Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:58:48 +0000, Judith wrote:


little Porker





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

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:57:31 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


If cyclists find roads hostile they should stop using a non viable form
of transport.

It is an extremely viable form of transport for many things.
I don't find roads particularly hostile.


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

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:50:53 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:30:10 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

Why 14?


Why not? Do you have a better suggestion?

(Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion")

Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance.


Requiring them to be insured in nothing to do with let or hindrance.

If the phrase really worries you - then they could be licensed at the same
time as they take out their insurance.

And the purpose of that would be?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:38:28 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 13:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
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.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.

So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?

The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned to be
insured against that risk.

That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would allow a
toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will agree
without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child neglect.

I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are
synonymous?

Road Traffic Acts refer to "public places" rather than to the highway. I
assumed you knew that.

Does that make the two synonymous?

On 31/12/2011 01:30, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:38:28 +0000,
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 13:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
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.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.

So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?

The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned to be
insured against that risk.

That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would allow a
toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will agree
without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child neglect.

I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are
synonymous?

Road Traffic Acts refer to "public places" rather than to the highway. I
assumed you knew that.

Does that make the two synonymous?

It does for Road Traffic Act purposes.

If you need insurance (etc) to drive on the A10, you need the same to drive
in the public car-park of Tesco.

But you already knew that.

It's possible to drive lawfully without insurance on a piece of totally
private land to which the public doesn't have any access, but it is more or
less pointless in transport terms.

On Dec 30, 4:40 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:35:23 +0000, Judith
wrote:

OH hello - the Porker has reset his kill-file yet again.

Nope, I just chose to look at one of your posts despite it being
marked as read on arrival, as they all are.


I feel sorry for you.
I never read anything by Nugent, JMS or Medjob, despite the fact that they
seem to be duty bound to reply to my posts.
A sheer waste of their own time.

--
Simon Mason

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.

In their latest BIkes Alive are proposing to make this a regular
weekly event.

"Unless TfL agrees to change its priorities as a result, Bikes Alive
will endeavour to organise regular road closures, with the aim being
to completely close down Kings Cross for at least one hour every week
until TfL comes to its senses."

As other road users, such as taxi drivers, motorcyclists, etc.,
sometimes hold public demonstrations to support their causes, and they
hold up traffic in the process, I don't see why cyclists shouldn't do
so also.

Doug.

On 31/12/2011 01:34, JNugent wrote:
On 31/12/2011 01:30, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:38:28 +0000,
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 13:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:


So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?

The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned
to be
insured against that risk.

That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would
allow a
toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will
agree
without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child
neglect.

I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are
synonymous?


It's possible to drive lawfully without insurance on a piece of totally
private land to which the public doesn't have any access, but it is more or
less pointless in transport terms.

Even as a 3 year old it is possible for you to drive lawfully without
insurance some motor vehicles on land to which the public does have access.
It is more or less pointless in transport terms, as is a 3 year old riding
a tricycle in a shopping centre.

On 31/12/2011 03:27, Simon Mason wrote:

On Dec 30, 4:40 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
Judith wrote:

OH hello - the Porker has reset his kill-file yet again.

Nope, I just chose to look at one of your posts despite it being
marked as read on arrival, as they all are.

I feel sorry for you.
I never read anything by Nugent, JMS or Medjob, despite the fact that they
seem to be duty bound to reply to my posts.
A sheer waste of their own time.

It really isn't all about you, though.

Is it?

If you choose not to reply to material which undermines "points" you have
tried to make (almost always unsuccessfully), that's your choice.

But you would do well to remember what silence gives (in a legal sense).

If you are unsure about any of the contents of the above you should consult
your legal advisor.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:28:44 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:50:53 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:30:10 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:35:52 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

Why 14?


Why not? Do you have a better suggestion?

(Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion")

Allow unlicenced road users use the road without let or hinderance.


Requiring them to be insured in nothing to do with let or hindrance.

If the phrase really worries you - then they could be licensed at the same
time as they take out their insurance.

And the purpose of that would be?


Sorry that you could not understand - I was aiming my comments at those with a
reasonable command of English - rather than a teacher in a junior school.