Forester says...

On Feb 6, 9:20*pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/6/2011 11:01 AM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:



On Feb 6, 7:03 am, T m Sherm n _ ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 8:23 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 6, 2:00 am, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:35 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 10:34 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 3:52 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:51 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * * * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * * * * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * * * * *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

There are ancient footpaths of which many were registered and give the
user the right of legal passage on foot only. *You may not wander from
the path, if maintained. *You may not grab a cabbage, nor a leek. *You
must travel directly to the other side and must not pause on the land
itself, to make a cuppa. *Basically, if you are not actually walking
on the given route, you are trespassing. *Many landowners go out of
their way and remove styles and fingerpoint signage to the paths. *It
is hardly surprising then that walkers then become trespassers because
the way is not marked.

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

No such thing. *Permission to hunt an area of land may come with a
tenancy, or may even be granted to the local parishoners, but freedom
for all and sundry there has not been. *The ancient rights to the
forest will vary, but usually amount to no more than collecting (not
felling) firewood nuts and berries. *Plums, quinces, pears etc will
have ownership andd you'd better be careful if raiding these.

The hunt had the right to go wherever the fox led it, with the only
restriction being that areas in the territory of other hunts should not
be drawn.

That's the law of the country gent with his shotgun in hand, not the
law of the land. *The hunt (fox's) is a specific 'sport' (arguable)
which is carried out over land usually owned by the lord of the manor
who leads the hunt. *Over his own land including that occupied by
tennants. *Obviously adjacent landowners who partake in the event
would give their permission for the hunt to run over their land. *Any
damage caused by trespass on other land, the cost of repairs, damage
tec can legally be recovered from the hunt.

Only a swarm of bees may be recovered off another's land, should you
own the bees, with the protection of the law.

Stop being so fanciful in your ideas what happens here.

The reality in the past was that the magistrates would *not* have
enforced trespassing claims against those hunting, and would have
limited any penalties to financial compensation for property damage.

Trespass has to be shown to reocver damages.

As in all places and times, the law is enforced and interpreted to
benefit the privileged of society over the middle class and proletariat.

JPs are made up, generally from what is considered the lower class
society.

There is not generally the bias assumed against the working/lazy class
in the police courts. *By "the law is enforced" I can only assume you
mean criminal law, as 'enforcement' does not attatch itself to civil
action.

County court considers actions of tort, and again, it is difficult to
show bias when the majority of evidence is paper based *and clear
cut. *Claims are usually settled within twenty minutes.

Note past tense.

--
T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Please honor the signature separator (i.e. "-- ").



Note you are delusional.

Note that I live in a different Universe from Trevor.

--
T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

So what Vodka caused that?

Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:46:55 +1100, James wrote:

Is it really the law for cyclists to be riding single file where you
are? It's not in Victoria, Australia, though many cyclists and
motorists here don't know the law in this regard.

You decide.:-)

Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on
a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway
shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the
roadway, unless:

(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;

(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a
private road or driveway; or

(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object,
parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents
the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the
roadway.

(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle
lane adjacent to that lane; or

(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel
side by side.

(b) A person operating a bicycle on a one-way roadway with two or more
marked traffic lanes may ride as near as practicable to the left curb or
edge of the roadway.

(c) Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons
riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane.
Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow
of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast
unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive
operation of bicycles.

Sounds reasonable.

According to our laws (a good reference is here
http://www.virtualbike.com.au/?Section=3.2.1 , where the bike related
laws are summarized nicely in one place.)

"Bicycle riders may not ride more than two abreast unless overtaking.
Cyclists riding two abreast must not ride more than 1.5 metres apart."

On some roads where I ride, I would not recommend riding two abreast,
though the law permits it. The motorists attitude has changed over the
years, and bicycles are seen as an obstruction to be passed ASAP, rather
than a road user that must be overtaken with due respect and care.

JS.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:22:48 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Mr. Newell apparently has no inkling that legal and moral are *not*
synonyms.

And you apparently are an idiot.:-)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:31:51 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

On 2/6/2011 3:03 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:03:00 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and
if

While failing to see the immorality of the Texas law.

I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the

Jurors do not have to vote for conviction if the law is unjust (but the
prosecutors and judges will go to great lengths to suppress this
information).

probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the
judge in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted
him. Would I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it
was beer, might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent.
In the moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Ooh, you are a tough guy. At least on the Internet.

roflmao. This from someone that uses a false name. What do you care about
my opinions. The only thing tough about me is my skin, but my fingers
still work.

On 2/7/2011 12:52 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:31:51 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

On 2/6/2011 3:03 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:03:00 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...ction-8-years-
probation-for-store-clerk-1186762.html

Note that this murderer got convicted because he pulled his stunt in
"liberal" Austin, but still got off with probation because Austin is
in Texas after all.

Personally, I think it was a justifiable shooting under Texas law and
if

While failing to see the immorality of the Texas law.

