Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 08:29

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ed O'Brain
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
not sure if there's any more to this story but if true it's rather disturbing.

Here's a link to the details of the original charge

Quote:
Heres what the accused left after being found guilty.

Re: Ed O Brain's courtcase
« Reply #82 : Today at 21:33:15 » Reply with quote

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
All,

Thank you very much for your support. Without it I would be much worse off
and with your help I went down fighting.

I certainly put the prosecutor in his place, however the district judge had
already made up his mind (imho) before I was called to the stand.

The district judge in his summing up decided that I had a choice of using
thed cycle path or the main carriageway. By using the main carriageway I
made a bad decision as inconveniencing motorists when there is an
alternative cycle path is inconsiderate.

The judged dismissed much of what Mr. Franklin had said or written in his
report. He could not be satisfied that I would be more inconvenienced by
using the cyclepath than the motorists would be by me using the carriageway.
He did not accept how dangerous negotiating the traffic where the cycle path
went around the roundabout. the fact that these are the types of junctions
where most cycling accidents occur and also that these types off accidents
were more severe. He dismissed broken glass and doggy doo as nonsense and
was quite happy that I should progress along the cycle path at less than
twelve mph instead of over thirty on the road.

I think this judge was out of touch. He thinks bicycles are toys and treated
us like children.

I hope to be able to appeal but there are several things to take into
consideration.

Express gratitude to the CTC, CDF, forum members that came today and those
that have provided character references. Thanks particularly to Simon L3.

You have all been wonderful and I'm priviledged to know you.

A Telford CM sounds like a wonderful idea, even if it is a one off.

Please someone post the result to Cycling Plus forum. I don't have the
energy left.

Very warm but solemn regards

Ed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
and indeed the ctc have released this.

:banghead:

can't wait for even more nutters to start telling me to get off the f*cking road because the cops, the public prosecutor and the magistrate all say so.


Quote:
CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation

7th August 2006

Cyclist who refused to stay in the gutter loses court case

A cyclist who was prosecuted for obstructing the highway, whilst
cycling in accordance with the National Standard for cycle training,
has today been found guilty by a District Judge in Telford Magistrates
Court and fined £100 with £200 costs.

CTC member Daniel Cadden was cycling fast downhill on a single-lane
approach to a roundabout when he was stopped by police who believed
that the position he had taken in the centre of his lane was forcing
cars to cross the solid white line in the centre of the road illegally
in order to overtake. But rather than stop the cars that had broken the
law, the officers decided to charge Daniel Cadden with obstructing the
highway.

Cyclecraft, the book published by The Stationery Office on skilled
riding techniques, states: "The primary riding position (the centre of
one's lane) should be your normal riding position when you can keep up
with traffic, or when you need to prevent following drivers from
passing you dangerously."

CTC Director, Kevin Mayne, said "The police at the scene said that
Daniel should have been cycling well over to the left - effectively in
the gutter - but the judge felt that Daniel should have crossed three
lanes of busy traffic and used a segregated cycle track to save
fractions of seconds off the journey times of a few motorists. CTC
continues to fight a re-draft of the Highway Code, which says cyclists
'should use cycle paths where provided', in order to tackle the
attitude, held by many people in the judiciary, police and public
alike, that cyclists should be out of the way of motorists."

Daniel Cadden was supported in his defence by the Cyclists' Defence
Fund (CDF), the independent charity which was founded by CTC to provide
cyclists with support in legal cases. The CDF paid for John Franklin,
author of 'Cyclecraft', to appear as an expert witness for the defence.

Chair of the CDF, Colin Langdon, said: "This is an extremely
regrettable judgement and I fully expect it to be contestable. Daniel
Cadden clearly needs to take legal advice about the options open to
him. However, this is exactly the sort of case for which the Fund is
always in need of donations, so that we can defend the rights of
cyclists as road users and more generally to raise awareness of
cyclists' position in law."

To donate money to the Cyclists' Defence Fund, go to
www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk

Ends
For more information including photography contact CTC Media Officer
Yannick Read 0870 873 0063

Notes to editors

* CTC fears that the re-drafted Highway Code, which states that
cyclists should "use cycle paths where provided" can only increase this
kind of hostile prosecution of cyclists by reinforcing the perception
that cyclists should keep out of the way of motorised traffic. Earlier
this year, over 11,000 cyclists lobbied their MPs for a change to the
new version of the Code, which is due to be published next year.

