Traffic Chaos Trafalger Square - Wednesday Mornings

kelsen

Gordon, you didn't for one moment think your post wouldn't open a can of worms did you, as well intended as it may be?

Obviously you're keen to get support for the demo, but thanks for the heads up nonetheless

Porgy

kelsen wrote:

Gordon, you didn't for one moment think your post wouldn't open a can of worms did you, as well intended as it may be?

Obviously you're keen to get support for the demo, but thanks for the heads up nonetheless

Gosh yes - we're all individuals with differing opinions. Who'd have thought it eh?

coopster_the_1st

Guys, (particular Porgy and Spen666)

Can we give motorcyclists a break and stop creating another them v us situation?

The OP has come on here informing you of why there may be traffic problems and the reason for it.

Yes, I do not believe that parking charges will extend to bicycles in the near future but I can see the OP's point for motorcycles.

On the whole, I think more motorcycles on the road is a better thing but only if cycles and motorcycles work together rather than another them and us group.

If all 2 wheeled transport came together, we would be a much more powerful voice against lorries, taxi, cars, potholes and other problems we face on the road.

Also and slightly OT, I think motorcycles in bus lanes is a good thing* as it makes other vehicles be more aware to check the lanes better before executing a manouver. It was last week a cyclist got cut up and near had an accident because a car decided move into a drive in a bus lane while the cyclist was using this space perfectly legally.

*as long as they act considerately.

ASL's is difficult but a slow accelerating moped help a lot to remove the pressure of vehicles wanting to push past cyclist when the lights go green. Maybe make ASL's bigger(2 or 3 car lengths) and enforceable and have left side for cyclists and right side for motorbikes.

My view on the OP post is they if they have started charging but not delivered on their promises of improving the parking then I agree with the motorbikers stance.

spen666

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Well that was the principle behind decisions to ramp up parking controls a decade or so ago - however - like anything compromise, mismanagement and politics have watered it down so it doesn't work like it should.

But can that be right? If the policy behind ramping up parking controls is to deter parking and so deter cars from entering the borough, isn't the solution to paint double yellows on every piece of road in the borough, so removing anywhere to park?

It doesn't have to be a policy to deter EVERY motorist. By making it more expensive, it will deter some people

amnezia

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

W1

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

gordon861

spen666 wrote:

You openly admit to breaking the law re ASLs when it suits you, irrespective of the fact it is a criminal offence


Re cycle lanes - Rule 140 of The Highway Code ( remember it is a code, not the law states....

140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply

Unavoidable does not mean because you are a selfish twonk and want to get to your destination a few seconds faster

Er I think I did say that I try to avoid cycle lanes, and I also stated that I do avoid the ones with solid lines, so your point is?

Entering the ASL is a Driving Offence not a Criminal Offence, there is a difference and as you are moving onto insults I might as well point it out. So are you saying that as a cyclist that you NEVER break any of the laws of the road, no crossing red lights, no illegal turns, no hoping onto the pavement ever? If you can honestly say that I think you are probably in a minority or just don't know all the laws of the road. Every road user, car/bike/motorbike, I have ever met stretches some part of the law when on the road.

If I was as you state 'a selfish twonk' do you think I would even have bothered coming here and bothering to write these long, admittedly sometimes rambling, replies?

I understand that the motorcycle community has a large number of idiots that often ride their plastic rockets only when it's sunny and think nothing of squeezing past a cyclist at 60mph with no regard for their safety.

I'm not one of those, I ride a quick bike all year round (except snow/ice) and try not to make other riders lives more dangerous than it already is. I knew I was taking a risk as a motorcyclist by coming here and posting but I figured it was probably for the best.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?

Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).

"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."

"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"

Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.

Porgy

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

That would be fine if their actions didn;t have negative consequences for others. But they do. Therefore they need to be regulated - and in my opinion not enough is being doen to reduce single occupancy use of cars.

amnezia

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

Well one person in a car is far worse for the congestion than one person on a motorbike so it does matter to me.

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?

Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).

"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."

"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"

Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.

I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.

It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.

tgotb

Gordon, another question (and, like W1's, this is in the spirit of curiosity rather than having a go):
Some bikes seem to have very loud exhausts; a few make more noise pootling along at 30 than my old Fiesta did when the exhaust fell right off. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just a case of manufacturers building bikes that sound 'cool' (and, presumably, owners modifying bikes for the same reason)?