I were on the jury, I would never had voted guilty. My guess for the

Jurors do not have to vote for conviction if the law is unjust (but the
prosecutors and judges will go to great lengths to suppress this
information).

probation sentence is so he wouldn't seek an appeal. Had I been the
judge in his case, I'd have set a guilty verdict aside and acquitted
him. Would I have shot him? Not if he were stealing food. But since it
was beer, might as well kill him now before he kills someone innocent.
In the moment though, I probably wouldn't have.

Ooh, you are a tough guy. At least on the Internet.

roflmao. This from someone that uses a false name.

False name - wrong again. You are not doing well making assumptions.

Ask Andy Muzi how real I am:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/in/set-72157619269876565/.

What do you care about my opinions.

Very little.

The only thing tough about me is my skin, but my fingers still work.

You need tough skin, considering you keep putting your foot in your mouth.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/7/2011 12:36 AM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:22:48 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Mr. Newell apparently has no inkling that legal and moral are *not*
synonyms.

And you apparently are an idiot.:-)

Again, Mr. Newell shows his lack of comprehension and deeper thought.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 2/6/2011 2:07 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/5/2011 11:59 PM, Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 16:51:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

In WI, you cannot shoot an armed intruder even if he shoots first.
That's absolute insanity besides being an affront to liberty, which
begins at the individual in his person and property.

Yes, it's insanity for a good reason. It's not fact. Self defense is
allowed in every state in the US. Although some only allow enough force
to stop the attacker. IOW's, you can't put them down, then walk up to
them and keep shooting them til they're dead. Here, one can shoot a
burglar/robber in the back while they're fleeing. It doesn't matter if
they are armed or not.

In other words, you can murder people and falsely claim they were a
thief, as long as there are no witnesses.

In Baton Rouge you apparently only need to claim that you thought they
were a thief as we found out when some idiot killed a kid looking for a
Halloween party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori

I've lost track of this thread but is someone arguing for this "right"?

On 2/6/2011 4:24 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/6/2011 8:11 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:16 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/4/2011 11:54 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:55 am, Duane wrote:
On 2/4/2011 10:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 8:26 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Here both cycling and mv use are privileges which can be
restricted or
curtailed as the government chooses. I wish that cycling was
considered
a right but it isn't. The government can prevent me from cycling
anywhere that it wishes to prevent me. It was the same when I
lived in
Albany NY, Boston MA and New Orleans LA. Frank says that Ohio
guarantees
his right to ride a bicycle so I assume that other places beside
Ohio do
as well but not any that I've lived in.

I live in Boston and don't believe that to be true. I don't know
how I
could be prevented from cycling by the government since I require no
license or registration.

Can you ride a bike on 128?

I'm not saying it's some vindictive state conspiracy but they can
prevent your access if they choose. I'm not aware of any case where
cycling is prohibited without cause and I don't expect it to be
anytime
soon but that's not to say that it's a right.

Here, if there's a bike lane, they mandate that I use it. I don't have
a right to ride on the road in that case. I have a choice to take a
different road and usually do if the bike lane is not safe. Similar
laws
existed in Albany NY when I lived there. I don't remember many
lanes in
Boston (1987 - 1993)

Bikes don't usually need to be licensed nor do cyclists so it's
less so
than motor vehicles but it's still not a right to ride a bike IMO.

True. Bicyclists can be prevented from riding anywhere by statute or
ordinance. There is no constitutional right to ride a bicycle, and if
a legislature decided to ban them for legitimate safety reasons, then
they probably could.

One of the defects of the US Constitution is that allows government
too much power over individuals.

Sure. Except for rights that can't be curtailed as guaranteed by the
Constitution. In Canada we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No
mention of cycling there either.

Wish there was but there isn't. All that we need are a few loonies
cycling the center of the roads at rush hour, adding to the already
horrendous commutes and we'll see what happens there.

There is a constitutional right to travel -- which the TeaBaggers must
hate because it is one of those implied rights in the First Amendment,
but even that implied right does not guaranty travel by any particular
mode -- as we all know from highway signs prohibiting non-motorized
vehicles. Bicycles are prohibited in lots of places, and so long as
those prohibitions meets the minimal scrutiny applied to health and
welfare laws, then they are enforceable.-- Jay Beattie.


In reality, the government of the US restricts the rights of the
citizens in many immoral ways.

Absolutely. So what's your point? It's one thing to wish for a right to
be guaranteed and quite another to say that it is.

Why do you have a problem with injustice being pointed out?


I don't have a problem with that at all. Most of the time that I
actually agree with you is when you're railing against injustice.

But you seem to be pointing out injustice with respect to the right to
ride a bicycle in one post while agreeing that it's a right in another
post. I've simply stated that where I am now and anywhere else that
I've lived I've never been given an exclusive right to ride a bicycle.
I wish that cycling were a right, but it's not.