* CTC is the national organisation for all cyclists in the UK and
Ireland, including children, families, and commuters. CTC has 70,000
members and affiliates and is the oldest and largest cycling body in
the UK. www.ctc.org.uk

* The Cyclists' Defence Fund is an independent registered charity,
originally founded by CTC in 2001. Its formation was prompted by the
claim of insurer Provident against the parents of nine-year-old cyclist
Darren Coombs who was brain damaged when hit by a car. Its aims and
activities have since been widened (see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk
for full details), but its focus is still on issues of cycling and the
law, including support for court actions with the potential to affect
the general position of cyclists or cycling in law.



and this

Quote:
The judge said he had known full well that following traffic on the
60mph route would be restricted to his speed because of double white
lines preventing overtaking.


hmm, does that mean that these same police will now be fining anyone not doing exactly 60mph on this road? There are plenty of caravanners and 40mph everywhere drivers who hold people up for far longer than a single biker ever could.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 13:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
out of touch & out of line :x

anyone know where the incident took place?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:14 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
http://www.shropshire-star.com/show_art ... ?aID=33940

http://www.shropshirestar.co.uk/show_ar ... ?aID=34096


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Sounds he's coming to grips with the usual cycling experience in this country.

What's happened since then makes it look like they're trying to silence a "troublemaker".

Any BiB want to comment on this case? Would YOU pull over a cyclist for riding on the road in a perfectly legal fashion?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
johnsher wrote:
Sounds he's coming to grips with the usual cycling experience in this country.

What's happened since then makes it look like they're trying to silence a "troublemaker".


or alternatively makes him look like someone with an axe to grind...

the land rover incident was clearly poor and pointless riding & bloody mindedness on his part... no need to get so involved on a personal level with the offending driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
ed_m wrote:
the land rover incident was clearly poor and pointless riding & bloody mindedness on his part... no need to get so involved on a personal level with the offending driver.

yes but I'm sure at times we all do some stupid things but there's no mention of anything other than him riding along in this case.

johnsher wrote:
or alternatively makes him look like someone with an axe to grind...

even if he was the world's worst car hating freak does that mean it's ok for the police/prosecutor/magistrate to go after him on the grounds that they chose to?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
johnsher wrote:
even if he was the world's worst car hating freak does that mean it's ok for the police/prosecutor/magistrate to go after him on the grounds that they chose to?


i certainly dont have enough information to decide if he was being deliberately obstructive and bloody minded or taking the safest line.
do you?

sure it sounds bad based on the CTC release and a post from the defendant!
who knows :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
ed_m wrote:
i certainly dont have enough information to decide if he was being deliberately obstructive and bloody minded or taking the safest line.
do you?

No but I know I'm "deliberately obstructive" (ie I ride in the centre of the lane) on sections of road where there's not enough room for motorists to get past safely because if I'm not they'll nearly always try it on regardless rather than waiting a few seconds.
Does this mean I'm liable to get arrested at some point?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
As a car owner and driver I'm no car-hating freak. I may have concerns over poor drivers which I have aired on occasion along with other views I have on other issues.

The piece of road concerned national speed limit, half a mile long between two 30 mph speed limits.

I don't use it on windy days, but on a normal day my average speed along this road will be over 30 mph.

It is on a route which is selected because it is generally well surfaced, with straight wide roads that have good visibility. This means on the sections where I'm going slower, drivers can pass easily with very little inconvenience. On the sections where the traffic is slower (around roundabouts and at junctions) I can easily fit into the traffic flow.

I have very few incidents on this route and no punctures since I started using it over 16 months ago.

The other main route takes me through more residential areas that have higher traffic flows on lower capacity roads and lots of traffic calming. This route, I feel, causes drivers much more inconvenience because it is far more difficult for them to pass me safely on longer, slower stretches of it.

I've also had a number of incidents, including a driver swerving to avoid me and hitting a bollard due to the restricted visibility. A 46 year old was recently injured in an accident on one of these roads.

