Naked road scheme in London

Julesh wrote:


Regrettably your point 3 is a commonly-held fallacy. There is no such
right[1].


Maybe, maybe not:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/425364.stm

UK

Protest Freeman herds sheep over Tower Bridge


It was sight to bemuse even the most street-wise Londoner.

Tourists and passers by stared in disbelief as 60-year-old Jef Smith,
wearing farmers' clothes and carrying a rake, led his sheep across Tower
Bridge.

But Clover, an eight-year-old Jacob's Cross, and Little Man, a
six-month-old crossbreed had every right to be there.

Mr Smith, a Freeman of the City of London, was exercising an ancient
permission to herd sheep across the bridge, to make a point about the
powers of older citizens.

He said: "I want to draw attention to people's rights, and particularly
to rights that citizens may have forgotten that they have or which have
been eroded.

"In particular I want to make a stand for older people whose rights are
continuously being eroded."

Mr Smith, of Muswell Hill, London, is retiring from his post as general
manager of Counsel and Care for the Elderly, to become its fund-raising
manager.

The former City of London Social Services director, said he had always
wanted to herd sheep across the bridge since he was made a Freeman in 1975.

He said reaching a mature age should be an opportunity for older people
to assert their rights and fulfil their ambitions.

'Technically' not a right

The wacky stunt was given last minute permission from the City of London
Police.

But the Corporation of London said the right to herd sheep across its
four bridges, Tower Bridge, London Bridge, Blackfriars Bridge and
Southwark Bridge, no longer applied because there were no livestock
markets in the City.

A police spokesman said: "Although technically this right does not exist
in common law now, a common sense approach was taken to allow the event
to go ahead."


Tony

In message , Nathaniel Porter
writes

"congokid" wrote in message
...
In message , Trevor Barton
writes

That ain't going to happen so
long as motorists continue to drive the way they do

Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.

, and neither is
it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.

Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
behaviour?

No group
can claim anything like the moral high ground

It's cyclists' by right. See above.

That attitude is why many motorists show contempt for other road users
(cyclists in particular)

What attitude? Nowhere in the above did I condone any of your list of
'cyclist sins'. In fact, I called it 'particularly reprehensible
behaviour'.

But apart from that I don't see any reason, in the face of the appalling
statistics, to pander to the sensitivities of the *many* motorists who
are clearly unable to show concern for other road users. If they weren't
on wheels, they'd be ABSOd. Killing 3,000 people is not what I'd call
social behaviour.

, this contempt results in a significant proportion
of the ~3,000 people killed each year on the roads, which leads to you
moralising on Usenet, irritating some motorists further and....

Who's moralising?

Motorists are an irritated group anyway - see recent items on BBC news
online. It doesn't take a cyclist to trigger antisocial behaviour.

I was merely drawing attention to the emotive language you used in your
original post: 'motorists driving the way they do' - (the rascals!)
Compare that with your reference to 'cyclists...' followed by a long
list of relatively innocuous transgressions. I cycle every day, but I've
given up getting hot under the collar about what other cyclists do. It
doesn't affect my life. People driving dangerously in motor vehicles, on
the other hand...

It's a vicious circle, and it won't get better unless we work to improve
things, instead of bitching and satisfying superiority complexes, which only
serves to make things worse.

Again - who's bitching? You ranted. I just reminded you that your rant
could be better directed.

It's not motorists who kill ~3000 people a year - it's dangerous road users.

But it certainly isn't cyclists either.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

Trevor Barton wrote:

Arrogance? Do you mean having a point of view and being willing to try
to explain and discuss it rather than dropping one-liners with a
conclusion but no explanation? Impertinance? Is that what disagreeing
with you is, then?

I was referring to your assertion that I was unable to understand your
facile ramblings.

Clearly you're stupid as well as just plain, umm, thick.

One of us is, clearly. I don't think it's me.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

David Martin wrote:
Trevor Barton wrote:


Oh FFS again. Riding a bike on the road is also granted under license
with conditions attached too.


I don't have a bike license..

You are granted a license to ride a bike on the road at birth but
there are conditions attached just the same as there are conditions
attached to driving a car, predominately in relation to obeying the
law of the road as it applies to bikes. The only difference is that
there is no bit of paper on which that license is printed, and there
is not test to pass to get that license, and it is more difficult to
revoke that license.


Wrong. And for the following reasons.

Taking a car on the road is prohibited unless you specifically meet
certain conditions, at which point it may then be allowed. It is
prohibited unless it is explicitly permitted.

With a bicycle (horse, pair of shoes, canoe, sled, skis, livestock[1])
it is permitted unless explicitly permitted.

