Blockade of King's Cross

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:41:22 -0000, "Mr Pounder"
wrote:


"Paul Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 1:46 am, Tom Crispin wrote:
Onpassing the following from Bikes Alive ]:

=====================

Dear fellow cyclists

As you will be aware, cyclists and other non-motorised road users
continue to suffer death and injury (not to mention being delayed,
poisoned and terrorised) by the selfish, anti-social (and frequently
illegal) behaviour of motorists.

There is no reason for much of the traffic in urban areas, other than
(in the case of cars) the selfishness of the drivers concerned. The
situation on major roads and at major junctions in London is
exacerbated by the policy of Transport for London, which prioritises
the speed and volume of motor vehicles above the safety and sanity of
everyone else.

Polite meetings and symbolic action are having no effect. We need to
act. The time has surely come for non-motorised road users to
(nonviolently) defend ourselves.

There is a plan (which you might already have seen leaflets about) for
large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians to be at the lethal junction
at Kings Cross (where York Way meets Pentonville Road and Euston Road)
at 6pm on Monday 9 January. According to taste, cyclists can ride very
slowly round the one-way system, or simply not move at all for an
hour. Pedestrians could cross the road very slowly - or simply block
the road completely.

If we succeeded in at least calming - and perhaps stopping - the
traffic for an hour, would TfL finally change their priorities? If
not, we could return for an hour every week until they did. (And then
we could target another dangerous junction...)

For more details of this plan, see bikesalive.wordpress.com; or e-mail
.

SO:

1) Will your group at least publicise this plan to your
members/contacts, whether or not you can officially support it?

2) Will your group publicly announce its support for this action?

3) Are there individuals who would help with the planning and
preparation of the action?

4) Do you have any comments or questions?

Whatever your answer to these four points, if you have any interest in
active resistance to the tyranny of motor vehicles in urban areas,
please respond to this e-mail.

Many thanks. __._,_.___

======================

I would not in any way support the deliberate obstrauction of the
highway at King's Cross. Instead I will choose to make a leisure ride
around the King's Cross gyratory several times at 6pm on Monday 9th
January. I will not be happy if fellow road users obstruct my proposed
journey. I find black cab drivers to be the worst offenders in this
respect. They should be barred from bus/cycle/motorcycle lanes.


Those that live in the ****e hole of the south deserve all they get.



In the meantime, the typical self righteous London cyclist will
continue to ride through red lights, across pedestrian crossings
where pedestrians have priority, ride the wrong way down one way
streets, ignore no entry signs, ride on the pavement, weave
dangerously between traffic relying on other road users to get them
out of trouble, etc.

Especially if he's black.

On 28/12/2011 17:24, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:09:22 -0800 (PST), Paul Clarke
wrote:

In the meantime, the typical self righteous London cyclist will
continue to ride through red lights, across pedestrian crossings
where pedestrians have priority, ride the wrong way down one way
streets, ignore no entry signs, ride on the pavement, weave
dangerously between traffic relying on other road users to get them
out of trouble, etc.

Nice example of TRL 549's findings, thanks.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bloody_cyclists

Back in the real world it turns out that more London cyclists are
killed by red light jumping drivers than by jumping red lights
themselves and most serious car v. bike crashes are the driver's
fault.

Apologies for injecting objective fact into your rant, I know it won't
be appreciated.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.


You lack of mention of pedestrians in your reply noted.
Riding across pedestrian crossings and along pavements generally
speaking do not hurt motorists & cyclists.

"The Revd" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:41:22 -0000, "Mr Pounder"
wrote:


"Paul Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 1:46 am, Tom Crispin wrote:
Onpassing the following from Bikes Alive ]:

=====================

Dear fellow cyclists

As you will be aware, cyclists and other non-motorised road users
continue to suffer death and injury (not to mention being delayed,
poisoned and terrorised) by the selfish, anti-social (and frequently
illegal) behaviour of motorists.

There is no reason for much of the traffic in urban areas, other than
(in the case of cars) the selfishness of the drivers concerned. The
situation on major roads and at major junctions in London is
exacerbated by the policy of Transport for London, which prioritises
the speed and volume of motor vehicles above the safety and sanity of
everyone else.

Polite meetings and symbolic action are having no effect. We need to
act. The time has surely come for non-motorised road users to
(nonviolently) defend ourselves.

There is a plan (which you might already have seen leaflets about) for
large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians to be at the lethal junction
at Kings Cross (where York Way meets Pentonville Road and Euston Road)
at 6pm on Monday 9 January. According to taste, cyclists can ride very
slowly round the one-way system, or simply not move at all for an
hour. Pedestrians could cross the road very slowly - or simply block
the road completely.

If we succeeded in at least calming - and perhaps stopping - the
traffic for an hour, would TfL finally change their priorities? If
not, we could return for an hour every week until they did. (And then
we could target another dangerous junction...)

