Blockade of King's Cross

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:27:15 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

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.

No, no, no - I think it will be *you* who is sorry.

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.



Feel free to explain to the Porker how you get the Google Groups kill-file to
work - as he is also unsure.

I see that you use Google Groups most of the time.


--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

On 31/12/2011 11:23, JNugent wrote:
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?

Certainly not - we all have a good laugh when people frequently take the
**** out of you.

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

The funny thing is, Mason hasn't realised that his completely
transparent use of the Keller sock puppet was rumbled by us trolls ages ago.

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.




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 31/12/2011 12:13, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 31/12/2011 11:23, JNugent wrote:
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?

Certainly not - we all have a good laugh when people frequently take the ****
out of you.

Hmmm... attributions *were* all present and correct... worrying...

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

The funny thing is, Mason hasn't realised that his completely transparent use
of the Keller sock puppet was rumbled by us trolls ages ago.

I didn't know that. To be fair, it's not something that would worry me either
way.

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 01:34:46 +0000, 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:
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.

So you consider a public space, such as a village green, a highway?

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:08:58 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:

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.


Southwark Cyclists will not support them because of the aggressive
tone of their letter.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:13:31 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:

snip


Southwark Cyclists will not support them because of the aggressive
tone of their letter.

Which of course will be interpreted by TfL as support for their
inaction, and agreement with their policy of prioritising motor
traffic flow over lives..

Shame on you.


You may find this very difficult to be believe : but some people have morals
and standards.

--
If the *******s won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID:
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 20:13:31 +0000, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Tom Crispin considered Sat, 31 Dec 2011
17:36:08 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:08:58 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:

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.


Southwark Cyclists will not support them because of the aggressive
tone of their letter.

Which of course will be interpreted by TfL as support for their
inaction, and agreement with their policy of prioritising motor
traffic flow over lives..

Shame on you.

Shame on me!? I had nothing at all to do with the decision, I'm not
even a member of the group. Here's the text of the letter sent to
Bike's Alive by Southwark Cyclists:

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

Dear Bikes Alive


Thank you for your email. I have shared this with my group Southwark
Cyclists. Please see our responses below.


Although we are by no means averse to direct action and share your
anger and frustration about the deaths of cyclists on London streets,
we don't all feel we can get behind your campaign, at least, not as it
has been pitched to us.


Of course we must challenge TfL's apparent reluctance to take cyclists
and their safety seriously, but your message is rather divisive. As a
group, we have years' worth of experience in campaigning and it has
never helped our cause(s) to be so virulently anti-motor vehicle
drivers or so generalising about them.


Of course times it can seem that only physical action that affects
traffic flow can achieve results, but some of us disagree with the
manner in which your campaign channels that anger and are not
convinced this type of protest actually does work in a profound way.
Furthermore, we consider that this attitude and emphasis on the danger
of cycling, is not a good way to encourage those who do not cycle to
start.


Many of us consider that our efforts are in fact much better spent
negotiating, badgering and meeting with the decision makers and of
course by riding our bicycles every day. Arguably the very best way to
make Boris, TfL, the government etc take us seriously is by critical
mass?


Apologies if this is not the entirely supportive response you were
hoping for but hopefully you will take all our feedback on board so we
can work together in finding a mutually acceptable way of expressing
our feelings and needs and improving the safety of all cyclists and
would-be cyclists.


Best regards,


Alex


feedback begins:


“I don't think this would stay non-violent very long. Violence is
quite close under the surface of many drivers (and some cyclists) and
I think there would be a fight. On Blackfriars the police closed the
roads. I agree completely with the points they make”


“I'm a supporter and practitioner over the years of direct action and
always have been, as I said. I was taking issue with how Bikes Alive
presented their case for such action and specifically, the choice of
language to present that case. I think the choice of such language
increases the divisions, hostility and competition between the
different groups of road users that much of the media already
fosters. It is not the action itself I have problems with, far from
it. It is the tone and content of the message being delivered with
that action.”


“I am sorry to be so pessimistic, but my thoughts are as follows about
the climate in which cyclists exist:

1. There is a deep-seated attitude amongst drivers that they can do
what they want, but others must not. Witness the high levels of
mobile telephone use, illegal turns, tailgating, speeding, parking on
the pavement and aggression between drivers of vehicles - let alone
towards vulnerable road users. These attitudes will take a long time
to eradicate.

2. A number of driver groups, e.g. the Association of British Drivers
and "Safespeed", argue that speed limits are too low and should be
advisory. The leader of Safespeed said on TV "Speeding is only a
technical offence". View their websites to see their attitudes to
traffic laws.

3. These driver groups have the ear of newspaper editors. We read
that the police are more interested in targetting "soft targets" of
drivers and allocate too many resources to drivers. The Standard has
had two articles by Simon Jenkins, who says the police are "fixated"
on traffic and complains about the persecution of drivers. I think us
cyclists believe the police do not do either of these - unfortunately.
4. Any radio discussion about the death of a cyclist will mainly be of
drivers who call-in only talk about cyclists on pavements and jumping
red lights. The public thinks the casualty rate amongst cyclists is
largely their own fault. This is appalling.

5. We have seen the behaviour of black cab drivers at demos, including
Blackfriars Bridge. But cab drivers are having their own
demonstrations, including about Olympic lanes. How many cyclists have
purchased a helmet cam because of the behaviour of cabs? I have met
several. I also met someone recently who was carved up by a black cab
and when she complained, he jumped out and threatened her.