That makes a considerable difference. No one needs to grant you a
license to use a bike because it has not been prohibited.

You need a license to use a car because such use has been prohibited.

There are certain actions which are prohibited, but these are not
conditions of license[2].

I'll have one more go at this because I'm obviously not making my
meaning as clear as I'd like.

A license is not a piece of paper, except in one special meaning of the
word. A license is simply something you have if someone or something
has granted you the right to do something. Some licenses have a bit of
paper with them that tells you that you have a license to do something,
but others don't have or need a bit of paper. The bit of paper that you
have in your wallet that says you are allowed to drive a car is not in
itself sufficient to lawfully drive a car. You can still have that bit
of paper in your posession, but if you have been banned from driving
(have your license revoked) you are not allowed to drive. The piece of
paper which we call a license is only an indication that you have at
some stage been granted a license to drive, and it has no magical powers
beyond that.

Lots of things have explicit licenses that grant you rights do do
things. Software, for example, usually comes with a written license of
some sort. Music CDs can have a licence that allows you to listen to
them and sometimes to copy them. Designs can have a license that allows
you to copy them.

Other things don't have an explicit license, but are accepted as a
right. Someone has to give you that right - in the case of cycling on
the roads the state gives you the right to do so implicitely at birth.
Because the state confers on you the right to do that, it has licensed
you to do it, by definition. It doesn't have to give you a bit of paper
to tell you that, because by default you are allowed to cycle on the
road so anyone can reasonably assume that someone cycling on the road
has a right to do so, in contrast to a driving license because many
people are not licensed to drive on the road so the bit of paper serves
as a quick and easy indication that a driver is probably entitled.

Kahn and others seem to think that just because a cyclist has the right
to use the road by default they somehow have more right than a driver
with a license. Well, to be truthful, I've forgotten if it was him that
said it first or someone else and he ended up defending it. A bike
rider does not have any more fundamental right to use the road than a
licensed driver. Both are licensed by the state to use the roads
equally, within the laws that govern using the roads by both parties.
It might be easier to lose the license to drive on the roads, but that
does not give a cyclist any fundamental extra rights to the road (and it
*certianly* does not give a cyclist more rights to *abuse* the road).

One thing he did say which is quite true is that the right of cyclist to
use the road is precious and is something that needs to be fought for.
Yes, of course, if the state was to try to take that right away, or
limit it further in some way, then it would need to be fought for. I
wouldn't even argue that the state isn't trying to remove the right of
cyclists to use the road, sometimes overtly, and sometimes by neglect
(poor planning decisions, etc). And it's exactly because the state has
the power to take it away that makes the right of cyclists to use the
road a license, rather than a fundmental right, as Kahn would have it.
Wether he likes it or not the state *does* have the power to take those
rights away from him, as an individual, or all of us, if it so wishes.
I'm not saying that's good, or even likely, or that a govt that did that
would ever be elected again, but 50,000 people who like to chase foxes
over fields to kill them will tell you that anything's possible.

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton wrote:


I'll have one more go at this because I'm obviously not making my
meaning as clear as I'd like.

A license is not a piece of paper, except in one special meaning of the
word. A license is simply something you have if someone or something
has granted you the right to do something.

You seem determined to avoid the commonly understood distinction between
a privilege and a right. Rights are basic, there may be laws that
reinforce them, but you do not need permission to exercise a right. If
you need a licence to do something, it has ceased to be a right, if it
ever was one.

Some licenses have a bit of
paper with them that tells you that you have a license to do something,
but others don't have or need a bit of paper. The bit of paper that you
have in your wallet that says you are allowed to drive a car is not in
itself sufficient to lawfully drive a car. You can still have that bit
of paper in your posession, but if you have been banned from driving
(have your license revoked) you are not allowed to drive. The piece of
paper which we call a license is only an indication that you have at
some stage been granted a license to drive, and it has no magical powers
beyond that.

Exactly. Your privilege of driving can be ended by taking away your licence.

Lots of things have explicit licenses that grant you rights do do
things. Software, for example, usually comes with a written license of
some sort. Music CDs can have a licence that allows you to listen to
them and sometimes to copy them. Designs can have a license that allows
you to copy them.

You are going all over the place here, but you are actually undermining
your own argument. The licences relating to CDs etc refer to
intellectual property and copyright. This is a complex area of law, but
such licences are more comparable to hiring something that is the
property of another person than exercising any right. If you hire a car,
you have permission of the owner to drive it, not a right.

