Another pathetic dim witted tweeting driver...

[400bhp]

Actually there is no list of offences that can be issued an ASBO, it is up to the courts to decide if your behaviour warrents one, which is scary in itself! And if you look at what some have been issued for in the past you can see that cyclist can be in real danger, littering, swearing, rudeness, spitting etc!

I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social, rather it is society as a whole that decides that and so we need to educate people rather than wind them up by stubbornly keeping in the primary position when there is no need to and other such things as all that does is antagonist and leads to the sorts of incident we see on you tube!

Well, we can. Anti social is not defined by majority. If people think it's antisocial and it isn't then people have the right to continue what they are doing.

I think smoking in public is antisocial. It doesn't mean that people should stop.

 

[Zcapp96]

Well, we can. Anti social is not defined by majority. If people think it's antisocial and it isn't then people have the right to continue what they are doing.

I think smoking in public is antisocial. It doesn't mean that people should stop.

ASBO's have been issued for smoking in public!

 

[400bhp]

ASBO's have been issued for smoking in public!

I'm sure they have, in places they shouldn't have been smoking. But not for walking along the street.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

On the VERY rare days I drive to work I fund hundreds of cars in front of me holding me up.

They tear away from the lights as if they are in a race. Am I in my rights to ram them?

 

[classic33]

Do you remember the chap who tweeted that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport up if they didn't clear the snow in time for him to make his flight?

Do you remember how when he was convicted of an offence, most people thought it was ridiculous because clearly he didn't mean he was literally going to blow the airport up - and in fact he was cleared on appeal and everyone thought the whole thing had been very silly and a waste of time and money?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344

This reminds me of that.

It did get the airport closed and flights diverted though.
What was the final cost of that?

 

[classic33]

Actually there is no list of offences that can be issued an ASBO, it is up to the courts to decide if your behaviour warrents one, which is scary in itself! And if you look at what some have been issued for in the past you can see that cyclist can be in real danger, littering, swearing, rudeness, spitting etc!

I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social, rather it is society as a whole that decides that and so we need to educate people rather than wind them up by stubbornly keeping in the primary position when there is no need to and other such things as all that does is antagonist and leads to the sorts of incident we see on you tube!

See http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/receiving-an-anti-social-behaviour-order-(asbo).html for a brief guide to what they can be issued for.

 

[theclaud]

The is nothing wrong with the analogy, there is no legal entitlement to sleep and it is not against the law to wake someone up. We have decided as a society that being noisy at night is inconsiderate to others so if you are noisy at 4am you are going against societies view on this. Not everyone will have a sleep pattern that conforms to the rest of society either through work or social life. These people are in the minority so have to conform to the rest of society. They may need sleep at 3 in the afternoon but their neighbors may be playing music. Unfortunately for them this is not considered anti social as society considers this as 'awake time'. I was not saying anything at all about the virtues or otherwise of riding two abreast. All I was saying is that if society decides that riding two abreast is anti social that unfortunately it is because that is the definition of anti social!. I would love that attitude to change but we are not going to do that by antagonizing other road users, they need to be educated and a much heavier emphasis needs to be placed on cycle safety within the theory exam.

The analogy is crap. Anyone comparing the right to sleep with the right to overtake needs to get a bit of a grip. The bit in bold is cobblers. And if you think the theory exam is the answer to anything, then you will wait a long time for anything to improve.

 

[Zcapp96]

See http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/receiving-an-anti-social-behaviour-order-(asbo).html for a brief guide to what they can be issued for.

That's very vague and not a government site, there is not an official list because that would limit the use of them.

 

[classic33]

That's very vague and not a government site, there is not an official list because that would limit the use of them.

You never asked for a government list, that is a list that would be used in a court. As the site itself implies by its name.
But https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116655/dpr26.pdf

 

[Zcapp96]

You never asked for a government list, that is a list that would be used in a court. As the site itself implies by its name.
But https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116655/dpr26.pdf

And as quoted from your offical source:

"People’s understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour (ASB) is determined by a series of factors including
context, location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations (Nixon et al. 2003). As a result, what may be
considered anti-social behaviour to one person can be seen as acceptable behaviour to another. The subjective nature
of the concept makes it difficult to identify a single definition of anti-social behaviour."

And

"The list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive and it is likely that CDRPs and CSPs will be able to identify additional
examples based on local experience."


Which kind of proves my point!

 

[Zcapp96]

The analogy is crap. Anyone comparing the right to sleep with the right to overtake needs to get a bit of a grip. The bit in bold is cobblers. And if you think the theory exam is the answer to anything, then you will wait a long time for anything to improve.

No, you are absolutely right. Lets not try and educate people and make having to be able to show you know the rules of the road and how cyclist need to ride to be safe before you are allowed to drive a car. It would obviously be much more effective to antagonize ignorant drivers so they get so wound up they either run you over or hit another cyclist down the road. Great plan.

 

[theclaud]

No, you are absolutely right. Lets not try and educate people and make having to be able to show you know the rules of the road and how cyclist need to ride to be safe before you are allowed to drive a car. It would obviously be much more effective to antagonize ignorant drivers so they get so wound up they either run you over or hit another cyclist down the road. Great plan.

What "education" is required? Half a second's brain activity would answer the questions about why cyclists ride where they do - if we assume that drivers actually want answers. Are we acknowledging that the licensing standards are woeful, if additional education is needed to stop drivers running people over? If so, let's stop giving out driving licenses. "Riding to be safe" is riding with confidence that you are entitled to claim the space you need on the road.

 

[classic33]

And as quoted from your offical source:

"People’s understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour (ASB) is determined by a series of factors including
context, location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations (Nixon et al. 2003). As a result, what may be
considered anti-social behaviour to one person can be seen as acceptable behaviour to another. The subjective nature
of the concept makes it difficult to identify a single definition of anti-social behaviour."

And

"The list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive and it is likely that CDRPs and CSPs will be able to identify additional
examples based on local experience."


Which kind of proves my point!

You wanted a list, then an official list, then when presented with an official list you say that's not good enough.
Extract from the same document
"It defines ASB as follows:
‘Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of
the same household as (the defendant).’ "

We're now that far from the OP, that this thread bares no resemblance to the initial subject.

 

[Zcapp96]

What "education" is required? Half a second's brain activity would answer the questions about why cyclists ride where they do - if we assume that drivers actually want answers. Are we acknowledging that the licensing standards are woeful, if additional education is needed to stop drivers running people over? If so, let's stop giving out driving licenses. "Riding to be safe" is riding with confidence that you are entitled to claim the space you need on the road.

But you are assuming people who may have never ridden a bike or have not done so for many years know about road position for cyclists. They may just think that they should keep as far to the left as possible at all times as that is what they were told as kids back in the 60's or 70's. So when they are driving along and a cyclist ahead looks behind at them and then takes a primary position because they are planning to turn right or something they may think they are just being awkward and get angry. I am all for riding with confidence and claiming the space we need, but that is they key point, the space we NEED, riding positively but not aggressively.

 

[Zcapp96]

You wanted a list, then an official list, then when presented with an official list you say that's not good enough.
Extract from the same document
"It defines ASB as follows:
‘Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of
the same household as (the defendant).’ "

We're now that far from the OP, that this thread bares no resemblance to the initial subject.

I never asked for a list, I stated that there is no definitive list and your official source has proven this. Even the quote you have used backs this up as that too is very vague!