When I started cycle commuting I used cyclepaths as far as possible. It's ironic that using the cycle paths (2.8 mile route) takes just as long as going the long way around on the main roads (7 mile route). Usual journey time is 20 minutes which equates to just over 20 mph average. Compare this to a drivers average speed at that time of day (including time spent sitting in traffic queues) and I would be surprised if it comes out much the other side of 30. It's down to about 18 minutes for me in the car. 15 minutes on a clear run. 13 minutes at night when there is no other traffic around.

I don't want to be drawn into a debate on this one, but I hope this ends some of the speculation.

_________________
It's not what you ride... it's how you ride it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 17:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
ed_o_brain wrote:
As a car owner and driver I'm no car-hating freak.

there was no suggestion that you were.

ed_o_brain wrote:
I don't want to be drawn into a debate on this one, but I hope this ends some of the speculation.

yes it does but it still makes absoutely no sense to me. Hopefully one of the BiB will be along shortly to either offer a hint or tell us their Telford colleagues are the plonkers they appear to be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 20:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I can't make sense of this at all. Was the District Judge barking mad? Or is there <some other factor> that we're not hearing about?

If there wasn't some other factor, I suggest that cyclists mass on that bit of road and call the press. :yesyes:

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2006 21:35 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
SafeSpeed wrote:
I can't make sense of this at all. Was the District Judge barking mad? Or is there <some other factor> that we're not hearing about?


i wonder the same.
pass.

but of course its not in his or the CTCs interest to present the other side.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 17:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Is there an appeal? There needs to be.

But an appeal isn't anywhere near enough - the case could be lost, and then what?

The cycling community needs to 'stand up and be counted' on the issue as soon as possible.

A publicity stunt at the scene, with letters to MPs as a follow up, is about the MINIMUM response. Is anyone organising a protest?

edit: Looks like I spoke too soon, if In Gear's view is correct.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Last edited by SafeSpeed on Thu Aug 10, 2006 02:20, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 17:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
SafeSpeed wrote:
A publicity stunt at the scene, with letters to MPs as a follow up, is about the MINIMUM response. Is anyone organising a protest?

There was a suggestion the local pony club should have a day out on the road in question.
Haven't heard about anything serious being organised though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 01:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Not attacking E Brain - pointing out why it failed. Ed -if you feel uptight about anything posted - skim to the bottom. Have line of defence which could have worked better and see if it's possible to use if you decide to appeal against this.

Have one or two issues here.

First the "Let's have a CM in Telford to protest about this!" :roll: :roll:

Yeah =- that sounds about right - create gridlock and inconvenience to other people who have nothing to do with this judgement or story. :furious:

Yep - that will make the "judge sit up and listen" - NOT! CMs are nothing but a nuisance factor - designed to impede the progress and journeys of other people and really - sigh - all they do is foster a very negative image of lycra loutish behaviour at its worst. :roll:

I do not agree at all about "massing this road" either. :roll:

In the tale with the Landy - riding on the inside - keeping up with it is not advocated in Cycle Craft. I posted up most of the contents along with my own police course notes on this site John Franklin certainly does not advocate doing that. That kind of riding would have :roll: me sniffing around your lycra clad butt! :roll:

Bottom line:

Road was NSL. It was not a narrow road. Guy was in a primary position - but at 30 mph on this road. There are a couple of lay-bys somewhere along and the Highway Code rule - Wildy's fave rule - (Ironically she posted up the thread over the weekend and stated that 144/145 are her faves. 8-) ) Bless 'er! :lol:

Rule 145 does say that you do not hold up traffic and pull over to allow others to overtake at first safest opportunity.

I rather think this was the issue here.

Let's just look at this more closely from how the courts see it. Remmber a judge is not interested in speculation - just the finding of actual facts as presented to him in the court. Obviously the defence was not perhaps a clear as it should be. I think it should be pointed out to these Cyclng wallies that emotion and subjective views cut zero in a court of law. It's either black or it's white. Courts are not running along the lines of Perry Mason, Judge Deed or the Roman handwringer Cicero who failed to get Millonus off the hook for a murder. [/b] (I read that for my O Level Latin. Recall thinking that he was a treehugging type at the time :lol: )





Quote:
cyclist who was prosecuted for obstructing the highway, whilst
cycling in accordance with the National Standard for cycle training,
has today been found guilty by a District Judge in Telford Magistrates
Court and fined £100 with £200 costs.