Other things don't have an explicit license, but are accepted as a
right. Someone has to give you that right - in the case of cycling on
the roads the state gives you the right to do so implicitely at birth.
Because the state confers on you the right to do that, it has licensed
you to do it, by definition. It doesn't have to give you a bit of paper
to tell you that, because by default you are allowed to cycle on the
road so anyone can reasonably assume that someone cycling on the road
has a right to do so, in contrast to a driving license because many
people are not licensed to drive on the road so the bit of paper serves
as a quick and easy indication that a driver is probably entitled.

Wrong. It is an essential part of what is usually called Anglo-Saxon law
that anything not forbidden is permitted. You do not have to be given
any right by anyone. However, if someone tries to deny you that right,
you can go to court to argue that you have been unlawfully denied your
right. Certain critical pieces of legislation (Magna Carta, Bill of
Rights 1688) have made explicit wthat certain things are lawful, for the
avoidance of misunderstanding and to seek to prevent legislation
encroaching on these rights. If there was a written constitution it
would be clearer.

Kahn and others seem to think that just because a cyclist has the right
to use the road by default they somehow have more right than a driver
with a license. Well, to be truthful, I've forgotten if it was him that
said it first or someone else and he ended up defending it. A bike
rider does not have any more fundamental right to use the road than a
licensed driver.

Wrong again. The right of anyone to use the highway is an ancient common
law right that is reinforced by centuries of legislation. The privilege
of taking a motor vehicle on the highway is only available to those who
are granted a licence and only for so long as they keep that licence.

Both are licensed by the state to use the roads
equally, within the laws that govern using the roads by both parties. It
might be easier to lose the license to drive on the roads, but that does
not give a cyclist any fundamental extra rights to the road (and it
*certianly* does not give a cyclist more rights to *abuse* the road).

Wrong again, see above.

One thing he did say which is quite true is that the right of cyclist to
use the road is precious and is something that needs to be fought for.
Yes, of course, if the state was to try to take that right away, or
limit it further in some way, then it would need to be fought for. I
wouldn't even argue that the state isn't trying to remove the right of
cyclists to use the road, sometimes overtly, and sometimes by neglect
(poor planning decisions, etc). And it's exactly because the state has
the power to take it away that makes the right of cyclists to use the
road a license, rather than a fundmental right, as Kahn would have it.
Wether he likes it or not the state *does* have the power to take those
rights away from him, as an individual, or all of us, if it so wishes.
I'm not saying that's good, or even likely, or that a govt that did that
would ever be elected again, but 50,000 people who like to chase foxes
over fields to kill them will tell you that anything's possible.



--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

On 8/1/05 1:25 pm, in article ,
"Trevor Barton" wrote:


Other things don't have an explicit license, but are accepted as a
right. Someone has to give you that right - in the case of cycling on
the roads the state gives you the right to do so implicitely at birth.

The state no more grants you a license to be on the road than it does a
license to breathe. I would submit that you are stretching the meaning of
license beyond it's normally accepted use.

I would refer the discussion to
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/...pe=word&queryw
ord=license&first=1&max_to_show=10

where license requires a specific action in most of the senses in which it
is used.

...d

JLB wrote:
Trevor Barton wrote:


I'll have one more go at this because I'm obviously not making my
meaning as clear as I'd like.

A license is not a piece of paper, except in one special meaning of
the word. A license is simply something you have if someone or
something has granted you the right to do something.


You seem determined to avoid the commonly understood distinction between
a privilege and a right. Rights are basic, there may be laws that
reinforce them, but you do not need permission to exercise a right. If
you need a licence to do something, it has ceased to be a right, if it
ever was one.

No, I understand the distinction you want to make, but it's arbitrary.
In the US you have a right to bear arms, here it is a privilege.
Driving a car was once briefly a right, but now it's a privilege.
Having a license to drive a car grants you the right to use the road,
until you do something wrong that means your license, and there for you
right, is removed. You might want to call that a privilege, but it's
still a right in that noone can stop you doing so unless they remove
that right.

Some licenses have a bit of

paper with them that tells you that you have a license to do
something, but others don't have or need a bit of paper. The bit of
paper that you have in your wallet that says you are allowed to drive
a car is not in itself sufficient to lawfully drive a car. You can
still have that bit of paper in your posession, but if you have been
banned from driving (have your license revoked) you are not allowed to
drive. The piece of paper which we call a license is only an
indication that you have at some stage been granted a license to
drive, and it has no magical powers beyond that.


Exactly. Your privilege of driving can be ended by taking away your
licence.


Lots of things have explicit licenses that grant you rights do do
things. Software, for example, usually comes with a written license
of some sort. Music CDs can have a licence that allows you to listen
to them and sometimes to copy them. Designs can have a license that
allows you to copy them.


