CTC press release regarding bad news.
David Martin
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.
sothach
the rapist's excuse.
I know I shouldn't mention former European totalarian regimes on
Usenet, but wouldn't it be very effective to to stage a demonstration
against the HC changes should they come in: have people dressed as
Waffen SS (Traffic Staffel) directing cyclists onto the cycle paths,
with some big signs in 40's style and gothic writing imploring citizens
to keep the roads clear for the glorious Blitzkrieg, maybe illustrated
with a cammo Landrover with suitable markings. (Daydreams of a Cycle
Commuter, part 43)
wafflycat
"del" <$/$news/spam/$@sig.ukfsn.org> wrote in message
news:hr5mq3-...@node4.sig.org.uk...
> On Tuesday 08 Aug 2006 11:13 David Martin, wrote:
>
>> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation
> Has the story, that this press release refers to, appeared in any
> newspapers yet?
> --
> del 8-)
I was at the court yesterday, Nathan was too. We attended to just 'be there'
for Daniel & his wife, as I know Daniel from another cycling group. He is a
lovely lad, and his wife is a lovely lady. They have gone through hell
yesterday. If it had been me in Daniel's shoes, I don't think I would have
been able to avoid being reduced to tears and a gibbering wreck.
If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would be
entirely understandable. Not because Daniel is 'wrong' but because of the
stress, worry and hassle the legal system causes to ordinary folk. If this
is the case, I hope people can still offer support/donations to the
Cyclists' Defence Fund to enable it to continue its work in the future as it
is much needed. If Daniel is advised by the CDF to take it further and he
does take it further, I hope he will have the support of every single
cyclist who cycles legally on road. Daniel was cycling according to the
principles set out in Cyclecraft. John Franklin was in court yesterday in
his capacity as an expert witness. His entirely sensible and rational
evidence was ignored in favour of contradictory and uncertain evidence (IMO)
given by the prosecution.
Yesterday was the first time Nathan has observed any form of legal
proceedings hand it left him shaken in the sense that now he has no faith at
all in how the police and the legal system treat cyclists. Can't say I blame
him for that.
In the meantime, Telford is an advert for cycling hell.
Cheers, helen s
mikef
> Has the story, that this press release refers to, appeared in any
> newspapers yet?
>From http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=47443
"Judge fines cyclist for using road
National cyclists' groups reacted with outrage today after a
Shropshire judge ruled that a cyclist broke the law because he chose to
ride on the road instead of a cycle path.
Daniel Cadden 25, of Sceptre Close, Aqueduct, Telford, left court with
a bill of £300 in fines and costs after District Judge Bruce Morgan
found him guilty of inconsiderate cycling.
He was stopped by police on West Centre Way while cycling fast downhill
on his journey home from work at Telford Town Centre.
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.
Mr Cadden, who had denied the charge, told Telford Magistrates' Court
he did not use the cycleway on the other side of West Centre Way
because it was dangerous and slow."
MikeF
Bryan
mikef Wrote:
> del wrote:[color=blue]
>
> <snip>
> 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.
>
> MikeF
that;s interesting IIRc (maybe from ACF posts) the road was described
as a 40mph limit not 60. So perhaps the judge just thinks that it's a
60 limit. Hope he gets knicked next time he goes that quick down the
road. B@stard! I really can't believe this, and the police needa kick
up the @rse too, what a waste of time and money, for something that was
totally legal, good job they weren't an armed unit, they most likely
have shot him.
Fortunately for me the police in Lodon seem to ignore all traffic
whether committing an offence or not.
Bryan
--
Bryan
Slark
clearing PC Mark Milton who drove at 159mph
on M54 in 2003.
Graham
Andy Cox
this is the same district judge resposible for this:
http://tinyurl.com/ndkod
Cue allogations of car friendly cyclist hating members of the judiciary
(alegedly).
Andy Cox
citizen142
Bet you:
All the duty Magistrates drove in their cars to court.
Bet you:
All the Clerks and Solicitors drove their cars to court, also ushers,
clerks etc.
I could lose of course......nah I doubt it.
jcb...@googlemail.com
>
> 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.
This is very bad news indeed. Any suggestions as to what we could do to
help? Would it help to write to our MPs? Who was the blogging Labour MP
espousing cycling recently?
How about a petition? Or any other thoughts?
We should collectively do something about this - if this goes
unchallenged, it will be the thin end of the wedge for all of us (as
one who is regularly yelled at for using roads rather than crap,
unsafe, slow cycle paths in West London).
jcb...@googlemail.com
Cycling Group.
>From looking at the thread on Another Cycling Forum, Ed has encouraged
people who feel strongly about this to make a donation, no matter how
small, to the Cyclists' Defence Fund. I've sent them a cheque.
Brian G
suggesting that there is a growing threat to our right to cycle on the
roads, but now look at this. A policeman and a judge who apparently hold
that drivers of motor vehicles have a protected right not to be
"obstructed" by a cyclist who chose to cycle on the road rather than on
some sort of cycle path. This could very quickly get close to the thick
end of the wedge.
For now, I've also sent a cheque to the Cyclists' Defence Fund. It
seems like approaching the problem from the wrong end, but at least it
might help the cycling community not to have to lie down in the face of
this ludicrous threat.
--
Brian G
Roos Eisma
And for those like me who missed the button the first time and are too
unorganised to send cheques: there is a button "Make a Donation" which
links to Paypal. Virtual monies now paid.
Roos
Dan Gregory
Phil Cook
Front page
>http://www.shropshirestar.com/today/
Article
http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=47443
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Tony Raven
>
> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would
> be entirely understandable.
I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that
will be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My
cheque to the fund will be in the post shortly.
I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
following up all the reported offences.
--
Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
wafflycat
"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:4js1u9F...@individual.net...