For more details of this plan, see bikesalive.wordpress.com; or e-mail
.

SO:

1) Will your group at least publicise this plan to your
members/contacts, whether or not you can officially support it?

2) Will your group publicly announce its support for this action?

3) Are there individuals who would help with the planning and
preparation of the action?

4) Do you have any comments or questions?

Whatever your answer to these four points, if you have any interest in
active resistance to the tyranny of motor vehicles in urban areas,
please respond to this e-mail.

Many thanks. __._,_.___

======================

I would not in any way support the deliberate obstrauction of the
highway at King's Cross. Instead I will choose to make a leisure ride
around the King's Cross gyratory several times at 6pm on Monday 9th
January. I will not be happy if fellow road users obstruct my proposed
journey. I find black cab drivers to be the worst offenders in this
respect. They should be barred from bus/cycle/motorcycle lanes.


Those that live in the ****e hole of the south deserve all they get.



In the meantime, the typical self righteous London cyclist will
continue to ride through red lights, across pedestrian crossings
where pedestrians have priority, ride the wrong way down one way
streets, ignore no entry signs, ride on the pavement, weave
dangerously between traffic relying on other road users to get them
out of trouble, etc.

Especially if he's black.

On a Zebra crossing ...

On 28/12/2011 17:24, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:09:22 -0800 (PST), Paul Clarke
wrote:

In the meantime, the typical self righteous London cyclist will
continue to ride through red lights, across pedestrian crossings
where pedestrians have priority, ride the wrong way down one way
streets, ignore no entry signs, ride on the pavement, weave
dangerously between traffic relying on other road users to get them
out of trouble, etc.

Nice example of TRL 549's findings, thanks.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bloody_cyclists

Back in the real world it turns out that more London cyclists are
killed by red light jumping drivers than by jumping red lights
themselves and C.

Apologies for injecting objective fact into your rant, I know it won't
be appreciated.

Talking of "objective fact", are there any authoritative citations for the
expansive claims that "more London cyclists are killed by red light jumping
drivers than by jumping red lights themselves" or "more London cyclists are
killed by red light jumping drivers than by jumping red lights themselves"?

When I say "authoritative", I obviously don't mean unsupported assertion or
semi-numerate extrapolation on websites run by cycling "enthusiasts".

On Dec 28, 5:24*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 05:09:22 -0800 (PST), Paul Clarke

wrote:
In the meantime, the typical self righteous London cyclist will
continue to ride through red lights, *across pedestrian crossings
where pedestrians have priority, ride the wrong way down one way
streets, ignore no entry signs, ride on the pavement, weave
dangerously between traffic relying on other road users to get them
out of trouble, etc.

Nice example of TRL 549's findings, thanks.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bloody_cyclists

Back in the real world it turns out that more London cyclists are
killed by red light jumping drivers than by jumping red lights
themselves and most serious car v. bike crashes are the driver's
fault.

Apologies for injecting objective fact into your rant, I know it won't
be appreciated.


Where is that information coming from? I find it hard to believe.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious & fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:21:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

You lack of mention of pedestrians in your reply noted.
Riding across pedestrian crossings and along pavements generally
speaking do not hurt motorists & cyclists.

True, I forgot to mention pedestrians. Most cases where a pedestrian
is injured by a motor vehicle, the pedestrian is at fault (as opposed
to cyclists injured, where the reverse is true). Feel free to cite any
objective evidence of a problem to be fixed, but do make sure it's not
the usual bull**** of fixating on one offence that cyclists are
thought to commit and forgetting that the majority of drivers freely
admit breaking the law as a matter of course.

I have never seen any credible evidence that any road user group is
generally characterised by complete obedience to the laws and rules of
the road. Feel free to provide any.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000, Bill
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious & fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.
--
Bill

On 28/12/2011 20:23, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:21:46 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

You lack of mention of pedestrians in your reply noted.
Riding across pedestrian crossings and along pavements generally
speaking do not hurt motorists& cyclists.

True, I forgot to mention pedestrians. Most cases where a pedestrian
is injured by a motor vehicle, the pedestrian is at fault (as opposed
to cyclists injured, where the reverse is true).

And when a pedestrian is injured by a cyclist.
The poster did mention cyclists & pedestrian crossings.

Feel free to cite any
objective evidence of a problem to be fixed, but do make sure it's not
the usual bull**** of fixating on one offence that cyclists are
thought to commit and forgetting that the majority of drivers freely
admit breaking the law as a matter of course.


From personal observation, in London it is more likely to be a cyclists
who rides through a pedestrian crossing during the pedestrian phase,
than any other road user.

I have never seen any credible evidence that any road user group is
generally characterised by complete obedience to the laws and rules of
the road. Feel free to provide any.


I do not believe that anybody suggested that.
Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:53:37 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:



****wit

Of course cyclists are injured by motorists. Push bikes are a child's
toy.


And a very useful convenient practical one.


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.