You are going all over the place here, but you are actually undermining
your own argument. The licences relating to CDs etc refer to
intellectual property and copyright. This is a complex area of law, but
such licences are more comparable to hiring something that is the
property of another person than exercising any right. If you hire a car,
you have permission of the owner to drive it, not a right.

Well my intention in that paragraph was to illustrate that there are
many different types of explicit grants that are all called licenses.
If you hire a car, though, you do then have a right to drive it unless
the owner revokes your permission. So, the owner has granted you
permission to do something, and by a strict definition of he word
licence, it is a license. (I'd guess that if someone hires a car then
under consumer law they must have some sort of right in law to drive it,
anyway)

Other things don't have an explicit license, but are accepted as a
right. Someone has to give you that right - in the case of cycling on
the roads the state gives you the right to do so implicitely at birth.
Because the state confers on you the right to do that, it has licensed
you to do it, by definition. It doesn't have to give you a bit of
paper to tell you that, because by default you are allowed to cycle on
the road so anyone can reasonably assume that someone cycling on the
road has a right to do so, in contrast to a driving license because
many people are not licensed to drive on the road so the bit of paper
serves as a quick and easy indication that a driver is probably entitled.


Wrong. It is an essential part of what is usually called Anglo-Saxon law
that anything not forbidden is permitted. You do not have to be given
any right by anyone. However, if someone tries to deny you that right,
you can go to court to argue that you have been unlawfully denied your
right. Certain critical pieces of legislation (Magna Carta, Bill of
Rights 1688) have made explicit wthat certain things are lawful, for the
avoidance of misunderstanding and to seek to prevent legislation
encroaching on these rights. If there was a written constitution it
would be clearer.

All you're saying is that all these things grant you some rights and
remove some others. You have been given those rights by centuries of
law and legeslation. If none of those things, or their equivalents in
other societies, were in place, would you have any of the rights you
currently have? If so, how?

Also, none of that prevents the state from changing those rights, some
of it just makes it more difficult. Rights change with time, as society
changes, and some things become acceptable and others not so. No
legislation is irrevocable in any absolute sense; if enough of us wanted
to remove any piece of legislation it could be out the door overnight.
Legislation is only as strong as society wants to make it, and laws are
only useful if they are relevant to current society. The right to drive
sheep across London Bridge might have been useful at some stage, but
it's a bit arbitrary now (although someone said it's not true, anyway :0)

Imagine, for example, if I were to invent an revolutionary personal
transport thingie that was fully automatic, cost £35 quid a year to run
on pollution-free solar energy, drove at at least 235km/h in all traffic
densities because of it's advanced positronic brain, could slot into
long semi-autonomous trains at spacings of 20 cm to elininate road
conjestion, and folded into a small bum-bag for carrying when you reach
the shops. The only problem is that it can't cope with pedestrians and
cyclists wobbling all over the same roads, because it's only a tiny
positronic brain, really. How long do you think the right of cyclists
to use the road would last?

Kahn and others seem to think that just because a cyclist has the
right to use the road by default they somehow have more right than a
driver with a license. Well, to be truthful, I've forgotten if it was
him that said it first or someone else and he ended up defending it.
A bike rider does not have any more fundamental right to use the road
than a licensed driver.

Wrong again. The right of anyone to use the highway is an ancient common
law right that is reinforced by centuries of legislation. The privilege
of taking a motor vehicle on the highway is only available to those who
are granted a licence and only for so long as they keep that licence.

But here we get back to the arbitrary privilege/right thing. I would
argue that so long as you don't lose your license you are granted the
right to use the highway in a car. I am certainly arguing that if you
have a license to drive a car on the road you have as much right to use
the road as a cyclist, and not, as Kahn suggests less right. I have no
argument with the fact that it's easier for a driver to lose that right.

If I were being mischievous, I could even argue that a motorist, because
he has to work at getting the license and therefore the right to use the
road, actually has more claim to the road than a cyclist. I won't do
that, however, because then I'd sound like something out of uk.tosspot.
However, I do strongly believe that licensed motorists, and cyclists,
have an equal right to the road, not an unequal one as Kahn on the one
hand, and uk.tosspot on the other, would have us believe.

I'll also put my hand up to stretching the meaning of license to the
limits of it's normally accepted use (although I'll deny "beyond" as
David Martin suggests). To use the highway is a right that is yours
because, as you pointed out above, the state does not forbid it. Indeed
that is a part of Anglo-Saxon law. But it is that basis in law that
allows you to use the highway; it grants you the right to do what you
damn well please unless it's forbidden. That falls within the strict
definition of a license.

