Lawfully losing your marbles to a lorry


Lawfully losing your marbles to a lorry

Postby gar » 2 Oct 2005, 6:10pm

I have been musing the legal implications of
the Marble philosophy expressed by one of our
correspondents who shall henceforth be nameless.

If either the motorist or the cyclist were apprehended or both, what their positions be in criminal law?

I do recall on one occasion somebody doing this to me, although unknown to them I was quite a keen cyclist myself at the time. I certainly was hot driving fast or in any manner threatening to the cyclist who chucked it. It does provide quite a surprise to the driver, and more so if the window is smashed by it.

Does anybody else have any ideas on the legal implications of such an action against a marauding mortorist?

The criminal law principle that two wrongs make two wrongs and not a right is a carefully enshrined one by the constabulary
on the basis of doing better business at the Shop because of it! Charge them both!

What is more if the policeman were aware of it, he would not wait for either party to make the complaint. He might well press the charges himself against both the parties.

There is a humorous side to it, as the cyclist
may well say "I was only playing marbles your honour! I didn't mean any harm and this would be bound to draw loud guffaws from
anybody recognising the childish pleasure that all cyclists get from cycling, even for a serious purpose..

"This is no laughing matter. He might have had a serious accident!"

The cylist reply is very easy on all occasions.
Not half the accident I would have had if he had continued driving in the way that he was!

The world is not usually like this unless an agent provocateur motorist knew that you were standing at the side of the road with your bike chucking marbles at all and sundry, so went out and aimed for you with his engy wengy

THEN there would be a case!

You' re not likely to recognise a motorist soon enough to be able to chuck a marble at his windscreen because you know he has got something in for cyclists, and things happen too quickly to be able to chuck a marble at a motorist who gets too close to you.

All in all it is just marble chucking at motorists by mishievous..... Michael!

This may do the life long bikes only man a power of good. If you just hate motorists because they are motorists, then to get your
own back on the motorist per se, (a but like the USA UNA bomber getting his own back on society by sending unidentifiable bombs over 15 years.)................... then to get your own back
on their horrible life and death power over you,
chucking marbles haphazard at passing motorists as a hobby is a viable option, not a lawful one but a viable one.

Most important of all, it would give you power over them in exactly the haphazard way that motorists go for cyclists, and to exercise that power from time to time would be entirely unawful, but satisfying, to a life long bikes only campaigner.

I actually saw the point of the UNA bomber campaign, but he got life and deserved it.
The world may be going down a slippery slope to catastrophe and disaster but if you get caught
trying to put it right single handed consequences are dire!

The London cycling campaign like a nudist colony has safety in numbers for its demonstrations, and also police notification in
most cases so the individual vis a vis the group
protest is not a useful comparison.
Theirs is a lawful group demo. yours is an Unlawful solo effort.... and as you rightly implied not worth the candle.