We have to deal with local laws and these are mostly created by the
majority. Best solution here would be to increase cycling so that the
majority rides bikes. Protecting cycling rights as a minority is more
difficult.

On Feb 5, 6:33*pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:57*am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI





$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" * *wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ * *wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. *Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. *Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". *Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. *Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. *Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private
lands -- generally given to utilites. *Governments can condemn a right
of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross
on to another's property without permission. There are some
exceptions. *In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law
that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a
****er for a lot of beach front property owners.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast

By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property.
If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use
property, that is called a license. *You have an implied license to go
in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for
trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get
out. *The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to
the highway or graze on your property. *Those laws have been trimmed
way back in most range states. *I am not aware of any statute or
common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private
property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always
been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. *The earliest common law
actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie.

Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not
shooting or otherwise obtaining game.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

FFS hunting is hunting, "fox hunting" with hounds is considered a
sport. *Deer is wild and wildly available, should you have permission
from the landowner. *We do eat the stuff along with hare, rabbit, hog,
pheasant, partridge, pigeon. * *It's all hunted because trapping is
mostly illegal. *It's just that 98% of the poulation hun ttheir
chicken down in the supemarket. *The Hunt means a fox hunt with hounds
but hunting is still widespread.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David Scheidt pointed out to me in an e-mail that the trespassing
while hunting issue is handled differently in different states. I
found this wiki-like entry that summarizings the issue:

A hunting license is not a license to trespass, but state laws treat
hunters differently when it comes to trespassing. Some states have
laws that specifically address trespassing while hunting, and others
rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of the state. In about
half of the states posting is not required to prevent trespassing;
that is, it is against the law for hunters to trespass on private
property without the landowner's permission even if the land is not
posted. Where posting is required, some states have laws specifying
how to post land. In some states, trespass while in possession of a
firearm is a FELONY punishable by IMPRISONMENT for up to five years
and/or a fine up to $5,000. A few states have laws that address
hunters trespassing to retrieve dogs or wounded animals. In most
states, however, hunters may not retrieve dogs or wounded animals if
they cannot legally hunt on that land.


Oregon law is:

ORS 498.120 provides:


“(1) No person shall hunt upon the cultivated or enclosed land of
another without first obtaining permission from the owner or lawful
occupant thereof, or the agent of such owner or occupant. No
prosecution shall be commenced under this section except upon written
complaint filed with a magistrate. The complaint shall be verified by
the oath of the owner or lawful occupant of the cultivated or enclosed
land, or the agent of such owner or occupant.

“(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the boundaries
of ‘enclosed’ land may be indicated by wire, ditch, hedge, fence,
water or by any visible or distinctive lines that indicate a
separation from the surrounding or contiguous territory, and includes
the established and posted boundaries of Indian reservations
established by treaties of the United States and the various Indian
tribes.”

Like open range laws, it places the burden of fencing or boundary
marking on the owner. The statute is not cross-referenced in the
criminal trespass statute, which I think is a little odd. -- Jay
Beattie.

On Feb 6, 3:20*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

I guess it's possible really anywhere for local authorities to put any
kind of restrictions on cycling.

Not anywhere. Ohio recently enacted laws prohibiting local
authorities from enforcing bicycling laws that fundamentally violate
Ohio traffic law. This happened after one cycling advocate pointed
out the existence of laws in certain communities that (for example)
required cyclists to dismount and walk across all intersections (!),
prohibited cyclists from using quite ordinary roads, required sidewalk
riding, and other silliness.

Admittedly, there are communities that have not yet corrected their
mistakes. But I used that Ohio law to raise attention to one bad law
in our central city, and councilmen have promised to repeal it.

For many decades now, the US has followed a transportation policy that
has favored/subsidized motor vehicle traffic. Traffic engineers have
been more concerned with delays than anything else, and road designs and
policing policy has reflected that priority. This creates a sense of
moral high ground on the part of motorists when encountering slower
traffic. That in turn generates a certain amount of self-righteous
intolerance.

I agree that we need to remove motorists' sense of entitlement. But I
don't think it's caused entirely by transportation policies; I think
it goes both ways - that transportation policies evolved to confirm a
sense of entitlement among the early (elite) motorists. For example,
I read about a wealthy British motorist in the 1920s or 1930s who
referred to cyclists as "road lice." I imagine that someone riding in
a coach and four in 1800 would feel that the lowly peasants should
scatter when he sped through. Both policies and attitudes need to
change.

I think a good part of the disagreement in this NG is people
misunderstanding or not appreciating the local context. What seems fair
and pragmatic on the streets of Boston may not be so in a hamlet in
Ohio, or among the hog farms of Iowa.

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. And a
lot of the points I make regarding bike facilities are based on
principles built into the Uniform Vehicle Code and standard traffic
interactions - that is, design principles and physics that don't vary
much from town to town.

- Frank Krygowski