5. In conclusion, I believe that TfL, especially under Boris Johnson,
will continue to work on speeding traffic up and that effective action
for cyclist (and pedestrian) safety is not a true priority.

I will be there on 9 January.”


“There is a deep-seated attitude amongst drivers that they can do what
they want, but others must not. Witness the high levels of mobile
telephone use, illegal turns, tailgating, speeding, parking on the
pavement and aggression between drivers of vehicles - let alone
towards vulnerable road users.. These attitudes will take a long time
to eradicate.”


“I think it's not a bad idea. It's different to the Blackfriars runs
because it's angrier. And i think there are reasons for people to be
angrier. And it's different to Critical Mass because it has a purpose.
Critical Mass explicitly doesn't.


I won't be able to go but I don't think there's any harm in having
some good cop/bad cop among the cycling community. After all, there
are all sorts of different cyclists.”


“Some good points made, and I would also support more direct action.
However, i felt the argument was spoilt by the biased and unjustified
description of motorists as a group being selfish and anti social,
bent on the poisoning and terrorising of other road users. Not
helpful, and exactly the kind of indiscriminate attack which cyclists
argue against when we are all labelled red light jumpers, ignorers of
the highway code etc. I don't see motorists as a homogenous group of
cyclist haters hell bent on destroying me, because they aren't . The
vast majority treat me with care and caution. The problem is we only
remember the careless and foolish, and very, very, very rarely, the
vindictive and unpleasant, because the implications of their behaviour
has such grave consequences for those of us not protected by a metal
cage on the roads. I see no way forward in the struggle to make our
roads safer for all by dividing people into polarised groups with
prejudiced and bigoted attitudes towards each other. The justifiable
anger which has been aroused by the deaths of so many on our roads
should be channelled into action to change the attitudes of the
relevant authorities with power to design a road system that works for
all. Not to foster rage and bitterness towards other ordinary
Londoners like ourselves, who just haven't yet been persuaded they
can leave their cars and enjoy travelling through their city far more
easily and enjoyably by bike.”


“Bike Alive's ethos is so different from my own that I cannot support
this event no matter how "constructive" it may, on first reading at
least, appear to be.”


“Regardless of the intention's Bike Alive has in creating the protest
action, the negativity and hostility by which the action has been
framed - us against them - with mass generalisations simply doesn't
encourage my participation. I don't know myself how to resolve the
problems between cyclists and motorists, but I'm pretty certain anger,
divisions and isn't it. Perhaps it does have its place and is
necessary in forcing the political powers.. I don't know. Perhaps, I'm
too passive; I'd rather lead by positive example.?Good luck, Bike
Alive.”


“I think that a cyclist demo stopping the traffic at Kings X for an
hour would end up in a punch up. Or the danger of mass violence would
be so great that the police would clear the road. Might be right
nevertheless but I think it's naive to think it would be non-violent.”


“Unfortunately the most effective way to show Boris that his current
policies are unacceptable is to disrupt the flow of motor traffic.”

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

On Sat, 31 Dec 2011 11:34:27 +0000, Judith wrote:




the Porker

--


snip



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

On Dec 31 2011, 5:36*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:08:58 -0800 (PST), Doug
wrote:









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.

Southwark Cyclists will not support them because of the aggressive
tone of their letter.

Typical! Let me see, I wonder how many of Southwark Cyclists are also
motorists who don't like to be challenged in this manner?

TfL has been made fully aware of its own shortcomings by similar
bicycle demonstrations, which held up traffic and no doubt caused
anger among some impatient drivers, so why not again with this one?
Would a passive and apologetic tone been any better? What about the
'aggressive tone' of many drivers who object to cyclists getting in
their way?

"In response to recent campaigns by cyclists and pedestrians,
Transport for London (TfL) has announced a "strategic review of
traffic movements" around King's Cross, including examining the
feasibility of returning it to two-way..."

http://lcc.org.uk/

Hmm! I wonder how long that 'review' is going to take and will
anything actually be achieved as a result?

"Hundreds of cyclists turned on Saturday 12 November 2011 to protest
against the lack of cycling facilities at London's 10 worst
junctions..."

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/hundreds-...ions-in-london

Clearly it is necessary to keep piling on the protests.

Doug.

On 01/01/2012 07:36, Doug wrote:
On Dec 31 2011, 5:36 pm, Tom
wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:08:58 -0800 (PST),
wrote:









On Dec 28, 1:46 am, Tom 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.

Southwark Cyclists will not support them because of the aggressive
tone of their letter.

Typical! Let me see, I wonder how many of Southwark Cyclists are also
motorists who don't like to be challenged in this manner?

TfL has been made fully aware of its own shortcomings by similar
bicycle demonstrations, which held up traffic and no doubt caused
anger among some impatient drivers, so why not again with this one?
Would a passive and apologetic tone been any better? What about the
'aggressive tone' of many drivers who object to cyclists getting in
their way?


Doug-Weapon, you need to face the reality that bicyclists are a tiny
minority. Only 2% of journeys are made by push bike.

Public money should not be wasted on such a minority, nor should drivers
be inconvenienced.

The opinions of cyclists don't count, they don't pay road tax.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University