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton wrote:
JLB wrote:

Trevor Barton wrote:


I'll have one more go at this because I'm obviously not making my
meaning as clear as I'd like.

A license is not a piece of paper, except in one special meaning of
the word. A license is simply something you have if someone or
something has granted you the right to do something.



You seem determined to avoid the commonly understood distinction
between a privilege and a right. Rights are basic, there may be laws
that reinforce them, but you do not need permission to exercise a
right. If you need a licence to do something, it has ceased to be a
right, if it ever was one.


No, I understand the distinction you want to make, but it's arbitrary.
In the US you have a right to bear arms, here it is a privilege. Driving
a car was once briefly a right, but now it's a privilege.

Your examples keep undermining your own case. The right to bear arms in
the US comes straight from the right to bear arms in the UK. One of the
principle reasons for the revolt in the American colony was an attempt
by the authorities to remove the colonists' right under British law to
bear arms. Once the colonists had their independence, they put the right
to bear arms into their constitution without delay, so that their
government should not deny them the right the British government had
attacked. The right to bear arms in the UK is as ancient as the right to
use the highway. The government of James VII (you might prefer to call
hime James II) tried to prevent protestants bearing arms; hence, with
James's downfall, the right to bear arms featured prominently in the
Bill of Rights of 1688, in order to guard against any further attempts
to remove it. The right to bear arms was NOT granted by the Bill of
Rights, it was confirmed and reinforced. It is intrinsic, as are all
rights. The way it was later removed from British people is a fine
example of how governments, by stealth and small steps, without debate
and lacking any explicit mandate, can take away rights. A government
might also, by revoking legislation, restore a right. But it cannot
grant a right.

Having a
license to drive a car grants you the right to use the road, until you
do something wrong that means your license, and there for you right, is
removed. You might want to call that a privilege, but it's still a
right in that noone can stop you doing so unless they remove that right.

Some licenses have a bit of

paper with them that tells you that you have a license to do
something, but others don't have or need a bit of paper. The bit of
paper that you have in your wallet that says you are allowed to drive
a car is not in itself sufficient to lawfully drive a car. You can
still have that bit of paper in your posession, but if you have been
banned from driving (have your license revoked) you are not allowed
to drive. The piece of paper which we call a license is only an
indication that you have at some stage been granted a license to
drive, and it has no magical powers beyond that.



Exactly. Your privilege of driving can be ended by taking away your
licence.


Lots of things have explicit licenses that grant you rights do do
things. Software, for example, usually comes with a written license
of some sort. Music CDs can have a licence that allows you to listen
to them and sometimes to copy them. Designs can have a license that
allows you to copy them.



You are going all over the place here, but you are actually
undermining your own argument. The licences relating to CDs etc refer
to intellectual property and copyright. This is a complex area of law,
but such licences are more comparable to hiring something that is the
property of another person than exercising any right. If you hire a
car, you have permission of the owner to drive it, not a right.


Well my intention in that paragraph was to illustrate that there are
many different types of explicit grants that are all called licenses. If
you hire a car, though, you do then have a right to drive it unless the
owner revokes your permission. So, the owner has granted you permission
to do something, and by a strict definition of he word licence, it is a
license. (I'd guess that if someone hires a car then under consumer law
they must have some sort of right in law to drive it, anyway)

No. You really are not doing well here. Hiring a car gives nobody any
right to drive the thing on the road. It merely gives them the owner's
permission to use it. The requirement to have permission in the form of
a licence before driving on the road is exactly the same.

Let's not drag in consumer law, either; that is a whole different bag of
worms, and will no doubt lead us also into contract law, tort and all
sorts of other legal fun, that relate to duties and liabilities and so
on, but do not impinge on the matter of rights much, except perhaps your
right to go to court to have the matter heard if your contract to hire
the car is not honoured.

Other things don't have an explicit license, but are accepted as a
right. Someone has to give you that right - in the case of cycling
on the roads the state gives you the right to do so implicitely at
birth. Because the state confers on you the right to do that, it has
licensed you to do it, by definition. It doesn't have to give you a
bit of paper to tell you that, because by default you are allowed to
cycle on the road so anyone can reasonably assume that someone
cycling on the road has a right to do so, in contrast to a driving
license because many people are not licensed to drive on the road so
the bit of paper serves as a quick and easy indication that a driver
is probably entitled.


Wrong. It is an essential part of what is usually called Anglo-Saxon
law that anything not forbidden is permitted. You do not have to be
given any right by anyone. However, if someone tries to deny you that
right, you can go to court to argue that you have been unlawfully
denied your right. Certain critical pieces of legislation (Magna
Carta, Bill of Rights 1688) have made explicit wthat certain things
are lawful, for the avoidance of misunderstanding and to seek to
prevent legislation encroaching on these rights. If there was a
written constitution it would be clearer.


