Mugging on N1, 1 December 2024 6am

[Mamil]

It's a first attempt at rallying support in the community of cyclists. We all going to ride Sunday anyway so it costs nothing to do it. Maybe it's the first of a series of these rides - maybe they build momentum to the point where it attracts attention - whatever the case - at minimum its a bunch of riders moving through the affected area - it may be a low level message expressed in a soft voice but as @Jbrsays its something.

 

[Dicky DQ]

On 12/3/2024 at 10:36 AM, Wannabe said:

We need to bombard all the role players with a constant stream of e-mails, including the Honorable Minister Barbara Greecy.

I will add their e-mails again.

1) mayor.mayor@capetown.gov.za

2) jean-pierre.smith@capetown.gov.za

3) alan.winde@westerncape.gov.za

4) wesley@pedalpower.org.za (useless to mail them, does not reply)

5) Louis.Cason@capetown.gov.za

6) TransportMinistry@dot.gov.za (Barbara Greecy)

7) Avril.Stephens@capetown.gov.za

Note that they are fully aware of the situation. 
COCT are not able to do much as the problem resides with PRASA.

I was also a victim in December, but I was not concentration and I was in my chops. Fortunately I woke up just in time and was ONLY almost knocked off my bike and all they got off me was my pump. They scattered when I turned around and chased after them (I am a big ish lad) 

Metro cops cant do anything as they are mostly random or attack from hiding so we don't have enough cops to be everywhere.
 

I am still firmly of the believe that vigilance is key in preventing this nonsense. As an aside, even if I had a firearm (for those that will pontificate for this), it would have been useless as I was not concentrating and in my chops.

Just stay alert and 99,99% can be avoided.

just my 0,02 ZAR

[Dicky DQ]

On 12/18/2024 at 9:10 PM, robbybzgo said:

Just image if 1000 hubbers put in R15 a month into a fund to put a security company on the spot/s patrolling in those problem areas until the situation is resolved.

I live in Durbs but I'd contribute...or maybe with every sale in bikehub, R5 is contributed to this fund.

(PS: we could apply same for other problem areas countrywide - this could be kinda revolutionary, just like a bicycle wheel..ha ha)

(Also posted on the CapeTown dangerous areas post)

Nice idea, but practically not viable. a Single entry level security guard costs about what you are proposing and you will need 100's.

[Dicky DQ]

On 12/19/2024 at 11:10 AM, Barry said:

So Barbra Creecy is harboring criminals? Is it possible to lay a charge or complaint with SAPS against the minister. Just asking not sure if it is even an option.

They are in court trying to get eviction orders. Strange how unaware South Africans in general are.
From once legal site: https://www.schindlers.co.za/squatter-rights/

Squatter rights

The law does not allow persons to unlawfully occupy property. However, it does require that when unlawful occupiers are evicted from a property, the landlord act in a way that is fair and lawful and that the eviction happens only after an order of court authorising same is granted setting out how the eviction is to take place. There are many laws that protect an unlawful occupier from being forcibly removed from a property in a manner that would offend the unlawful occupiers’ rights to property, family life, dignity and equality. Only some of the most important rights will be canvased in this article, as there are so many and a full exposition of these would require a thesis.

1. As explained above, removing a person forcibly without their consent or without a court order amounts to unlawful vigilantism (self-help) and is not protected by our law. In the event that any person or organisation is unlawfully removed from a property, that person will be able to approach a court for an order to declare the removal unlawful, to declare that they are entitled to return to the property until such time as a court order sanctioning their removal has been obtained, and further obtaining a punitive cost order (for the legal fees incurred in having to bring the matter to court to protect their right). 

2. In relation to residential tenants, the law protects them even further. Various pieces of legislation make it unlawful for a landowner to remove doors on buildings, lock tenants out, turn off the supply of electricity or water to the property, or basically do anything that would violate the tenant’s ability to use and enjoy the property as the tenant sees fit (where any of these thing are done without the tenant’s consent or without an order of court). This applies to business organisations that are squatting too, although to a lesser degree, to the extent that it is sometimes arguable that the deprivation of a certain service (e.g. cutting of electricity, telephone, internet, etc.) is lawful in certain circumstances. 

3. The protection afforded to residential and business occupants (namely not to be forcibly removed from the property without a court order) extends to situations where the right to occupy the property once existed but no longer exists (for example where a lease has expired), and also to a situation where there never was a right to occupy given to the occupiers in the first place (such as where a land invasion occurs and people who are not authorised by the owner simply moved onto the land or into the building and occupy the property without permission of owner).

4. In all of these cases the land owner needs to approach a court for an order declaring that it is lawful to evict the unlawful occupier, and this order will not be granted by the court unless the court is satisfied that firstly, the unlawful occupier stands to be evicted in terms of our law and secondly, that the terms of the eviction will be just and equitable to the occupier. 