CTC member Daniel Cadden was cycling fast downhill on a single-lane
approach to a roundabout when he was stopped by police who believed
that the position he had taken in the centre of his lane was forcing
cars to cross the solid white line in the centre of the road illegally
in order to overtake. But rather than stop the cars that had broken the
law, the officers decided to charge Daniel Cadden with obstructing the
highway.

Cyclecraft, the book published by The Stationery Office on skilled
riding techniques, states: "The primary riding position (the centre of
one's lane) should be your normal riding position when you can keep up
with traffic, or when you need to prevent following drivers from
passing you dangerously."


But this was an NSL road. He was not "keeping up with the traffic" That was the point according to the BiB and the CPS. Had he been in secondary - traffic could have passed legally and with space. or room to the rider

Per Daniel's own post he says

Ed O Brain wrote:
The piece of road concerned national speed limit, half a mile long between two 30 mph speed limits.

I don't use it on windy days, but on a normal day my average speed along this road will be over 30 mph.

It is on a route which is selected because it is generally well surfaced, with straight wide roads that have good visibility. This means on the sections where I'm going slower, drivers can pass easily with very little inconvenience. On the sections where the traffic is slower (around roundabouts and at junctions) I can easily fit into the traffic flow.



If the road is wide - then even in secondary - he should not have been in the gutter - and there should have been room for the cars to pass without breaking the solid white rule.

I am sorry Daniel - no disrespect and please believe your views are welcome on this site. We are a friendly crowd on here. :welcome: I hope you do not read any "attack". Especially as I happen to have certain rif-raff - some fortunately more distantly- related to me :wink:


I am not attacking you - just trying to point out how and why the case went against you and why appeal may fail for you. I know that this would not be what you want to hear - and if you do feel upset - skim down to a suggested line for appeal below.

To be honest - we only charge people and serve prosecution notices or forward to CPS if we see no other alternative. Normally - we tick off, try to offer advice and only enforce harshly if we are faced with zero alternatives. That has been the way all the Forces I have served with did things anyway. OK - so going back more years than I like with my Met days.. but basically we all try to offer some professional discretion as a normal rule of thumb.


johnsher's artticle wrote:
CTC Director, Kevin Mayne, said "The police at the scene said that
Daniel should have been cycling well over to the left - effectively in
the gutter - but the judge felt that Daniel should have crossed three
lanes of busy traffic and used a segregated cycle track to save
fractions of seconds off the journey times of a few motorists.


Again - emotion. I could not see the photo in the link to the original - for some reason I got the little box with the red cross. But have now seen another photo of this road - and a secondary position would not have been in the gutter - large cars apart - it looks like most could pass without actually transgressing the solids and still giving Daniel some room. One of the Swiss and his chum is going to ride this road sometime to try to see the situation Perhaps I could ask them to see you and you all ride together and talk them through what happened. They are very understanding - and they are curious about this story.

Quote:
CTC continues to fight a re-draft of the Highway Code, which says cyclists
'should use cycle paths where provided', in order to tackle the
attitude, held by many people in the judiciary, police and public
alike, that cyclists should be out of the way of motorists."


Er - said in another thread on here - it already does say to use the paths where practicable. Bought my latest copy in summer 2005. :wink:

The lanes are not 100% segregated either. Most are a cheap paint job - to meet a target. Mad Doc is always writing to his Council to complain about the crass stupidity of most of them.. I agree. Most are not "practicable" - but where they are a safer option - I will use them. :wink:

I do write and complain about some silly ones - and let's just say I sometimes do fare a bit better than the Mad Lad. :lol: in Cumbria!

But no one is saying cyclists should stay out of the way of other road users. But there are fast roads which I definitely would choose not to ride on and there are cycle paths which I definitely and purposely choose to ride on.

The rest of the time - I engage in friendly co-operation and negotiation with other road users so what form of transport I happen to be using. This means adopting a secondary position or just pulling in to allow a stream of held up traffic to pass at earliest convenience to self and others.

