Everything is ok - BANNED - Police, Camera, Action(Video)

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by servumlibertatem

 

Well actually you already agreed to pay the amount when you used a road and ran the red light. No signature needed.

edit on 31/3/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

No, I'm arguing how he 'agreed' to pay an amount by using a road..

Do you argue that using a road somehow constitutes a contract to pay money? Offer, acceptance, consent, and consideration?

This guy is required to pay NOTHING, unless he contracts to do so.

There is an old maxim in law: "Let him that would be decieved, be decieved." If you think that you are breaking law by running a red light on a bicycle, then by all means, accept the contract from the PC and pay your agreed fine.

reply to post by lifeform11


Glad you're diiging a little deeper! Law is an fascinating subject, no?

reply to post by servumlibertatem


Actually he agreed to the payment when he broke the agreed laws. You can use all the road you want for free if you go by the same rules as everyone else.

reply to post by servumlibertatem


well i have to thank the O.P. not sure who it is, i am going back after this post to star and flag, if it were not for them linking that video, i would not of found the other material which is very valuable to know, i think i am starting to get it. but i need to watch things over again, just to make sure i understand it properly, it is hard to soak it all up in one viewing.

P.S.

everything is o.k.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by servumlibertatem

 

Actually he agreed to the payment when he broke the agreed laws. You can use all the road you want for free if you go by the same rules as everyone else.

Which 'laws' did he agree to, and what evidence do we (or the PC, in this case) have of said agreement?

There may be more of an argument in that respect had he been in a motor vehicle with a license as evidence of a contract to abide by some rules...

We could argue this point all day, but I would really encourage you to dig a little deeper on the subject I can send you some links if you like

I'm not arguing that society should not have any rules, or that there should be no consequences for...wrongdoing. I believe most of it is addressed in basic contract and tort law.

I DO however take issue with arbitrary detention and 'fines' as a hidden tax and revenue stream for the system...and the obfuscation of REAL law by volminous statutes and uninformed enforcers of the same.

He agreed to the traffic laws wherein somewhere there is a part that forbids the running of red lights. If you need evidence of the agreement watch the video. He is on the road with a bike.
It's hardly hidden tax. If there were no punishment for braking the rules then noone would bother to do so. Might as well have no law governing traffic behaviour.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by servumlibertatem

 

well i have to thank the O.P. not sure who it is, i am going back after this post to star and flag, if it were not for them linking that video, i would not of found the other material which is very valuable to know, i think i am starting to get it. but i need to watch things over again, just to make sure i understand it properly, it is hard to soak it all up in one viewing.

P.S.

everything is o.k.

My friend, you have only just begun...there is a reason some people spend their entire lives in the study of Law....but it has become something that it was not supposed to be.

When an average layman cannot conduct his own affairs without the help of legal experts, we know we have a problem...the law was meant for the people, and instead it seems it has become a tool of opression...but perhaps it is our fault, as the current state of things has been born out of our own collective ignorance.

What part of "dont run red lights" is so hard to understand by the layman? Sounds pretty forward to me.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Statutes are not LAW, they are given the FORCE of law by your consent...if you revoke your consent, is the force of law still in effect?

Of course not...because without consent, there can be no contract-one of the earliest fundamentals of law.

The ONLY way that PC can give that guy a ticket and have it stand is if buddy on the bike CONSENTS to contract with him.

I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp, but many people are doing it. Research it, I dare you

Originally posted by PsykoOps
What part of "dont run red lights" is so hard to understand by the layman? Sounds pretty forward to me.

What part of that statement is 'law'...sounds pretty straight forward to me

reply to post by servumlibertatem


Which he did by using the road. If he want's to raise issues with this he can vote for someone who agrees with him. Unfortunately for him most people agree to the rules of traffic and those probably wont be changed any time soon.

I hate smart arses like this. He probably thinks he’s clever. He’s probably been rehearsing this in front of a mirror for months. Completely unreasonable and designed to wind the policeman up.

He has committed an offense by jumping a red light. He needs to pay the fine and stop trying to out-wit policeman trying to do his job. The policeman is just trying to stop an imbecilic cyclist breaking the rules of the road, which to me is quite right.

For context, I am a victim of a cyclist hitting me on a zebra crossing because he did not think the rules of the road applied to him and what a twit he looked when he had to push his bent bike home. How I laughed through the tyre track across my face.

Regards

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by servumlibertatem

 

Which he did by using the road. If he want's to raise issues with this he can vote for someone who agrees with him. Unfortunately for him most people agree to the rules of traffic and those probably wont be changed any time soon.

'Using the road' in no way constitutes the necessary elements of a contract. Does he need a licence to ride his bike? No..ergo the act is inherently legal (and a human right to mobility).

He did what all 'free' people have a choice to do-contract, or not contract.
In this instance he recorded an excellent example of how to 'not contract' with a police officer who attempted to assert jurisdiction over him...and I applaud him for the example.