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>>
>> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would
>> be entirely understandable.
>
> I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that will
> be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My cheque to
> the fund will be in the post shortly.
>
> I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
> reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
> cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
> the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
> following up all the reported offences.
>
Should you wish to donate online, the CDF web site now has a 'make a
donation' button on it, where you can, via Paypal, make a donation via a
PayPal account or with a credit/debit card.
Problem is, the judge made a specific anti-cycling decision, IMO. He's
decided that when cyclists have the choice of the road or a cycle path, if
they choose the road, they are inconveniencing traffic and are, by default
in the wrong. He even said that it didn't matter if the cycle path was
covered in dog poo or glass, the cyclist should use it. Danger to the
cyclist matters not one jot against 'inconveniencing' the motorist. It would
appear that if the motorist is 'inconvenienced' by say, a tractor doing
20mph on the same road, this is okay, but if it's a cyclist - orf with his
head.
Go figure...
iar...@hotmail.com
Cyclist who refused to stay in the gutter loses court case
An ourageous decision. Enough to make me prise my wallet from my
pocket. Donation made to Cyclists Defence Fund.
I don't know what path is open for an appeal but if there is any
options open an appeal must be made.
Iain
.
Paul Boyd
40mph on a 60mph road, that they will also find themselves in court?
How about tractors on country roads doing 20mph in a 60mph limit? Or an
HGV doing his legal maximum of 40mph on a single carriageway?
All of these are obstructing the judg^H^H^H other traffic. Perhaps the
arseho^H^H^H judge is trying to say that everyone must drive exactly
*AT* the speed limit.
Time to emigrate to New Zealand, I think! At least there immigrants
have to prove they can support themselves without the locals having to
pay more tax to support them. Whoops - wrong group!
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
Marc
£ect.com says...
> Should you wish to donate online, the CDF web site now has a 'make a
> donation' button on it, where you can, via Paypal, make a donation via a
> PayPal account or with a credit/debit card.
>
Done!
Dave Larrington
> reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
> cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
> the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
> following up all the reported offences.
I wondered about that. Could I get the polis to nick the bloke in the
Golf doing 35 all the way along the 60 mph section of my route home (I
drove yesterday (hangs head in shame))? Come to that, could they nick
the trio of spanners who overtook me on the same piece of road and then
bimbled down the best hill on the route at 40, when I was doing 46 and
was obliged to brake to avoid examining the exhaust pipe of a Rover 75
from the inside?
Or else we could just shoot the judge, burn the body and dance around
the funeral pyre, playing a violin?
Bah!
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Drugs are good, except when they kill you.
Dan Gregory
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>
>>
>> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that
>> would be entirely understandable.
>
>
> I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that
> will be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My
> cheque to the fund will be in the post shortly.
>
> I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
> reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
> cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
> the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
> following up all the reported offences.
>
lot slower than the average cyclist and are perfectly entitled to use
the road.....
Helen Deborah Vecht
Jim Price
> Does anybody know the local Pony or Horse Riding Groups? They travel a
> lot slower than the average cyclist and are perfectly entitled to use
> the road.....
It might also be possible to drive sheep or cattle along the road.
--
JimP
Knee dye same ore.
Adrian Boliston
news:1155032029....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
It seems that the police and the judge are accusing the cyclist of
completely different "offences"!
Out of the two accusations I'd say that the police *could* have a possible
case if a vehicle is not keeping left, as this could even be said of a motor
vehicle, lets say a slow vehicle on a *wide* single lane carriageway that
hugs the centre line making it difficlult for faster traffic to pass.
Without being there I cannot pass comment on the cyclists positioning, but
there is always a compromise when riding about allowing faster traffic to
pass yet still keeping a safe margin in case someone decides to overtake too
close, as if you are in the gutter and a large vehicle overtakes close you
could be squashed easily as you have nowhere to go.
On the other hand the judge seems to be taking an entirely different tack,
and is arguing that the cyclist should not even be on the road if a cycle
track is provided. As there is no case in law I cannot see how this
argument could legally win as there is no law forcing a cyclist to use a
path. The fact that the path was on the other side of the carriageway can
only weaken the judges case.
My regular commute has a newly "built" wide redtop path to my left for much
of the route, but i prefer to stick on the road as it would otherwise mean
crossing a couple of side roads and having to give way, and I have often
been overtaken by cop cars who have never stopped me to question why I'm on
the road, so it seems strange that the judge is basing his case on the cycle
path argument.
Marc
helen...@zetnet.co.uk says...
> Done!
>
> Done!
>
And reminded me to join the CTC
Helen Deborah Vecht
> and dance around
> the funeral pyre, playing a violin?
Sing Rickety-tickety-tin?
Toby Sleigh
"Marc" <initial...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f42f65ea...@news.btopenworld.com...
In article <WrKdnex4ssH...@bt.com>, w*a*ffŁyŁcat*@Łbtco*nn
Łect.com says...
David Hansen
<w*a*ffŁyŁcat*@Łbtco*nnŁect.com> wrote this:-
>Problem is, the judge made a specific anti-cycling decision, IMO.
Indeed. Action needs to be taken to re-educate him and the other
Huttons who think that way. What sort of Hutton is he and who deals
with his education?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Tunk
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>>
>> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that
>> would be entirely understandable.
>
> I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that
> will be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My
> cheque to the fund will be in the post shortly.
>
> I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
> reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
> cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
> the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
> following up all the reported offences.
>
As Daniel was found guilty of inconsiderate cycling (not that I agree)
would it therefore be possible to proscecute owners of vehicles
inconsiderately parking in cycling lanes? If so, if what evidence would
be required?
To quote the article in The Shropshire Star: "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."
Well, owners of vehicles that park in cycle lanes know full well that it
restricts the speed of following cycle traffic using the lanes.