All you're saying is that all these things grant you some rights and
remove some others. You have been given those rights by centuries of
law and legeslation. If none of those things, or their equivalents in
other societies, were in place, would you have any of the rights you
currently have? If so, how?

As I said in the above paragraph, it is an essential part of what is
usually called Anglo-Saxon law that anything not forbidden is allowed.
The courts have confirmed over and over again over conturies that
everyone has the right to use the highway. If an argument arises about
that, a court can decide what should be done (in this way, courts can
make law; making law is not the sole prerogative of Parliament); what
the courts have done is not to grant this right, but to confirm it. This
is as if a doctor examines you to see if you are alive; if the doctor
concludes you are alive, it does not follow he has granted you life or
given you a licence to live. However, in respect of the highway,
Parliament has decided that the right to use it shall be taken away in
respect of vehicles. Only those with permission to take a vehicle on the
highway shall legally do so.

Also, none of that prevents the state from changing those rights, some
of it just makes it more difficult. Rights change with time, as society
changes, and some things become acceptable and others not so. No
legislation is irrevocable in any absolute sense; if enough of us wanted
to remove any piece of legislation it could be out the door overnight.

The fact that there can be different understandings about rights, that
different countries take different views and so on is immaterial to the
fact they are rights and they are different from privileges.

You might find it helps your understanding to look at the background to
the Bills of Rights of both the UK and USA, and their contents.

http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...of_rights.html
and its various links is a handy start, with its emphasis on how the
rights in the US Bill of Rights are a protection from the government,
not something the government grants anyone, and its complete transcript.
As you will see, the articles consist generally of stating that
something is a right, and that the government is forbidden to take it away.

You might also find it useful to read "The Rights of Man" by Thomas
Paine, with its descriptions of the debates in revolutionary France
concerning rights, which in turn informed the American debate leading to
its Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, while Mr Paine's views are
very interesting, they are not to be taken in every case as the last
word on the subject.

Legislation is only as strong as society wants to make it, and laws are
only useful if they are relevant to current society. The right to drive
sheep across London Bridge might have been useful at some stage, but
it's a bit arbitrary now (although someone said it's not true, anyway :0)

Rights can be taken away, but that is a more considerable and
fundamental matter than merely adjusting some law.

Imagine, for example, if I were to invent an revolutionary personal
transport thingie that was fully automatic, cost £35 quid a year to run
on pollution-free solar energy, drove at at least 235km/h in all traffic
densities because of it's advanced positronic brain, could slot into
long semi-autonomous trains at spacings of 20 cm to elininate road
conjestion, and folded into a small bum-bag for carrying when you reach
the shops. The only problem is that it can't cope with pedestrians and
cyclists wobbling all over the same roads, because it's only a tiny
positronic brain, really. How long do you think the right of cyclists
to use the road would last?

Who knows, but why don't you stick to the point: the right to use the
road is explicitly and qualitatively different from any privilege that
may be granted by authority.

Kahn and others seem to think that just because a cyclist has the
right to use the road by default they somehow have more right than a
driver with a license. Well, to be truthful, I've forgotten if it
was him that said it first or someone else and he ended up defending
it. A bike rider does not have any more fundamental right to use the
road than a licensed driver.


Wrong again. The right of anyone to use the highway is an ancient
common law right that is reinforced by centuries of legislation. The
privilege of taking a motor vehicle on the highway is only available
to those who are granted a licence and only for so long as they keep
that licence.


But here we get back to the arbitrary privilege/right thing. I would
argue that so long as you don't lose your license you are granted the
right to use the highway in a car.

This merely underscores your misunderstanding of what a right is. The
government does not grant you any rights. You have them, and it is for
you to defend them.

I am certainly arguing that if you
have a license to drive a car on the road you have as much right to use
the road as a cyclist, and not, as Kahn suggests less right. I have no
argument with the fact that it's easier for a driver to lose that right.

Perhaps it is merely a matter of opinion, but I see a substantial
difference between a right that has been recognised as everyone's right
in this country from the beginnings of jurisprudence and a
constitutional framework, and some qualified and revocable privilege
granted by some government agency once I meet the imposed preconditions.

If I were being mischievous, I could even argue that a motorist, because
he has to work at getting the license and therefore the right to use the
road, actually has more claim to the road than a cyclist. I won't do
that, however, because then I'd sound like something out of uk.tosspot.

It's an argument heard often enough of course, but it illustrates the
muddled thinking of rather a lot of motorists who use irrelevant
premises (the trouble of getting a licence, the costs of running a
vehicle, the associated taxes) to reach a false conclusion.