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

That would be fine if their actions didn;t have negative consequences for others. But they do. Therefore they need to be regulated - and in my opinion not enough is being doen to reduce single occupancy use of cars.

Impossible to quantify and therefore hard to justify regulating for. The main person to be adversely affected by single occupancy of a car is that single occupant - again, more fool them.

There are equal arguments for reducing the freedoms that cyclists currently have - negative consequences (that can be quantified) which arguably require regulation. Careful what you wish for!

gordon861

kelsen wrote:

Gordon, you didn't for one moment think your post wouldn't open a can of worms did you, as well intended as it may be?

Obviously you're keen to get support for the demo, but thanks for the heads up nonetheless

Yes I knew it was a risk, but as I said I talked to a few cyclists that got caught up but most just filtered right through with little difficulty.

Despite what you may hear on the news we aren't blocking roads, all we are doing is refusing to filter or block crossings. We are also leaving a bike length between us and the car/bus/van/bike in front, basically riding as if you were doing your driving test. This is why we've had no problems with the police and infact had a very good relationship with the police that turn up. The space we are leaving should be enough to allow pushbikes to filter through fairly easily.

I wasn't expecting to get support for the demo from cyclists it was more a get the word out there plan.

W1

amnezia wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

Well one person in a car is far worse for the congestion than one person on a motorbike so it does matter to me.

You're presumably on a bicycle to avoid such congestion though?

Porgy

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

That would be fine if their actions didn;t have negative consequences for others. But they do. Therefore they need to be regulated - and in my opinion not enough is being doen to reduce single occupancy use of cars.

Impossible to quantify and therefore hard to justify regulating for. The main person to be adversely affected by single occupancy of a car is that single occupant - again, more fool them.

There are equal arguments for reducing the freedoms that cyclists currently have - negative consequences (that can be quantified) which arguably require regulation. Careful what you wish for!

I have to assume that you have never lived in south London near a major commuting artery. It's not pleasent and quite easy to quantify.

W1

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?

Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).

"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."

"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"

Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.

I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.

It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.

I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.

Porgy

gordon861 wrote:

kelsen wrote:

Gordon, you didn't for one moment think your post wouldn't open a can of worms did you, as well intended as it may be?

Obviously you're keen to get support for the demo, but thanks for the heads up nonetheless

Yes I knew it was a risk, but as I said I talked to a few cyclists that got caught up but most just filtered right through with little difficulty.

Despite what you may hear on the news we aren't blocking roads, all we are doing is refusing to filter or block crossings. We are also leaving a bike length between us and the car/bus/van/bike in front, basically riding as if you were doing your driving test. This is why we've had no problems with the police and infact had a very good relationship with the police that turn up. The space we are leaving should be enough to allow pushbikes to filter through fairly easily.

I wasn't expecting to get support for the demo from cyclists it was more a get the word out there plan.

I've no problem with the demo - i wholeheartedly support your right to protest - even block the traffic if that's what it takes.

At best though I don;t see your protest as relevant to me and at worst I find myself disagreeing with your cause. sorry. No hard feelings I hope.

Porgy

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?

Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).

"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."

"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"

Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.

I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.

It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.

I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.

It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

That would be fine if their actions didn;t have negative consequences for others. But they do. Therefore they need to be regulated - and in my opinion not enough is being doen to reduce single occupancy use of cars.

Impossible to quantify and therefore hard to justify regulating for. The main person to be adversely affected by single occupancy of a car is that single occupant - again, more fool them.

There are equal arguments for reducing the freedoms that cyclists currently have - negative consequences (that can be quantified) which arguably require regulation. Careful what you wish for!

I have to assume that you have never lived in south London near a major commuting artery. It's not pleasent and quite easy to quantify.

Only for 25 years Porgy!

I presume you're talking about negative externalities of air and noise pollution? In which case it is impossible to quantify those "negative consequnces" and therefore even harder to put a price on them for taxing purposes.

amnezia

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

Well one person in a car is far worse for the congestion than one person on a motorbike so it does matter to me.

You're presumably on a bicycle to avoid such congestion though?