Have any prosecutions successfully followed from such cases? If not, why?
Paul Boyd
> http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=47443
"Do you think cyclists should be banned from the road?" No bias there then.
Tony Raven
>
> there' for Daniel & his wife, as I know Daniel from another cycling
> group.
Helen, as you know Daniel, what has happened with the £300 fine & costs?
Is he having to pay it himself and if so is there a way we cyclists
can chip in to help towards it?
goo...@woodall.me.uk
Tony Raven wrote:
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
> >
> > If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would
> > be entirely understandable.
>
> I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that
> will be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My
> cheque to the fund will be in the post shortly.
>
> I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
> reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
> cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
> the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
> following up all the reported offences.
>
your donation. There's no lower limit now for gift aid (used to be
250GBP) and the charity will get an extra 28% (22p for every 78p you
give from your take home pay). Higher rate tax payers can also reclaim
the higher rate tax.
For people who want to give regularly, there's a scheme called GAYE
(give as you earn) where the money comes directly out of your pretax
pay. Especially for higher rate tax payers this saves one more hassle
on the tax return. You can also pay your GAYE donations into a "voucher
account". This means that you can then distribute the moneys as you
want and don't have to do it up front.[1] (This depends on your
employer running a GAYE scheme. If not you can still pay into a voucher
account by direct debit but higher rate tax payers will have to
remember to declare it on their tax return if they want to reclaim the
higher rate tax paid)
http://www.caf.org.uk for an example of one of these groups.
http://www.caf.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=7025 for voucher accounts
and
http://www.caf.org.uk/apps/charities/CharitySearch.aspx
Put cyclists into the search box, THE CYCLISTS' DEFENCE FUND is the top
result and you'll give 28% extra.
Tim.
[1] Typically, voucher accounts will "charge" a few percent of any
donation. The groups that run these schemes are non-profit charities
themselves and this is used to fund their own costs and also their own
charitable giving.
goo...@woodall.me.uk
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Dave Larrington <smert.s...@privacy.net>typed
>
> > and dance around
> > the funeral pyre, playing a violin?
>
>
> Sing Rickety-tickety-tin?
>
in my head for the next week! ;-)
wafflycat
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>>
>> I was at the court yesterday, Nathan was too. We attended to just 'be
>> there' for Daniel & his wife, as I know Daniel from another cycling
>> group.
>
> Helen, as you know Daniel, what has happened with the £300 fine & costs?
> Is he having to pay it himself and if so is there a way we cyclists can
> chip in to help towards it?
>
The money for current fine & costs awarded against him is taken care of,
whether or not Daniel decides to take the case to the next level (after
hearing from his legal advisors on this). That's my understanding anyhow.
The Cyclists' Defence Fund has taken his own legal costs/expert witness
costs on so far. So any money donated to the CDF will help replenish CDF
funds used up, make funds available for Daniel's legal bills should it go to
the next level and/or for other cyclists the CDF assists in the future.
Daniel has said to me he doesn't want money sent to him personally.
So folks, any donations to the Cyclists' Defence Fund will be gratefully
appreciated I'm sure of that and I've noticed elsewhere that some people are
saying this case is what has triggered them, at last, to join the CTC - as
the CDF was set up by the CTC.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/
Cheers, helen s
Tim Forcer
>
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>>
>> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that
>> would be entirely understandable.
>
> I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent
No it won't.
> that will be used against us legally until someone does challenge it.
It can't.
Decisions in the lower courts, while informative, do nothing in the
way of establishing "case law".
The danger would be that if other prosecutors used the same arguments
and other courts accepted those arguments, there would be a de facto
establishment of what is "reasonable"/"unreasonable" in law (and, at
least in the case of English/Welsh law, the test of reasonableness is
often applied). That could become incorporated into guidelines,
advice notes, briefings and training courses - even if it is
ultimately wrong in law.
If Daniel Cadden does decide that he can face up to the stress and
distress of further court hearings, then I hope he will get a more
rational decision and have his name cleared. And, of course, being a
decision taken at a higher level, such a clearance would do more _for_
cyclists than the current decision has done against in terms of
publicity within the police / prosecution / judiciary.
ISTMT one ground for appeal might be "victimisation". ISTRT if a car
driver is prosecuted for speeding, and is able to establish that they
were one of a whole stream of cars all breaking the limit, and that
other drivers in that stream were not prosecuted, then the prosecution
fails. Since there was clear evidence that, at the same time and
place, other road users were not prosecuted for alleged infringements
(crossing the double white line), it appears that Daniel Cadden was
singled out for prosecution.
IANAL, but I do have a little knowledge - which I know to be a
potentially dangerous thing!
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Brian G
>
> On the other hand the judge seems to be taking an entirely different tack,
> and is arguing that the cyclist should not even be on the road if a cycle
> track is provided. As there is no case in law I cannot see how this
> argument could legally win as there is no law forcing a cyclist to use a
> path.
Not yet. Listen carefully and you'll hear the next Daft Eric sharpening
his drafting pencil at a House of Commons near you.
--
Brian G
Tim Forcer
>
> I don't know what path is open for an appeal but if there is any
> options open an appeal must be made.
While I entirely sympathise with that attitude, I also note the
comments (elsewhere in this thread) of others close to Daniel Cadden
who have reported the considerable stress he has been under. IMO it
would be unreasonable to force him into the position of being an
unwilling champion of cyclist rights. If he feels able to go through
with it, great, and he will have my support along with everyone
else's. If not, then he will have my sympathy.
Arthur Clune
MJ Ray
> http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=3D47443
[...]
> 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.
So what? If this stands, I look forward to the Shropshire Police
prosecuting HGVs, caravans, tractors, invalid carriages...