However, I do strongly believe that licensed motorists, and cyclists,
have an equal right to the road, not an unequal one as Kahn on the one
hand, and uk.tosspot on the other, would have us believe.

I'm not prepared to continue pointing out the obvious because we are
going around in circles, but you are wrong. Try re-reading what has been
said already.

I'll also put my hand up to stretching the meaning of license to the
limits of it's normally accepted use (although I'll deny "beyond" as
David Martin suggests). To use the highway is a right that is yours
because, as you pointed out above, the state does not forbid it. Indeed
that is a part of Anglo-Saxon law. But it is that basis in law that
allows you to use the highway; it grants you the right to do what you
damn well please unless it's forbidden. That falls within the strict
definition of a license.

The constution is more than the law. Neither the law than the government
grant rights. There is no basis for your extended definition of a
licence other than recourse to the Humpty Dumpty principle.



--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Nathaniel David Porter wrote:
Colin Blackburn wrote:

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4151047.stm

I don't know the road, so I'll trust a 20mph limit is fine and
appropriate for the road - but I thought the whole point of the
naked

roads business was that drivers had to work everything out for
themselves, and thus drive more carefully?... Surely
(stricter) traffic regulations go against this...

if you consider a twenty mph limit as more strict than 30mph. A
limit
is still a limit.

Its stricter in the sense the limit is lower.

I would imagibe that there would bve signage at the
entrance to the 20mph zone but no repeaters (as is normal) so we
are
(presumably) not talking about any proliferation of street
furniture
and markings.

To have a 20mph zone with no repeaters requires traffic calming
measures to
be installed on the road. ...

indeed, I stand corrected. I do not know whether the scheme under
discussion will have special dispensation to depart from the normal
TSRGD (or whatever) regs but I imagine it is quite possile


Equal doesn't mean car drivers (or any other group for that matter)
are
should always give way - rather that they should all give way in the
same
circumstances. All traffic wishing to cross a "priority" road (be it
pedestrians in the sense you refer to, or vehicles leaving a
junction) yield
way in this country - ** hence turning traffic is expected to give
way to
pedestrians and pedestrians are generally expected to give way when
crossing
the priority route **. I think is the best system, or at least it
would be if
vehicle operators understood and obeyed the give way to pedestrians
(and
anything else) when turning.

But you appear to be saying that cars should have a right of way over
pedestrians crossing a road at an arbitrary point on the basis that the
ped is (similar to) "turning traffic" (quote above emphasised by **).
I can see no logic to this other than that vehicle traffic is being
arbitrarily prioritised over peds

Of course, pedestrans are pedestrians, and as such we shouldn't get
too
bothered if people do just bumble around into the road anyway
occasionally,
and vehicle operators should be prepared for this possibility.

I am walking from A to B. A car is driving from C to D. Our paths
cross. Who should have priority? For what reason should the convention
(or even law) /not/ be that the vehicle should cede priority? Do you
supportthe opposite POV simply because it is the current convention? (I
agree that a having convention is sensible if motorised traffic will
travel above 20mph). Do you accept that having a convention becomes
less important, or even unneccessary if everyone is travelling at less
that 20mph? Is this not a sensible default approach in an urban setting
that is not a trunk route

I expect expecting vehicles to stop for pedestrians wishing to cross
the
road generally would do nothing than cause confusion - motorists and
cyclists wouldn't necessarily be able to tell who was wishing to
cross,
pedestrians wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if a vehicle is
cedeing
way - and they certainly wouldn't be able to trust traffic coming
from the
other direction to do the same.

It works pretty well for me. When cycling (and I am mostly doing less
than 20mph) I almost always stop if I see a pedestrian waiting to cross
the road. I don't have a significant rate of failing to judge this.
If I am travelling much obver 20mph it becomes much harder. The main
problem is either peds being so surprised that they fail to register
the signal; protracted exchanges of "after you"; or cars taking my
mving out to fully take the lane and giving a sideways nod to someone
who then steps out into the road as a good time to overtake.
Admittedly I do not like vehicles to cede ROW to me against an explicit
road marking for the reasons of confusion and uncertainty that you
raise but in the context of a naked road the uncertainty is the key
that keeps everyone down to speeds that allow the kind of negotiation
that allows the kind of path crossing that hapens in heavy ped flows

Of course, a sensible compromise could be reached whereby pedestrians
would
be expected to wait for a space as now, but vehicle operators would
be
expected to help create that space (which can often be done just by
slowing
down a bit), instead of ignoring them. I think this is the actual
idea
behind the scheme - as opposed to giving pedestrians outright
priority, they
simply intend to encourage people to share the road better.

and this is the way it would work in practice. People cooperate and
everyone gets through. Many vehicles driver cooperatively wrt each
other and many drivers cooperate with peds in defined situations. This
scheme aims to widen this to full time cooperation which will require
vehicle users to cede pretty uch all of the ground

I agree that everyone has an equal right to use this space just not
if
they bring a car with them.