Needing a license is irrelevant. You don't need a license to walk. You walk through red lights you brake the law. That's how it works in real life. You cannot just declare "I'm a citizen of fantasyland and this doesn't apply to me." and at the same time use the same roads where the rules and laws are the same for everyone. Noone is forcing you to use the roads. You can go and live rest of your life on the mountains where you dont use public roads that have rules.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Needing a license is irrelevant. You don't need a license to walk. You walk through red lights you brake the law. That's how it works in real life. You cannot just declare "I'm a citizen of fantasyland and this doesn't apply to me." and at the same time use the same roads where the rules and laws are the same for everyone. Noone is forcing you to use the roads. You can go and live rest of your life on the mountains where you dont use public roads that have rules.

It's entirely relevant...luck up the meaning of 'licence' in a law dictionary.
I don't drive, if i walk through a red light, how am I breaking a 'law' that applies to motor vehicles? Thank you for making my point

If I walk through a red light and get mowed down, well, thats my own stupid fault, isn't it? That is my consequence for breaking a societal norm-we shouldn't jaywalk because we might get hurt.

You posit that walking through a red light is breaking some 'law', I posit that there is no such law but what you contract into.

I choose my fantasyland, you can keep yours And I guess we agree to disagree on the matter

That's just one example. There is tons of others too. You don't require a license to wear clothes but failure to do so in public is against the law. You don't require a license to own for example a katana but go and play with one in public to see how long it'll take for you to get busted. When you brake the agreed laws on traffic you're not just 'being free' and risking yourself. You are risking the lives of other people who are about. You never have the 'right' to play with other peoples lives. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the said laws. There are venues for that such as voting and courts. Once you use a road you agree to the rules set forth by majority and that's just the way it is.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Needing a license is irrelevant. You don't need a license to walk. You walk through red lights you brake the law. That's how it works in real life. You cannot just declare "I'm a citizen of fantasyland and this doesn't apply to me." and at the same time use the same roads where the rules and laws are the same for everyone. Noone is forcing you to use the roads. You can go and live rest of your life on the mountains where you dont use public roads that have rules.

Are you kidding me?

Walking through a red light is not violation of law. Traffic Lights only apply to "MOTOR" Vehicles..... Period. I can't watch the video because it's been made private, but if he ran a red light on a pedal bike, he didn't break the law, as the law does not stipulate a man powered cycle to be bound to that law.

You people are so brainwashed it's not even funny.

J walking is illegal, but the law specifically states if you cross a street on foot not in a designated zone, you are breaking the law.

You see, for that is how law works... it first stipulates the pretense and requirements of said law, then explains the rules of that specific law.

Dummies.

56 Stopping for a red traffic light or arrow

(1) A driver approaching or at traffic lights showing a red traffic light must stop.

Now lets see the definition of the word "Driver" as it applies to this context...

driv·er (drvr)
n.
1. One that drives, as the operator of a motor vehicle.

As we can see here, the law only applies to those operating MOTOR VEHICLES. No motor, no law broken.

You don't require a license to own for example a katana but go and play with one in public to see how long it'll take for you to get busted.

This is simply untrue as it's absolutely illegal to carry a Katana in public on your person. You would need an "open carry" weapons permit. Which is indeed a license.

As for the argument about indecent exposure and clothing articles... the law specifically stipulates the pretext for said crime....

It's not some unwritten rule, it's detailed.... It also has "exceptions" such as nude beaches etc...

There is no argument to be made that if it doesn't require a license it isn't illegal. In the case of this particular instance, the only people who can be fined for running a red light, are indeed holders of a license, unless they were operating the motor vehicle illegally, in which case, you get slapped with THREE infractions.

Driving whilst uninsured, as you cannot be insured without a valid DL, Operating a Motor Vehicle without the required licenses, as well as running the traffic stop.

If your vehicle doesn't require a license, it has no motor, and hence, cannot be considered a motor vehicle -- which this law specifically applies to. And as such, if the vehicle does not require a valid DL, then you cannot be guilty of running a traffic stop.

UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

(This is US law..... I'm aware the instance took place outside the US, so this may not apply, but probably does. In the US, the above scenario could never lawfully or legally take place.)

P.S.

Jay Walking has nothing to do with the color of the light, it has only to do with crossing streets in designated crossing zones.

I can cross at a crossing zone, even if the sign on the otherside is telling me "Don't cross." As the law doesn't stipulate that it must be green to cross, it only stipulates you cross in designated zones, *IF* and only *IF* a designated crossing zone exists.

So if there is no cross walk, you can legally cross where ever you'd like.

Video is down....i repeat, video is down

Shows over people time to go home or i will charge you with loitering.

Video has been made private?

Pathetic uploaders.
Anyhoo, if a mod can update the first post and swap the video with this one instead please.

To clarify the legal argument you all seem to be having, here is an excerpt from the UK highway code where the "alleged" offence occurred

68
You MUST NOT
carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine
[Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991]
69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]


Source


But damn some of you guys are anal, he allegedly went through a red light, they way you all carry on you would think he had raped and murdered your grandmother, jeeez guys with all that goes on in the world today is running a red light on a bicycle such a biggie? At the end of the day this was a UK citizen who knew the law and used it against a government official (in this case a police officer) who didn't know the rules he was trying to enforce. And if you can't smile at the whole incident then you really need to get out more and lighten up.

That police official wasn't worried about him going through a red light, he just wanted to issue a ticket, generate a fine and keep up his daily quota, and yes policemen do have quota's in the UK for how many tickets they must issue per day, they are used to raise money as well as enforcing the law