I think we would all agree that traffic does hold us up at some point. I can't filter between rows of cars at top speed, its just not safe.

gordon861

TGOTB wrote:

Gordon, another question (and, like W1's, this is in the spirit of curiosity rather than having a go):
Some bikes seem to have very loud exhausts; a few make more noise pootling along at 30 than my old Fiesta did when the exhaust fell right off. Is there a good reason for this, or is it just a case of manufacturers building bikes that sound 'cool' (and, presumably, owners modifying bikes for the same reason)?

For the same reason some cars do.

I think it's a bit of 'cool' and 'power'. Some of these after market exhausts can make a big difference to the bhp produced by a bike. When you have a bike that weighs 200-250kg an extra 15bhp can be a big difference. My bike is totally stock but on a cold dry morning the bike has just a bit more go that it's noticeable, and that's just air temp/pressure. A lot of bikes are still tuneable like cars were up until about 15 years ago, when you could mess with the carbs/mixture etc and make a difference. Now days it just seems like a 'change the chip' and then lots of other bits to change anything on a car.

W1

amnezia wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

Well one person in a car is far worse for the congestion than one person on a motorbike so it does matter to me.

You're presumably on a bicycle to avoid such congestion though?

I think we would all agree that traffic does hold us up at some point. I can't filter between rows of cars at top speed, its just not safe.

Sure, on occasion - but I'd fight for the right for someone to chose to sit on their own in traffic if that's what they want to do, or to ride their bike, etc. There is already far too much nannying and regulation, it's getting crazy - it's supposed to be a free country!

A car sitting in standstill traffic represents little danger to me. A gaggle of motorbikes jockeying to overtake? I rather the cars thanks!

W1

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?

Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).

"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."

"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"

Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.

I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.

It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.

I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.

It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.

You're quite right - what I mean is, the "green" movement has been hi-jacked for revenue purposes, which completely undermines any legitimacy it has/had.

W1

gordon861 wrote:

kelsen wrote:

Gordon, you didn't for one moment think your post wouldn't open a can of worms did you, as well intended as it may be?

Obviously you're keen to get support for the demo, but thanks for the heads up nonetheless

Yes I knew it was a risk, but as I said I talked to a few cyclists that got caught up but most just filtered right through with little difficulty.

Despite what you may hear on the news we aren't blocking roads, all we are doing is refusing to filter or block crossings. We are also leaving a bike length between us and the car/bus/van/bike in front, basically riding as if you were doing your driving test. This is why we've had no problems with the police and infact had a very good relationship with the police that turn up. The space we are leaving should be enough to allow pushbikes to filter through fairly easily.

I wasn't expecting to get support for the demo from cyclists it was more a get the word out there plan.

Hang around, it's handy to have a leather wearer around here to tone down all the lycra....

Erm....

Porgy

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

amnezia wrote:

I'd much rather have more motorbikes and less cars. Its ridiculous the number of single occupant cars you see in central London during the rush hour.

But what's that to you? If that's how they want to spend their time and money, more fool them - but it's their choice.

That would be fine if their actions didn;t have negative consequences for others. But they do. Therefore they need to be regulated - and in my opinion not enough is being doen to reduce single occupancy use of cars.

Impossible to quantify and therefore hard to justify regulating for. The main person to be adversely affected by single occupancy of a car is that single occupant - again, more fool them.

There are equal arguments for reducing the freedoms that cyclists currently have - negative consequences (that can be quantified) which arguably require regulation. Careful what you wish for!

I have to assume that you have never lived in south London near a major commuting artery. It's not pleasent and quite easy to quantify.

Only for 25 years Porgy!

I presume you're talking about negative externalities of air and noise pollution?

not just that - there's a whole host of economic and social problems that come with living near a major arterial route - though they do tend to affect the poor more than the well off.

In which case it is impossible to quantify those "negative consequnces" and therefore even harder to put a price on them for taxing purposes.

there's been a lot of work on this over the years - so I really can't agree. Very easy to quantify - even in monetary terms. but it doesn't have to be monetary - there are all sorts of social economic indices that can be used - and there are many, many ways to solve this problem, money / cost just being part of the solution. Still - many books have been written on this subject and I'm not going to get into any detail here - I should have gone home 10 minutes ago.

spen666

gordon861 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

You openly admit to breaking the law re ASLs when it suits you, irrespective of the fact it is a criminal offence


Re cycle lanes - Rule 140 of The Highway Code ( remember it is a code, not the law states....