Why should the car make a difference?

What about buses and lorries?

I was usinf terms loosely. It is common for drivers to cede more ROW
to buses than other vehicles. I expect peds would behave similarly
but the bus driver would need to negotiate this within this road

Of course one could argue (as you
essentially are)n that car drivers have a de facto right or
something
that is hard to distinguish from one) to use many roads (with some
qualification). If I were attempting to walk briskly in this area
I
would epect to come into conflict with bimbling pedestrians but I
would
not expect to resolve this by requiring them to keep a look out and
to
step aside, rather i would walk around them, pause or say "excuse
me"
or even accept that I must simply walk more slowly for a while.

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I refered to pedestrians
bumbling into the road.

I didn't mean what I imagine from your description i.e. people
crossing the
road slowly and a vehicle coming accross them as they are doing so.
In these
circumstances I agree, the pedestrians should have right of way (as
they do
now in such circumstances), and shouldn't be be expected to step
aside or
hurry up or whatever. But as I say - that is the rule of the road now

What I meant by pedestrians bumbling into the road is essentially
starting
to cross the road without consideration for other users. To take your
analogy this would be like you walking along at a sensible pace, only
for
someone to dart out in front of you. It would be unworkable if that
became
standard - of course, vehicle operators have to be prepared in case
it
happens - but there is only so much you can do.

pedestrians who change direction randomly without warning are of course
being discourteous to others but the nature of the area is such that
this is what you could expect to encounter on the pavements in this
area (and indeed the roads to an extent). It seems sensible to simply
encourage all road users to proceed at a pace and with an attitude that
makes this state of affairs manageable.


This
seems to be what the scheme is expecting drivers to do (and
cyclists
although by their nature and size they are probably better able to
thread than car drivers).

But vehicle operators are already expected to cede way to pedestrians
in the
process of crossing the road everywhere - I think this scheme risks
eroding
this further on all of the unaffected roads, even if it does improve
it in
this isolated stretch.

But I think this scheme /should/ go beyond that. My hope is that this
is the start of a process of getting drivers to think more about the
sharing of public space. I don't share your pessimism about the likely
effect on driver behaviour elsewhere

This sounds like the kind of sharing I think
you are talking about rather than special interest pleading
although
given the sate of sharing on te rest of the road network I don't
think
a bit of "me first" from pedestrians on one road is particularly
unjustified


I wouldn't say it was not unjustified - that would be a bit close to
"Tu
Quoque" - but it would be understandable. But two wrongs don't make a
right - using the road shouldn't be a bizarre game of oneupmanship
between
different road user groups.

on a philosphical level I take your point but I feel that the balance
of urban planning and street management in favour of motorised traffic
has been so strong for so long that messages need to be sent to try to
break down the unthinking acceptance that most people give to motor
dominance


Given the nature of the area and the fact that the road (to which I
have
been pointed to on a map since my earlier posts) is essentially a
minor one
from nowhere to not much, one has to wonder why they can't simply
pedestrianise the road :-S

that is argualbly a better solution although I would argue that
cyclists could sensibly be allowed continued access (per the DfT
research earlier this year)


article snip

I do support anything that encourages road users to think more
when
using the road - but this sounds a bit like a LA trying to be
trendy
and
wasting vast sums of money in doing so.

I disagree. Assuming the effect is positive (and the continental
experience suggests that this is quite possible) then a high
profile
example such as this could encourage the spread of this practice.

Which is missing the point - everyone is expected to share the road
all the
time, regardless of such schemes. I think such local schemes risk
sending
out the message that its OK for motorists to dominate the road
unfairly
where such schemes don't exist - indeed, this was what the BBCs
reporter
seemed to think.

see my previous paragraph

I
think that the value of this scheme (assuming it is successful) as
anti-motor supremacy propaganda will be enormous

We don't need propoganda, we need people to start being sensible and
reasonable.

and for that we need people to understand the problem. Most people can
easily follow the arguments but simply never come across them
best wishes
james

JLB wrote:
However, in respect of the highway,
Parliament has decided that the right to use it shall be taken away in
respect of vehicles. Only those with permission to take a vehicle on the
highway shall legally do so.

ITYM motor vehicles.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells