Nuxx:86d47654-35e4-4c6c-a82c-51257a74fe41@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <86d47654-35e4-4c6c-a82c-51257a74fe41@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Critical Mass - Procession? Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:05:26 -0700 (PDT) References:     Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248300326 5605 127.0.0.1 (22 Jul 2009 22:05:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:05:26 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.52; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3503 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:719413

On Jul 22, 9:17=A0pm, "John Clayton"  wrote: > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > > >, perhaps motorists could have "processions" each weekday > morning and evening along primary routes, and then they wouldn't have > to obey lights etc either. =A0Presumably Doug would have no objection to > that? =A0(Especially since he often says that such "processions" already > occur when defending CM; if he's right, all we have to do is make them > "official" and the motorists concerned no longer have to stop > anywhere...sounds like a great way to get traffic moving!) > > > I've had nearly 200 miles of "procession" today from London toYorkshire o= n > M1 road. > Why do we need any more? > In my view less "processing" would be a better idea.

But the point I was trying to make was this: all we'd have to do is call the existing traffic (which would be there anyway) a "procession" (or lots of individual "processions"), and it could then ignore traffic lights etc. It wouldn't help on the M1 though (actually it might, because traffic lights on sliproads, roundabouts etc could be ignored).

I wasn't being entirely serious, I was just trying to demonstrate the idiocy of Doug claiming that CM was a "procession" when it had no organisers or pre-arranged route, and how using such a loophole to get round traffic law could suddenly blow up in his car-hating face if motorists were to also use it to their advantage as above. Especially since he's already claimed that such motor traffic *is* a "procession", so he can hardly suddenly start claiming otherwise when it suits him (although it has been said that Doug's been known to contradict himself when the going gets tough).

Of course, we all know really that neither CM nor rush hour motorists are processions at all, and thus traffic laws should apply to both sets of people. We can but hope that sooner or later this ridiculous loophole will be closed and the CM numbskulls will no longer be able to thumb their noses at the law (as well as other road users).