Surely it can't stand.
bugbear
> Dan Gregory wrote:
>
> Front page
>
>>http://www.shropshirestar.com/today/
>
>
> Article
> http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=47443
Heh. The "your opinions" are good :-)
BugBear
Marc Brett
>Erm, not wishing to stir things up in a difficult situation, but I belive
>this is the same district judge resposible for this:
>http://tinyurl.com/ndkod
>
>Cue allogations of car friendly cyclist hating members of the judiciary
>(alegedly).
Seems Judge Morgan is partial to drunk-driving police officers too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/5220556.stm
District Judge Bruce Morgan said a custodial sentence was not needed as Fielding
had already suffered through the loss of his career and pension.
Right Honorable Petrolhead.
Adrian
saying :
>> 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.
> So what? If this stands, I look forward to the Shropshire Police
> prosecuting HGVs, caravans, tractors, invalid carriages...
>
> Surely it can't stand.
<wanders in from uk.transport> Now, before you all start on me, let me just
say that - yes - this is a totally bloody ludicrous tug and prosecution.
Absolute madness, and thank gawd it can't set a legal precedent...
BUT.
Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
Cyclists _are_ legally permitted to. So are invalid carriages (I'm assuming
we mean mobility buggies) - in fact, if they're 4mph, they have to use the
pavement. If they're 8mph buggies, they _have_ to use the road, and aren't
allowed to use the pavement. I don't know about 8mph buggies and cycle
lanes, though - but they all have a pavement-legal 4mph mode.
So - it comes down to *should* cyclists use cycle lanes or not, where
available? Personally, I tend not to. There aren't that many round me
anyway, but those that are are worse than useless. Should cyclists have a
right to use the road, even if there's a cycle lane available? Of course we
should.
Daniel Barlow
> Does all this mean that if, for instance, a learner driver is driving
> at 40mph on a 60mph road, that they will also find themselves in
> court? How about tractors on country roads doing 20mph in a 60mph
> limit? Or an HGV doing his legal maximum of 40mph on a single
> carriageway?
I get obstructed all the time in central London by cars that are not
keeping to the 30mph limit. Often they're doing as little as 8 or 10mph.
-dan
--
http://coruskate.blogspot.com/ why skate when you can talk about it instead?
Roos Eisma
>Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
>slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
>They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
>to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
>Cyclists _are_ legally permitted to. So are invalid carriages (I'm assuming
>we mean mobility buggies) - in fact, if they're 4mph, they have to use the
>pavement. If they're 8mph buggies, they _have_ to use the road, and aren't
>allowed to use the pavement. I don't know about 8mph buggies and cycle
>lanes, though - but they all have a pavement-legal 4mph mode.
>So - it comes down to *should* cyclists use cycle lanes or not, where
>available? Personally, I tend not to. There aren't that many round me
>anyway, but those that are are worse than useless. Should cyclists have a
>right to use the road, even if there's a cycle lane available? Of course we
>should.
Maybe the problem starts with only planning for 2 types of traffic: slow
pedestrians, and fast cars, ignoring an inbetween group. This can result
in some group being disadvantaged and/or endangered.
A number of busy fast roads in the Netherlands have a parallel route for
slower-but-not-as-slow-as-pedestrians traffic. This takes however more
planning, effort and money than painting a bicycle on the footpath.
The road I'm thinking of near where I used to live had a fair amount of
slow tractors from the local farms, and too many idiots couldn't wait to
overtake and ended up in horrible crashes or the neighbouring canal.
Roos
Pete Connors
<w*a*ffŁyŁcat*@Łbtco*nnŁect.com> wrote:
>http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/
A bit more into the kitty.
Pete
Alistair Gunn
> If he feels able to go through with it, great, and he will have my
> support along with everyone else's. If not, then he will have my
> sympathy.
<aol>Me too!</aol>
Something which has occured to me, and my apologies if it's already been
covered but my newserver died yesterday evening and appears to have
missed a large swath of articles, is surely the judge's ruling is
massively inconsistent?
If a cyclist is a motor-vehicle then surely it would also be illegal to
use the cycle lane, and if it's not a motor-vehicle (and so could use the
cycle lane) then it can't cause an obstruction under the Road Traffic Act
that was quoted?
(Must remember to post off my donation to the CDF this afternoon.)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
sothach
Slark wrote:
> It seems it was District Judge Bruce Morgan - who was overturned in 2003 for
> clearing PC Mark Milton who drove at 159mph
> on M54 in 2003.
And he was the one who prosecuted that market stall owner for selling
bananas by the pound. Is there anyway to get a juge de-bagged, or
whatever they call it, this guy seems to have a serious lack of
judgement.
Adrian
were saying :
> Maybe the problem starts with only planning for 2 types of traffic:
> slow pedestrians, and fast cars, ignoring an inbetween group.
I don't think so.
There _are_ two basic types of traffic - pedestrian and vehicular. Most
roads separate them, many rural lanes don't. Certain very slow vehicles,
such as mobility buggies, are explicitly classed as pedestrians. Others,
such as skateboards and scooters, are a grey area.
If some vehicular users can't cope with the fact that different vehicles
may be moving at different speeds, is that a problem with "the system" or
with those particular users?
I'd say the latter.
> A number of busy fast roads in the Netherlands have a parallel route
> for slower-but-not-as-slow-as-pedestrians traffic. This takes however
> more planning, effort and money than painting a bicycle on the
> footpath.
It also introduces the concept of separation (and, by extension
"entitlement") that leads to prosecutions such as this.
Can't say I'm surprised at it - just that it's taken this long...
Roos Eisma
>Roos Eisma (ro...@xs4all.nl) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>> Maybe the problem starts with only planning for 2 types of traffic:
>> slow pedestrians, and fast cars, ignoring an inbetween group.
>I don't think so.
>There _are_ two basic types of traffic - pedestrian and vehicular. Most
>roads separate them, many rural lanes don't. Certain very slow vehicles,
>such as mobility buggies, are explicitly classed as pedestrians. Others,
>such as skateboards and scooters, are a grey area.
>If some vehicular users can't cope with the fact that different vehicles
>may be moving at different speeds, is that a problem with "the system" or
>with those particular users?
Bit of both? The problem roads for me are the ones that are heading
towards being a motorway but aren't. The dual carriageway between Perth
and Dundee is increasingly upgraded with overpasses, because the road
feels like a motorway to too many drivers and they don't take into
account that it isn't and that there are trucks entering the road without
a slipway. On one hand we want a fast route to the next big town, on the
other hand we want a road that can be used by vehicles with all speeds and
local traffic, and there is tension between those wishes (and incrwasingy
slow traffic loses out, not fast).
>> A number of busy fast roads in the Netherlands have a parallel route
>> for slower-but-not-as-slow-as-pedestrians traffic. This takes however
>> more planning, effort and money than painting a bicycle on the
>> footpath.
>It also introduces the concept of separation (and, by extension
>"entitlement") that leads to prosecutions such as this.
I find this a difficult one. One one hand I see the downhill slope, but on
the other hand there are times when I personally prefer not to mix with
traffic moving at a speed much faster or slower than me. I don't want to
cycle on motorways, but I do expect that planners realise that cyclists
have a need and right to travel that route too, so a valid alternative
should be provided. And valid means useable for travel at 20 mph rather
than 3. I don't know what the cutoff speed difference is for me - depends
on road layout etc as well.
On "normal" roads maybe road design can help to make people aware of the
fact that they should expect slower users - having a road look like a
motorway doesn't help. Or design the road to accomodate different speeds
easier by making it wider?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the case for me is not just about
how the different users should use the facilities, but also how the
facilities are planned.
Roos
Alistair Gunn
> I know I shouldn't mention former European totalarian regimes on
> Usenet, but wouldn't it be very effective to to stage a demonstration
> against the HC changes should they come in: have people dressed as
> Waffen SS (Traffic Staffel) directing cyclists onto the cycle paths,
> with some big signs in 40's style and gothic writing imploring citizens
> to keep the roads clear for the glorious Blitzkrieg, maybe illustrated
> with a cammo Landrover with suitable markings. (Daydreams of a Cycle
> Commuter, part 43)
Going the SS route might not be the best possible idea IMHO. Probably
better to masquerade as the KGB/Soviet border guards ...
M-gineering
> A number of busy fast roads in the Netherlands have a parallel route for
> slower-but-not-as-slow-as-pedestrians traffic. This takes however more
> planning, effort and money than painting a bicycle on the footpath.
> The road I'm thinking of near where I used to live had a fair amount of
> slow tractors from the local farms, and too many idiots couldn't wait to
> overtake and ended up in horrible crashes or the neighbouring canal.
very usefull for overtaking a long tailback behind a tractor which keeps
to the main road ;)
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
Phil Cook
Yeah not bad. They weren't there when I found the "article" yesterday.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Peter Clinch
> If some vehicular users can't cope with the fact that different vehicles
> may be moving at different speeds, is that a problem with "the system" or
> with those particular users?
>
> I'd say the latter.
Not the answer you'd get from a queue of 20 car drivers stuck behind a
tractor for half an hour...
It's not a simple black and white case that applies with rigid cutoff
points for all vehicles on all roads.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Rob Morley
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Adrian wrote:
>
> > If some vehicular users can't cope with the fact that different vehicles
> > may be moving at different speeds, is that a problem with "the system" or
> > with those particular users?
> >
> > I'd say the latter.
>
> Not the answer you'd get from a queue of 20 car drivers stuck behind a
> tractor for half an hour...
>
driver - he's required to pull over periodically to let following
traffic pass.
Paul Boyd
> If that happens it's not "the system" that's at fault but the tractor
> driver - he's required to pull over periodically to let following
> traffic pass.
I've often wondered about this, and for caravans. I'm not saying you
are wrong by any means, but are they actually required to pull over? I
suppose I could have a look in the HC myself if I was that bothered
though :-)
Dave Larrington
145: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a
large or slow moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if
necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
No "must" in there...
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Do not top-post like a Cretinous Foul-Yob fit only for Stoning.
jone...@hotmail.com
> > 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.
>
> This is very bad news indeed. Any suggestions as to what we could do to
> help? Would it help to write to our MPs? Who was the blogging Labour MP
> espousing cycling recently?
>
> How about a petition? Or any other thoughts?
>
> We should collectively do something about this - if this goes
> unchallenged, it will be the thin end of the wedge for all of us (as
> one who is regularly yelled at for using roads rather than crap,
> unsafe, slow cycle paths in West London).
I understand the case will be appealed.
Regardless, this is an attack on the rights of cyclists to use the
road. The law is supposed to protect us. No one is required to follow a
law which results in an increase in risk to life and liberty. There is
already a body of science which shows bike paths to pose a higher risk
to cyclists than adjacent roads. John Franklin has studied their
effects in Milton Keynes. There is published research out of the US and
Dutch transportation planners have acknowledged the inherent risks of
their bike path system.
The injustice of the lower court decision needs to be discussed in the
media, particularly in the Telford area. Perhaps an organized mass ride
down the same stretch of road might be the way to draw attention to
this case and force some political action.
wafflycat
<jone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155132443.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>I understand the case will be appealed.
That depends upon the legal advice given to Daniel and then him having a
chance to inwardly digest it and make a decision as to whether or not to
continue. I know he is currently minded to continue, but it's been tough on
him and his family already.
The cyclist in me hopes the case will go to the next court up the chain.
The human in me will understand completely if Daniel walks away from this
now. He can't be forced to be a cycling hero.
Whatever decision is made, Daniel deserves our sympathy for what has
happened to him, empathy for the toll it has taken on him and support for
whatever decision he reaches on whether or not to carry on.
Cheers, helen s
Paul Boyd
> 145: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a
> large or slow moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if
> necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
>
> No "must" in there...
Well, I suppose that's close. I suppose "Do not" could be interpreted
as a positive instruction, rather than a suggestion :-)
There is a slightly ambiguous bit on the front page of
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/ regarding the use of the word "MUST".
Does that mean you can't be sent to prison unless it says "Must", or
can't be sent to prison or fined unless it says "Must". I tend to think
it's the former.
wafflycat
"Paul Boyd" <fr...@xyxabc.nl> wrote in message
news:44d9ecf6$0$941$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
In the HC, where an HC rule uses either MUST or MUST NOT, then it is
referring to legal requirements. The exact legal requirement it refer to is
identified by an abbreviation or two written immediately after the rule.
Example:-
46: At night your cycle MUST have front and rear lights lit. It MUST also be
fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if
manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors
will also help you to be seen.
Law RVLR regs 18 & 24
So to find out what the RVLR regs 18 & 24 are - you can find from elsewhere
in the HC what RVLR means - it's the abbreviation for Road Vehicles Lighting
Regulations 1989. So to see exactly what the law is on that point, you'd
need to look up said regs.
Cheers, helen s
Paul Boyd
> In the HC, where an HC rule uses either MUST or MUST NOT, then it is
> referring to legal requirements. The exact legal requirement it refer to
> is identified by an abbreviation or two written immediately after the rule.
That implies then that Daniel did not have a legal requirement to pull
over to let traffic past, which I would guess would have been part of
his (solicitor's) argument.
When I first read about this, I thought there must be more to it than
this, but it appears that there isn't. It's just a blinkered judge
making up the law as he goes along.
Like you, I hope it does go up to the next level, but having had minor
dealings with the courts before I will fully understand the reasons if
he doesn't proceed. The legal system in this country is stressful
enough even for a simple small claim, never mind something like this.
Eiron
> I know he is currently minded to continue, but it's been tough
> on him and his family already.
Tough? Only for a wimp.
It will be tough when Ken's registration scheme is universal and you can be
banned from cycling or have your cycling licence endorsed.
--
Eiron
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
Alex Potter
I took a tractor driving test, lomg ago before I held a full driving
license, and one of the questions asked by the examiner was something
like "what should you do if you collect a queue of traffic". The correct
answer was "pull over occasionally when you have an opportunity to do so
safely to allow the following traffic top pass". I believe, although I
could be wrong, that that is stated somewhere in the Highway Code.
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
wafflycat
"Eiron" <e1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jubb4F...@individual.net...
> wafflycat wrote:
>
>> I know he is currently minded to continue, but it's been tough on him and
>> his family already.
>
> Tough? Only for a wimp.
*plonk*
jone...@hotmail.com
> <jone...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1155132443.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I understand the case will be appealed.
>
> That depends upon the legal advice given to Daniel and then him having a
> chance to inwardly digest it and make a decision as to whether or not to
> continue. I know he is currently minded to continue, but it's been tough on
> him and his family already.
I got it from close to the source.
> The cyclist in me hopes the case will go to the next court up the chain.
>
> The human in me will understand completely if Daniel walks away from this
> now. He can't be forced to be a cycling hero.
>
> Whatever decision is made, Daniel deserves our sympathy for what has
> happened to him, empathy for the toll it has taken on him and support for
> whatever decision he reaches on whether or not to carry on.
Taking on the law is not for the feint of heart. So it may require that
someone else put his or herself up for human sacrifice. I'm sure
someone will volunteer. Not all of the outraged are here just ranting
on UK.RC.
JFJ
Helen Deborah Vecht
> Taking on the law is not for the feint of heart. So it may require that
> someone else put his or herself up for human sacrifice. I'm sure
> someone will volunteer. Not all of the outraged are here just ranting
> on UK.RC.
Many of the outraged on uk.rc have put their money where their mouths
are, so they're not just 'ranting'.
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
wafflycat
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <helen...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3130303037363...@zetnet.co.uk...
> jone...@hotmail.comtyped
>
>
>> Taking on the law is not for the feint of heart. So it may require that
>> someone else put his or herself up for human sacrifice. I'm sure
>> someone will volunteer. Not all of the outraged are here just ranting
>> on UK.RC.
>
> Many of the outraged on uk.rc have put their money where their mouths
> are, so they're not just 'ranting'.
Wot she sed...
Cheers, helen s
erics
"Dave Larrington" <smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4ju7jhF...@individual.net...
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> Rob Morley said the following on 09/08/2006 14:26:
>>
>>> If that happens it's not "the system" that's at fault but the tractor
>>> driver - he's required to pull over periodically to let following
>>> traffic pass.
>>
>> I've often wondered about this, and for caravans. I'm not saying you
>> are wrong by any means, but are they actually required to pull over?
>> I suppose I could have a look in the HC myself if I was that bothered
>> though :-)
>
> 145: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving
> a
> large or slow moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if
> necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
>
> No "must" in there...
how long is "long"?
how large is "large"?
how slow is "slow"?
how frequent is "frequently"?
...
Ian Smith
>
> <wanders in from uk.transport> Now, before you all start on me, let me just
> say that - yes - this is a totally bloody ludicrous tug and prosecution.
> Absolute madness, and thank gawd it can't set a legal precedent...
>
> BUT.
>
> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
> slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
>
> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
> to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
But there are plenty of places where they could legally use the
motorway. For example, I commute daily between very near junction 9
of the M25 to very near junction 10. Almost all the obstructive,
polluting motor traffic on the road that almost parallels the motorway
could be using the purpose-built route, leaving the roads nice and
clear for me. As it is, I get tangled in several traffic queues, and
am significantly obstructed by cars.