For record - in my past - I have escorted loads - holding both a motorbike and a car (on separate occasions) at a speed which barely registered on the dash. We have pulled the convoy in on these occasions to let traffic pass and we also notify all radio stations to alert that "abnormal" is cluttering a road too. Yep - you think these are the bane of a motorway drive. You wanna try being the escort :shock: I can honestly say that the 40 miles along the M1 as a young BiB was quite a ":censored: experience. :o

But the point I am making is that you do try not to delay or obstruct traffic. (or should I say be perceived to be doing so by a BiB on what you may consider dougnhut duty :wink:

[size-9] Never obstruct a :cop: on his doughnut :wink: duty [/size]

article wrote:
Daniel Cadden was supported in his defence by the Cyclists' Defence
Fund (CDF), the independent charity which was founded by CTC to provide
cyclists with support in legal cases. The CDF paid for John Franklin,
author of 'Cyclecraft', to appear as an expert witness for the defence.


Ah.. but he does not say obstruct traffic in his book - and the other problem - pointed out... was not in the flow as this was not a 30 mph road but a 60 mph one.
:roll:


For Ed o Brain's benefit and just so that he does not think I am being wholly unsympathetic and this is in case he decides to appeal. He may wish to run this through with his legal rep.

I would not have run the defence on Franklin for starters because safe primary hinges upon being in a normal flow at the speed limit area - and this was impossible for Daniel to prove given the NSL limit.

I would have played the defence along the location of this cycle lane. Those Swiss boys will most probably be riding that as well to test it. But as I understand from the original as appeared in C+ magazine around March-ish - path serves the UPHILL riders and there may not be enough room for a downhill rider and an uphill rider.

Hence I would have argued that the lane was thus far too dangerous for me to use on the downhill on that basis. I would have left the primary v secondary positioning out of the equation completely if the issue was to do with whether or not a prudent rider should have used the lane.

I wish you had posted up your plight on here first Ed Brain - I think you may have found we may have thrown you this angle for fighting your case as there is a precedential ruling on prudence of NOT using a lane . :wink: Forget the case name - but think it was in our patch ca 2003/4. :wink:

By all means - if you appeal - see if you can run the challenge to the conviction along these lines instead.

[i] Case boils down to whether a prudent rider would have used that lane and if there is not enough room for downhill rider at 30 mph to pass an oncoming rider honking his way painfully up - then you can argue that prudence would forbid you use it :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 02:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
In Gear wrote:
I do not agree at all about "massing this road" either. :roll:


Just a publicity stunt to get the ball rolling if the judgment was on the previously described basis.

In Gear wrote:
Bottom line:

Road was NSL. It was not a narrow road. Guy was in a primary position - but at 30 mph on this road. There are a couple of lay-bys somewhere along and the Highway Code rule - Wildy's fave rule - (Ironically she posted up the thread over the weekend and stated that 144/145 are her faves. 8-) ) Bless 'er! :lol:

Rule 145 does say that you do not hold up traffic and pull over to allow others to overtake at first safest opportunity.

I rather think this was the issue here.

[...]

But this was an NSL road. He was not "keeping up with the traffic" That was the point according to the BiB and the CPS. Had he been in secondary - traffic could have passed legally and with space. or room to the rider


However, this looks like the 'some other factor' I suspected.

The central part of the case - you seem to be telling me - was wrong position on the road not failure to use the cycle path as previously described.

Does anyone know the actual road width? I reckon we need 2 feet (left of cyclist) + 1.5 feet (width of cyclist) + 3 feet (tightest passing margin) + 5.5 feet (width of vehicle) = 12 feet * 2 = 24 feet absolute minimum total carriageway width for this view to properly stand up.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 07:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
In Gear wrote:
Road was NSL. It was not a narrow road. Guy was in a primary position - but at 30 mph on this road. There are a couple of lay-bys somewhere along and the Highway Code rule - Wildy's fave rule - (Ironically she posted up the thread over the weekend and stated that 144/145 are her faves. 8-) ) Bless 'er! :lol:

Rule 145 does say that you do not hold up traffic and pull over to allow others to overtake at first safest opportunity.

I rather think this was the issue here.


so are the police going to start pulling over and fining EVERYONE who's holding up the general flow of traffic on such roads (and WHO NEVER, EVER PULL INTO LAYBYs TO LET THE MILE LONG QUEUES BEHIND THEM PAST)? The 40mph everywhere drivers, arctics, farm vehicles etc or is it just cyclists the police want removed from the roads?
THAT is the issue here - and as I've said above these people cause far more delays (not to mention danger) on the roads than a single cyclist on a half mile stretch of road but I've never seen or heard of any of them getting fined.