140
Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply

Unavoidable does not mean because you are a selfish twonk and want to get to your destination a few seconds faster

Er I think I did say that I try to avoid cycle lanes, and I also stated that I do avoid the ones with solid lines, so your point is?

Entering the ASL is a Driving Offence not a Criminal Offence, there is a difference and as you are moving onto insults I might as well point it out. So are you saying that as a cyclist that you NEVER break any of the laws of the road, no crossing red lights, no illegal turns, no hoping onto the pavement ever? If you can honestly say that I think you are probably in a minority or just don't know all the laws of the road. Every road user, car/bike/motorbike, I have ever met stretches some part of the law when on the road.

...

......

I refer you to your earlier post at 13:56

Filter lanes I avoid if at all possible esp if there's a pushbike in there, but of course the dotted ones other vehicles are allowed to go into them they just aren't allowed to stop. The solid ones I just avoid, also they are usually on the inside lane, motorbikes normally try to stay on the outside.

I also refer you to my post at 14:15, which you have selectively quoted out of context

You clearly do not know the law re cycle lanes

I think the 2 quotes speak for themselves.


Erm, I could not disagree more with you re the ASL offence being a driving offence only. Driving offences are CRIMINAL offences like it or not. That is why they are prosecuted by the CRIMINAL prosecution service, in a CRIMINAL court, to the CRIMINAL standard of proof.

Not all CRIMINAL offences are driving offences, but all DRIVING offences are CRIMINAL offences. That is also why they are referred to as offence. Argue it till you are blue in the face, but I have worked in the criminal law field for some 4 decades now defending CRIMINAL allegationsa, which often have included driving matters.

I can safely say I have not ridden through red lights, made illegal turns and never ridden on the pavement

Porgy

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

W1 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

I remember reading various documents from my time in the Green Party when councils had their "green awakening" - but yes - essentially i agree with you they have become money raising ventures - bloody councils eh?

Ah, now I confess to being one of the cynical few who regard green issues as something that the mainstream has ruthlessly hijacked for the sole purpose of levying new and ingenious taxes, whilst equally ruthlessly playing the green card to put down disquiet and dissatisfaction at a rising tax bill. (who'd've thought it of me, eh?).

"But you simply *must* pay more tax. It's so your children's children's will be able to walk around without a UV suit and a respirator on."

"Right. So that would explain why the money goes into the general taxation pot, and isn't earmarked for green issues, would it, Mr. Councillor/MP/Minister?"

Daylight robbery in the name of good conscience.

I don;t disagree with you - i was one of the Green campaigners arguing for more carrot and less stick - money back if you recycle - tax breaks for cyclists - that sort of thing.

It's all gone horribly wrong imo - and the way we've been headed is not the way to solve our environmental crises.

I completely agree with Greg - and I also think that more carrot, less stick is more effective without inducing negativity/anger. Sadly there's no revenue to be generated that way so it's largely ignored - evidencing the real underlying reason behind the "green" movement, much to it's detriment and to any genuine good reasoning there may be for it.

It's nothing to do with the green movement - this sort of thing is being implemented by one or other of the major parties. Unfortunately we're not getting pure green policies anywhere - I find myself - unfortunately - having to work with what's there - and not with what I'd like to be there.

You're quite right - what I mean is, the "green" movement has been hi-jacked for revenue purposes, which completely undermines any legitimacy it has/had.

No - it undermines the legitimacy of those who have hijacked us.

spen666

Porgy wrote:

....

I've no problem with the demo - i wholeheartedly support your right to protest - even block the traffic if that's what it takes.

.....

The right to protest DOES NOT include the right to block the highway. There is a specific offence of obstructing the Highway.

Road users, including pedestrians have a right to pass over the highway, not to block the same

Porgy

spen666 wrote:

Porgy wrote:

....

I've no problem with the demo - i wholeheartedly support your right to protest - even block the traffic if that's what it takes.

.....

The right to protest DOES NOT include the right to block the highway. There is a specific offence of obstructing the Highway.

Road users, including pedestrians have a right to pass over the highway, not to block the same

I'm not even sure that the right to protest exists in English law. Or does it?

I believe - whatever it takes, and yes I have partaken in blocking the highway on two seperate occasions for the best part of 12 hours - and I wasn't arrested - and many of our demands were met on at least one of those occasions.