Why aren't these people prosecuted?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Smith
>
> There is a slightly ambiguous bit on the front page of
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/ regarding the use of the word "MUST".
> Does that mean you can't be sent to prison unless it says "Must", or
> can't be sent to prison or fined unless it says "Must". I tend to think
> it's the former.
It's an ACOP - 'Approved Code Of Practice'. There are lots of ACOPs,
particularly in the fields of health and safety. Basically, you can't
be sent to prison merely for contravening an ACOP, but if you do go
against the advice of an ACOP, you better have a jolly good reason
ready to explain to the judge.
If you break an ACOP safely, you won't go to prison. If you do
something dangerous when it gets to court the fact that you didn't
comply with the ACOP can be cited as demonstrating the dangerousness
of what you were doing.
Adrian
they were saying :
>> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything
>> else slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans?
>> Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
>>
>> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not
>> allowed to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
> But there are plenty of places where they could legally use the
> motorway. For example, I commute daily between very near junction 9
> of the M25 to very near junction 10. Almost all the obstructive,
> polluting motor traffic on the road that almost parallels the motorway
> could be using the purpose-built route, leaving the roads nice and
> clear for me. As it is, I get tangled in several traffic queues, and
> am significantly obstructed by cars.
You poor love. Now read what I actually wrote. All I said was that the
"What about..." was fallacious, and detracts from the overwhelming and
perfectly valid reasons why this shouldn't have happened.
> Why aren't these people prosecuted?
For the very same reason as this guy shouldn't have been prosecuted -
because they have a right to use whichever stretch of road they wish to.
Claiming they should use another route to avoid inconveniencing those who
can't use that other route is *exactly* the same logic that's brought this
prosecution on, and should be similarly deprecated.
Ian Smith
>
> Claiming they should use another route to avoid inconveniencing those who
> can't use that other route is *exactly* the same logic that's brought this
> prosecution on, and should be similarly deprecated.
Exactly. Give the man a prize.
I know you've come over from uk.tosspot, so your cognitive faculties
will obviously be dulled, but quite often round here we use something
called 'irony'.
Adrian
they were saying :
> I know you've come over from uk.tosspot, so your cognitive faculties
> will obviously be dulled, but quite often round here we use something
> called 'irony'.
Forgive me. My normally-perfectly-functional Irony detectors have been
blunted by the monomaniacal LycraFascists who normally come and see us in
uk.tosspot...
Ian Smith
That's entirely possible. No sane person visits uk.tosspot.
Tim Forcer
>
> mikef wrote:
>>
> > http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=3D47443
>> [...]
>> 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.
>
> So what? If this stands, I look forward to the Shropshire Police
> prosecuting HGVs, caravans, tractors, invalid carriages...
>
> Surely it can't stand.
AIUI, _technically_ anything and everything which uses the road (or
pavement, or right-of-way) creates an "obstruction" in so doing.
Therefore, in law, the question becomes whether or not that
obstruction is "reasonable", and/or has been specifically authorised
in some way (eg official bollards).
A quick Google could neither confirm nor deny this suggestion. Anybody
have definitive answers? Similarly, can someone quote the exact
charge in this case, including the cited section of a specific Act
which is alleged to have been contravened?
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
Peter Headland
> Should you wish to donate online, the CDF web site now has a 'make a
> donation' button on it, where you can, via Paypal, make a donation via a
> PayPal account or with a credit/debit card.
Thanks for that - made it possible for me to cough up from the wrong
side of the pond!
--
Peter Headland
Alan J. Wylie
More coverage:
<http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=256>
Including a supportive quote from someone unexpected:
| "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."
rot13 to find out who
Cnhy Fzvgu, founder of Fnsrfcrrq.bet.hx
also
| This weekend's Phil & Friends Ride with Phil Liggett in Sheffield is
| in aid of the Cyclists' Defence Fund.
P.S.
My cheque to http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/ has just been
popped in the postbox.
--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Danny Colyer
> how long is "long"?
> how large is "large"?
> how slow is "slow"?
> how frequent is "frequently"?
ISTR a legal definition of slow as 10mph or less.
--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Danny Colyer
> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
>
> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
> to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
Ah, but I looked up the road in question and there seems to be a
parallel motorway a mere km away:
<url:http://tinyurl.com/mm8x9>
:-P
jone...@hotmail.com
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> jone...@hotmail.comtyped
>
>
> > Taking on the law is not for the feint of heart. So it may require that
> > someone else put his or herself up for human sacrifice. I'm sure
> > someone will volunteer. Not all of the outraged are here just ranting
> > on UK.RC.
>
> Many of the outraged on uk.rc have put their money where their mouths
> are, so they're not just 'ranting'.
... guilt money for someone else to do the job.
Dan Gregory
> Adrian wrote:
>
>> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
>> slower-than-free-moving-traffic? <snip> HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh?
>> Eh?"
>>
>> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not
>> allowed to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
>
>
> Ah, but I looked up the road in question and there seems to be a
> parallel motorway a mere km away:
> <url:http://tinyurl.com/mm8x9>
Using the logic of the prosecutors shouldn't all motors have been using
that then?
:-0
David Martin
Danny Colyer wrote:
> erics wondered:
> > how long is "long"?
> > how large is "large"?
> > how slow is "slow"?
> > how frequent is "frequently"?
>
> ISTR a legal definition of slow as 10mph or less.
Umm - ISTR 20mph or less for a MV on a NSL or DC and then being
required to carry flashing amber beacons.
..d
Marc
jone...@hotmail.com says...
> > > Taking on the law is not for the feint of heart. So it may require that
> > > someone else put his or herself up for human sacrifice. I'm sure
> > > someone will volunteer. Not all of the outraged are here just ranting
> > > on UK.RC.