5. What is just and equitable when it comes to an eviction is left up to the discretion of the court. In most cases the courts are much more protective of the rights of individual human beings to dignity, equality, housing and property, than they are to business organisations which are being evicted (obviously because business organisations don’t have human rights in a way that natural persons do).

Conclusion

Although squatters do not have the right to unlawfully occupy property, they do have the right to be evicted only after an order of court has been granted, which sets out the terms upon which the eviction can take place in order to ensure that it is just and equitable. 

What is “just and equitable” depends from one situation to the next, so consult with your attorney if you require advice on how to go about dealing with unlawful occupiers.

[robbybzgo]

13 minutes ago, Dicky DQ said:

Nice idea, but practically not viable. a Single entry level security guard costs about what you are proposing and you will need 100's.

Just one guard on duty with binoculars and a radio on the lookout near the critical area to radio their control room to send a van AND to notify SAPS would make a significant impact. Maybe a siren located nearby (out of easy reach) that is remotely triggered could also serve to scare off would-be attackers and alert cyclists. 

Maybe your mommy didn't teach you: "if you don't succeed, try and TRY again".

Any trial run is better than none at all.

(100 guards at 100m intervals for 10km - that's a bit of pie in the sky reasoning?)

[Barry]

15 minutes ago, Dicky DQ said:

They are in court trying to get eviction orders. Strange how unaware South Africans in general are.
From once legal site: https://www.schindlers.co.za/squatter-rights/

Squatter rights

The law does not allow persons to unlawfully occupy property. However, it does require that when unlawful occupiers are evicted from a property, the landlord act in a way that is fair and lawful and that the eviction happens only after an order of court authorising same is granted setting out how the eviction is to take place. There are many laws that protect an unlawful occupier from being forcibly removed from a property in a manner that would offend the unlawful occupiers’ rights to property, family life, dignity and equality. Only some of the most important rights will be canvased in this article, as there are so many and a full exposition of these would require a thesis.

1. As explained above, removing a person forcibly without their consent or without a court order amounts to unlawful vigilantism (self-help) and is not protected by our law. In the event that any person or organisation is unlawfully removed from a property, that person will be able to approach a court for an order to declare the removal unlawful, to declare that they are entitled to return to the property until such time as a court order sanctioning their removal has been obtained, and further obtaining a punitive cost order (for the legal fees incurred in having to bring the matter to court to protect their right). 

2. In relation to residential tenants, the law protects them even further. Various pieces of legislation make it unlawful for a landowner to remove doors on buildings, lock tenants out, turn off the supply of electricity or water to the property, or basically do anything that would violate the tenant’s ability to use and enjoy the property as the tenant sees fit (where any of these thing are done without the tenant’s consent or without an order of court). This applies to business organisations that are squatting too, although to a lesser degree, to the extent that it is sometimes arguable that the deprivation of a certain service (e.g. cutting of electricity, telephone, internet, etc.) is lawful in certain circumstances. 

3. The protection afforded to residential and business occupants (namely not to be forcibly removed from the property without a court order) extends to situations where the right to occupy the property once existed but no longer exists (for example where a lease has expired), and also to a situation where there never was a right to occupy given to the occupiers in the first place (such as where a land invasion occurs and people who are not authorised by the owner simply moved onto the land or into the building and occupy the property without permission of owner).

4. In all of these cases the land owner needs to approach a court for an order declaring that it is lawful to evict the unlawful occupier, and this order will not be granted by the court unless the court is satisfied that firstly, the unlawful occupier stands to be evicted in terms of our law and secondly, that the terms of the eviction will be just and equitable to the occupier. 

5. What is just and equitable when it comes to an eviction is left up to the discretion of the court. In most cases the courts are much more protective of the rights of individual human beings to dignity, equality, housing and property, than they are to business organisations which are being evicted (obviously because business organisations don’t have human rights in a way that natural persons do).

Conclusion

Although squatters do not have the right to unlawfully occupy property, they do have the right to be evicted only after an order of court has been granted, which sets out the terms upon which the eviction can take place in order to ensure that it is just and equitable. 

What is “just and equitable” depends from one situation to the next, so consult with your attorney if you require advice on how to go about dealing with unlawful occupiers.

Just send in the Red Ants 🐜 and wait for the fallout. Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask permission. 

[Dicky DQ]

1 minute ago, robbybzgo said:

Just one guard on duty with binoculars and a radio on the lookout near the critical area to radio their control room to send a van AND to notify SAPS would make a significant impact. Maybe a siren located nearby (out of easy reach) that is remotely triggered could also serve to scare off would-be attackers and alert cyclists. 

Maybe your mommy didn't teach you: "if you don't succeed, try and TRY again".

Any trial run is better than none at all.

(100 guards at 100m intervals for 10km - that's a bit of pie in the sky reasoning?)

Noted, but again Vigilance is your friend. 90% of all incidents can be precented. There are opportunist attacks from people that have nothing to loose. But they also typically will look for the unaware parties.

