicycles for good. No good can come of them..

It'll cost you.

> Why bother to complain about road tax and insurance? They won't pay it even
> if it gets made into law. Who knows how many pedestrians they have killed
> and injured over the years? There are more motorists than cyclists, it makes
> perfect sense to just ban them!
>
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Let-s...15383989-detai...

On Mar 3, 10:32*am, JNugent > wrote:
> On 03/03/2012 09:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. > *wrote:
>
> >> I am a normal cyclist
>
> > Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
> > wrong way down one-way streets?
>
> Simon Mason does. He has even posted video evidence of himself doing them (at
> least two out of the three and very possibly all three).

I think that perhaps he understands law.

On Mar 4, 10:37*am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:17:45 -0000, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> >"Dave - Cyclists VOR" *wrote in message
> ...
>
> >On 03/03/2012 09:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. > *wrote:
>
> >>> I am a normal cyclist
>
> >> Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
> >> wrong way down one-way streets?
>
> >I certainly don't cycle on pavements. *And I stop at traffic lights when
> >they are red. *Always. *I don't understand why the militants find obeying
> >the law so difficult to comprehend.
>
> Good.
>
> I am glad we can agree on a definition of a "normal cyclist" as one
> who rides as you do, and a "militant" cyclist as one who breaks the
> law.

Misappropriation of funds is theft, it is unlawful, in the natural
sense, by God and by the Magna Carta.

thirty-six" wrote in message
...

On Mar 4, 10:37 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:17:45 -0000, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> >"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >On 03/03/2012 09:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. > wrote:
>
> >>> I am a normal cyclist
>
> >> Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
> >> wrong way down one-way streets?
>
> >I certainly don't cycle on pavements. And I stop at traffic lights when
> >they are red. Always. I don't understand why the militants find obeying
> >the law so difficult to comprehend.
>
> Good.
>
> I am glad we can agree on a definition of a "normal cyclist" as one
> who rides as you do, and a "militant" cyclist as one who breaks the
> law.

Misappropriation of funds is theft, it is unlawful, in the natural
sense, by God and by the Magna Carta.
==============================================

Isn't that due to a magnesium deficiency?

On Mar 4, 10:31*am, JNugent > wrote:
> On 04/03/2012 05:03, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-03-03, Mr. > *wrote:
> >> "Brent" *wrote in ...
>
> >> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > *wrote:
> >>> "Brent" *wrote in ...
>
> >>> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > *wrote:
> >>>> "Brent" *wrote in ...
>
> >>>> On 2012-03-03, Mr. > *wrote:
> >>>>> I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision
> >>>>> rules?
>
> >>>> Tyranny of the majority. How quaint. 51% decide to take everything the
> >>>> other 49% have, or murder them outright. That's the essence of
> >>>> "democracy".
>
> >>>>> So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that
> >>>>> rides according to the law.
>
> >>>> I do. And ****es of drivers like you far more than any POB. Why? Because
> >>>> your hate has nothing to do with the law.
> >>>> ==============================================
>
> >>>> I am a normal cyclist and I only hate militant cyclists (psycholists).
>
> >>>> BTW, cyclists make up far less than 49% of road users - more like 0.5% in
> >>>> most places.
>
> >>> In a democracy that means that if the majority wants to kill them,
> >>> that's a-ok.
> >>> =========================
>
> >>> Absolutely not.
>
> >> Then it's not a democracy.
> >> ============================================
>
> >> I have no idea what the hell you are on about.
>
> > It's quite obvious you don't because you don't know what a democracy is..
> > A democracy is simply majority rule. If a person's rights are recognized
> > or not depends on if the majority chooses to do so. If the majority
> > chooses not to, then that's just the way it goes in democracy.
>
> > If the majority in a democracy decides bicyclists as a group don't have
> > rights then it's open season on bicyclists. That's how democracy rolls.
>
> That is theoretically possible.
>
> In practice, however? No.
>
> Minorities, even delinquent minorities, are accorded certain personal (not
> group) rights which may - in serious enough cases - transcend the political

There are no founding fathers, we have NO RIGHTS. The statutes
written by elected government bind our hands for their ends. We may
theoretically lawfully hold them under arrest and trial them for
unlawful activity, but I don't know how far we can go with sentencing
and execution. In practice, the paid bullies will enforce the
politicians and corporate will against the commoner. It doesn't take
gunpowder to overthrow a government but it does take strong will and a
sizable force.

> rights of the majority. Hence the spectacle of national leaders and
> high-ranking officials being hanged by the neck in a Nuremburg gymnasium.

On Mar 4, 6:45*pm, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> thirty-six" *wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> On Mar 4, 10:37 am, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 18:17:45 -0000, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> > >"Dave - Cyclists VOR" *wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >On 03/03/2012 09:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 07:36:51 -0000, "Mr. > *wrote:
>
> > >>> I am a normal cyclist
>
> > >> Do you ride on pavements, disobey red traffic signals and ride the
> > >> wrong way down one-way streets?
>
> > >I certainly don't cycle on pavements. *And I stop at traffic lights when
> > >they are red. *Always. *I don't understand why the militants find obeying
> > >the law so difficult to comprehend.
>
> > Good.
>
> > I am glad we can agree on a definition of a "normal cyclist" as one
> > who rides as you do, and a "militant" cyclist as one who breaks the
> > law.
>
> Misappropriation of funds is theft, it is unlawful, in the natural
> sense, by God and by the Magna Carta.
> ==============================================
>
> Isn't that due to a magnesium deficiency?

****, missed that one. More mag's, the're everywhere once you cotton
on.

"Mr. Benn" > wrote in message
...
>I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy?

You must have been voting poorly. Democracy!! BS!