In Gear wrote:
[i] Case boils down to whether a prudent rider would have used that lane

IG, it saddens me to see you post rubbish like this. Cyclists are not obliged to use paths, prudent or otherwise. THAT IS THE LAW. NO QUESTIONS.
I wonder about the next person who causes an accident on an A-Road. Are you going to haul them in front of the magistrate because a "prudent driver" would have been using the motorway that was only a few minutes extra drive away?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 07:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 15:33
Posts: 25
Road is 10'6" wide which makes passing cyclists unsafe no matter the position they ride them.

Given the acceleration and braking between the two roundabouts on this short half mile stretch, I would expect the average speed of a car to be less than the NSL, considerably less at busy times such as at the time I was stopped.

There are no lay-bys along the road and I was riding 2-3' from the left hand solid white lane line, not primary position.

All of this is quite acedemic as the judge said I should have used the cycle path despite the difficulty getting on, the section under a bridge on which you are supposed to dismount and the junction that has to be crossed with two blind corners.

_________________
It's not what you ride... it's how you ride it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 08:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
I think IG possibly correct when he say it had to have been the position on the road und that perhaps a move in to secondary to allow the stream to overtake und then back out again may have been better. Of course, had he been in front of large vehicle restricted to 40 mph as 30 mph would not be deemed as "obstructive" - then this may not even have attracted any attention as such. They may have questioned the logic - but then the ace up sleeve there would be that even in secondary - large HGV would straddle und be too close for cyclist comfort.

Ed - Liebchen - think hard - were there any HGV in that line behind you? I mention because family alerted Andreas und Siegli to this thread. So far they decided to go take a look-see for themselves some time. Andreas says he would have asked BiB under cross-fire as ist his job to put a seed of doubt - which grow into hugest crop of innocence :wink:


There ist no problem with primary positioning on the roads where we know ist at pinch und we know that far too many do not have that spatial awareness where riders are concerned. Ist why we want COAST given a greater prominence that"speedy speed at 1 mph above any lolly ist dangerous und camera solve all ills" nonsense.

But this one boil down to the positioning und whether or not rider could have just eased off und adopted a secondary to allow the build-up to pass him legally .. und then moved out again.

There was of course the cycle lane. You say 12 mph in this? I did not know there was a speed limit on this but if someone honk his way up - then perhaps. Access dangerous as it meant crossing the busy road. I might have arranged photo or video giving clear photographic example of this danger. Does not matter if after the event - this was acceptable in the "woman und the apple case" to show up the danger. I would be asking the CTC legal why they did not suggest this. Would have had greater impact than asking John Franklin to write a report supporting his book for you regarding the primary positioning - which was arguably not right for this particular instance. Ist like anything else -- we take the advice - but we adapt according to each circumstance - nicht?

I think this was part of the problem. The other part was how the riding position affected the other road user on the day und whether or not there was space for rider to be comfy in secondary und small cars to pass without a straddle. If large 4x4, Van, People carrier, minibus behind you - then probably these would have straddled or broken the solid white rule - even if you riding in the gutter or along kerb itself. I am surprised your Counsel did not pin the BiB down in cross-examination as to car make which straddled und which were definitely illegal.. This would have put an element of doubt into DJ's mind as to "stroppiness" on your part on the day in question.

However, do not think this can be brought in appeal - but will ask Andreas or Siegli. (You have to be aware that in our homeland though - we have to use the lanes "where practicable" :wink: )

You say doggy-dos und debris on this path? I would have had a photo of this. I would also have had photo or video taken - a very short one showing how rider has to pick his way along these. That get the attention to the shoddy lip service to "facilities".

I think maybe more attention should have been given to the lane if the issue was "he should have used the lane" as we do not yet have any law which say MUST.

If issue was the road position being deliberately holding up.. then if lack of lay-bys or distance to get to these lay-bys - then defence should have focused on this - plus nailing the BiB to admit presence of large vehicles in the line behind which would have been dangerous to secondary riding position.

First thing I would have posted had this appeared on here und you could have passed this to lawyer to get Counsel to argue out for you.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.558s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]