But that is just me. I have been cycling for 40 years and have only had this one recent incident and I know why.

There have been many more that were avoided. But of course these days everyone want someone else to do something for them.

As a total aside, I spend a lot of time driving in doge areas (Crossroads, Philippi etc.) Have had 2 smash and grabs and 1 armed hijack attempt. Again all cases were as a result of my low vigilance. Leave a gap between the car in front of you at a traffic light for escape route, don't leave things in cleat sight etc.

We are often our own worst enemy.

[robbybzgo]

1 minute ago, Dicky DQ said:

 90% of all incidents can be precented. 

But of course these days everyone want someone else to do something for them.

We are often our own worst enemy.

Is it that 90% of incidents can be prevented?

The major problem is, as far as I believe, is that this route is the main route used for all cyclists entering Cape Town city from the North Western suburbs. This being residents and tourists alike. If the city has built a cycle lane it shouldn't go past a dangerous area where muggings are very likely.

I think what you mean to say is that we become complacent. We don't all keep uppermost in our minds the dangers that we will likely encounter every minute/hour of the day especially when you've got the wind in your hair, moving at speed on your favourite bike heading for the waterfront and suddenly BANG, you're bleeding on the road fighting off thugs would are quite happy to end your life for the backup cell phone in your pocket.

(Or [very tongue in cheek] maybe, we should appeal to the thugs/gang's entrepreneurial spirit and get them to set up a toll booth at the dangerous bridge and for R10 you can proceed safely. A new empowerment project.)

 

[NotSoBigBen]

Easy now guys ... 😜

[Skubarra]

40 minutes ago, Dicky DQ said:

Noted, but again Vigilance is your friend. 90% of all incidents can be precented. There are opportunist attacks from people that have nothing to loose. But they also typically will look for the unaware parties.

But that is just me. I have been cycling for 40 years and have only had this one recent incident and I know why.

There have been many more that were avoided. But of course these days everyone want someone else to do something for them.

As a total aside, I spend a lot of time driving in doge areas (Crossroads, Philippi etc.) Have had 2 smash and grabs and 1 armed hijack attempt. Again all cases were as a result of my low vigilance. Leave a gap between the car in front of you at a traffic light for escape route, don't leave things in cleat sight etc.

We are often our own worst enemy.

I don't quite agree - the attacker almost always have the element of surprise + initiative, even if you are able to react quickly you are still at a relative disadvantage because you have to quickly process what is happening to you and also decide what is the best reaction while the attacker has the initiative and likely a plan of action.

Its not possible to always have a save distance between you & any potential danger. I have dodged 2 attacks on my bike over the past few years, both times were close calls an I had luck on my side, if those attackers were slightly more competent they would have had my bike and or phone twice.

[NickGM]

23 minutes ago, Skubarra said:

I don't quite agree - the attacker almost always have the element of surprise + initiative, even if you are able to react quickly you are still at a relative disadvantage because you have to quickly process what is happening to you and also decide what is the best reaction while the attacker has the initiative and likely a plan of action.

Its not possible to always have a save distance between you & any potential danger. I have dodged 2 attacks on my bike over the past few years, both times were close calls an I had luck on my side, if those attackers were slightly more competent they would have had my bike and or phone twice.

I ride bikes to relax and not get fat. I don't want to spend my time on the bike in a constant state of being prepared for an attack. It's not feasible. If this is vigilance then it's not for me.

[Mook]

7 hours ago, robbybzgo said:

Just one guard on duty with binoculars and a radio on the lookout near the critical area to radio their control room to send a van AND to notify SAPS would make a significant impact. Maybe a siren located nearby (out of easy reach) that is remotely triggered could also serve to scare off would-be attackers and alert cyclists. 

Maybe your mommy didn't teach you: "if you don't succeed, try and TRY again".

Any trial run is better than none at all.

(100 guards at 100m intervals for 10km - that's a bit of pie in the sky reasoning?)

This strategy is used with shark spotters along the penninsula coastline.

A lookout armed with binoc's and a radio.

[NotSoBigBen]

Saw some pics and it would appear there was a damn good turnout despite the hub naysayers 😜

Well done the lot of you! Any awareness created is certainly better than none

[Andreas_187]

Well done everyone. That was an incredible turnout. The peleton looked like it was 3km long

[Wannabe]

Yeah, I'm glad to report that there were just a tad more than 15 riders present.

Amazing turnout, thanks to everyone that pitched.  Anyone that has pictures and videos of the ride, please share it. 

Had a lekker chat with Mayco Member Rob Quantas at the Civic Centre, and he is now well aware of the condition of the "safe" cycle route, and the challenges that's there. They are having a meeting with all the major role players tomorrow, and there is definitely an urgency from COCT to resolve the issues faced.

 

Edited January 12 by Wannabe
Added content

[Mamil]

Probably about 250 riders?

So many punctures coming through paarden Eiland. Thanks to the guys who stayed with me.