Cycling perspectives 1 of 9

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.

In article
John Kennerson wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.

Le moton-car ? No you see if a truck or car is registered outside
the UK it is much easier to drive it inside the UK. The DVLA is an
inconvenience for intelligent people.

On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.


Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.

--
JS

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:08:54 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:



On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:



John Kennerson wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Sig wrote:



It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road



Herein lies the problem.



Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.



It can't be repeated often enough!



Everybody is entitled to use the road.



But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the

road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.





Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.





Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.



--

JS

There's a simple test. If a policeman stops him and asks him for his license (permission) and he can't show it, a magistrate will convict him of driving without a license and fine or jail him.

Andre Jute

On 23/07/2014 23:08, James wrote:
On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:

John Kennerson wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Sig wrote:

It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use
the road

Herein lies the problem.

Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.

It can't be repeated often enough!

Everybody is entitled to use the road.

But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the
road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.


Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the
permission of the DVLA.


Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.

And neither do you.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:54:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:08:54 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:



On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:



John Kennerson wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Sig wrote:



It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road



Herein lies the problem.



Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.



It can't be repeated often enough!



Everybody is entitled to use the road.



But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the

road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.





Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.





Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.



--

JS

There's a simple test. If a policeman stops him and asks him for his license (permission) and
he can't show it, a magistrate will convict him of driving without a license and fine or jail him.

Andre Jute


No need to wait for a Magistrate. Driving while unlicensed is grounds for a s165A seizure; if this
JNugent clown gets stopped without his certificate the bill can make him get out and walk.

Bret Cahil

On 27/07/2014 18:44, Bret Cahil wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:54:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:08:54 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent wrote:



On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:



John Kennerson wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Sig wrote:



It is also important to note that cyclists are entitled to use the road



Herein lies the problem.



Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.



It can't be repeated often enough!



Everybody is entitled to use the road.



But all use of the road is subject to allowing others their use of the

road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is not lawful.





Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it without the permission of the DVLA.





Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.



--

JS

There's a simple test. If a policeman stops him and asks him for his license (permission) and
he can't show it, a magistrate will convict him of driving without a license and fine or jail him.

Andre Jute


No need to wait for a Magistrate. Driving while unlicensed is grounds for a s165A seizure; if this
JNugent clown gets stopped without his certificate the bill can make him get out and walk.

Bret Cahil

Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for carrying a
driving licence (still less a "driver's license") with one at all times.

I shall be driving my car tomorrow (not tonight). Do I need to take my
driving licvence with me?

[Hint: the answer is "No".]

But more importantly, from whom do you say I need to get permission?

Or have you realised the differences between a licence and permission?

On 7/27/2014 1:25 PM, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2014 18:44, Bret Cahil wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 15:54:18 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:08:54 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 24/07/14 00:02, John Kennerson wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 12:52:42 +0100, JNugent
wrote:



On 20/07/2014 12:44, Sig wrote:



John Kennerson wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Sig wrote:



It is also important to note that cyclists are
entitled to use the road



Herein lies the problem.



Why? Cyclists *are* entitled to use the road.



It can't be repeated often enough!



Everybody is entitled to use the road.



But all use of the road is subject to allowing others
their use of the

road according to law. Obstruction, for instance, is
not lawful.





Nor is, for instance, taking a moton-car upon it
without the permission of the DVLA.





Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.



--

JS

There's a simple test. If a policeman stops him and asks
him for his license (permission) and
he can't show it, a magistrate will convict him of
driving without a license and fine or jail him.

Andre Jute


No need to wait for a Magistrate. Driving while unlicensed
is grounds for a s165A seizure; if this
JNugent clown gets stopped without his certificate the
bill can make him get out and walk.

Bret Cahil

Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for
carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license")
with one at all times.

I shall be driving my car tomorrow (not tonight). Do I need
to take my driving licvence with me?

[Hint: the answer is "No".]

But more importantly, from whom do you say I need to get
permission?

Or have you realised the differences between a licence and
permission?

A license is permission, see also section 343.05 he
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...atutes/343.pdf

One's 'rights' have been perverted to a 'conditional use'.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:40:07 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Apparently JNugent doesn't need permission.



--

JS

There's a simple test. If a policeman stops him and asks
him for his license (permission) and
he can't show it, a magistrate will convict him of
driving without a license and fine or jail him.

Andre Jute


No need to wait for a Magistrate. Driving while unlicensed
is grounds for a s165A seizure; if this
JNugent clown gets stopped without his certificate the
bill can make him get out and walk.

Bret Cahil

Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for
carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license")
with one at all times.

I shall be driving my car tomorrow (not tonight). Do I need
to take my driving licvence with me?

[Hint: the answer is "No".]

But more importantly, from whom do you say I need to get
permission?

Or have you realised the differences between a licence and
permission?

A license is permission, see also section 343.05 he
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...atutes/343.pdf



Here in Oz he'd need (depending on length of stay) a bit of paper from the UK:

http://www.postoffice.co.uk/internat...driving-permit

Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.

Zebee

On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 13:40:07 -0500, AMuzi wrote:


Not in a civilised country. There is no legal compulsion for
carrying a driving licence (still less a "driver's license")
with one at all times.

I shall be driving my car tomorrow (not tonight). Do I need
to take my driving licvence with me?

[Hint: the answer is "No".]

But more importantly, from whom do you say I need to get
permission?

Or have you realised the differences between a licence and
permission?

A license is permission, see also section 343.05 he
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/stat...atutes/343.pdf



Blacks Law Dictionary definition of license [siq] agrees with you:

"a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without
such authorization would be illegal"