> >
> > Many of the outraged on uk.rc have put their money where their mouths
> > are, so they're not just 'ranting'.
>
> ... guilt money for someone else to do the job.
>
Marc
consulting.co.uk says...
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> > Rob Morley said the following on 09/08/2006 14:26:
> >
> >> If that happens it's not "the system" that's at fault but the tractor
> >> driver - he's required to pull over periodically to let following
> >> traffic pass.
> >
> > I've often wondered about this, and for caravans. I'm not saying you
> > are wrong by any means, but are they actually required to pull over? I
> > suppose I could have a look in the HC myself if I was that bothered
> > though :-)
> >
>
> I took a tractor driving test, lomg ago before I held a full driving
> license,
Roos Eisma
>> I took a tractor driving test, lomg ago before I held a full driving
>> license,
>Me too, I often wondered if I was the only one
I did drive a tractor but not on the road, and I don't think tests
existed.
I found it quite hard when I started driving a car that I couldn't see the
front wheels, and that the gas was a pedal rather than a lever.
Roos
Danny Colyer
>>ISTR a legal definition of slow as 10mph or less.
and David Martin responded:
> Umm - ISTR 20mph or less for a MV on a NSL or DC and then being
> required to carry flashing amber beacons.
HC rule 108:
"Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you
MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary
to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road
maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"
Thanks to Adrian for looking this up and posting it in another thread,
saving me the effort of remembering where I saw it.
David Martin
Danny Colyer wrote:
> I wrote:
> >>ISTR a legal definition of slow as 10mph or less.
>
> and David Martin responded:
> > Umm - ISTR 20mph or less for a MV on a NSL or DC and then being
> > required to carry flashing amber beacons.
>
> HC rule 108:
> "Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you
> MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
> adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary
> to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road
> maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
> Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26"
>
> Thanks to Adrian for looking this up and posting it in another thread,
> saving me the effort of remembering where I saw it.
I was pointing out that there is not just one legal definition of slow.
I did not contradict your posting. IIRC the 20mph is for vehicles not
capable of travelling faster than that.
You will not find it in the HC because it is somewhat more esoteric
than the audience for the HC.
..d
Jim Price
I just got a one year provisional licence at 16 for driving the tractor
on the road and got a car test the next year (which now seems to cover
me for enormous vehicles with enormous trailers unlike other people I
know who didn't get the tractor provisional licence). Did the rules
change about driving single seater tractors since I was a kid, or did
you guys have multi seat tractors? I never heard of a tractor only test.
--
JimP
" " - John Cage
Stevie D
> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
> slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
>
> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
> to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
They don't have to be on _that_ road, though.
I frequently get stuck behind tractor drivers who think it is
acceptable to drive on an NSL main road at 20mph in the rush hour for
several miles.
There are other roads they could use. There are other hours they could
use. If I'm on a country lane, it's irritating to get stuck behind
something moving slowly, but it's par for the course. If it's a quiet
time of day and there's a tractor in the way, it won't be holding up
many people and I'll probably be able to pass it quite easily.
But on a main road, in the rush hour, it is delaying a large number of
motorists - and that is at least as much cause for prosecution than
this cyclist.
If slow vehicles are allowed to use busy NSL main roads where there is
an alternative route by quieter roads, then so are cyclists. Yes, the
back roads are more dangerous, and slower - but the judge seemed quite
happy to condemn a cyclist to a longer and far riskier ride, so surely
he will dish out the same fate to learner drivers, tractors, HGVs,
doddery old farts in Micras, etc...
> So - it comes down to *should* cyclists use cycle lanes or not, where
> available? Personally, I tend not to. There aren't that many round me
> anyway, but those that are are worse than useless. Should cyclists
> have a right to use the road, even if there's a cycle lane available?
> Of course we should.
Cyclists have a right to use the road. In many cases, that is the
safest place to ride.
This is kind of like the h*lm*t freedom thread - if we meekly accept
this judge's verdict and obediently use cycle paths wherever they are
available, we are eroding our own right to choose to use the roads.
Yes, if the cycle path offers a genuinely better alternative than the
road, that's great - use it, and applaud the planners that built it.
But don't just use it "because it's there".
--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________
Stevie D
> 145: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are
> driving a large or slow moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently,
> and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
>
> No "must" in there...
There are catch-all laws such as "driving without due care and
attention" and "driving without reasonable consideration for other
road users", the details of which are not specifically labelled as
MUST and MUST NOT in the Highway Code.
If a slow tractor was being followed by a long tail of traffic for
several miles, where it was not possible for more than a handful of
those cars (if that many) to overtake, and did not pull in to let them
pass when he had the opportunity to do so - that could well be deemed
as not showing reasonable consideration for other road users, and the
police could well decide to prosecute.
I for one hope that they do.
rob on a bike
<initial...@btinternet.com> writes
>> Should you wish to donate online, the CDF web site now has a 'make a
>> donation' button on it, where you can, via Paypal, make a donation via a
>> PayPal account or with a credit/debit card.
>
<delurk>
<AOL>
<crawls back under stone>
--
Rob
Alex Potter
I worked on 2 farms owned by brothers separated by about a mile and a half
of public road. I didn't own a car at that time, and had to buy a
provisional license and then take a tractor test in order to be legal. The
examiner came out to the village for the test, which i took on Massey
Fergusson 165 with brakes I'd worn out while doing short turns on
headlands. The "emergency stop" was a fraght experience :)
This was in 1971. Tractor was single seat, and had to carry L plates while I
was driving it. You can imagine the laughter in the pub.
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid
Tony Raven
>
> BUT.
>
> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
> slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
>
> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
> to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
>
Maybe the lorries, caravans etc should be prosecuted for not using the
motorway then. I believe Telford has a fine one passing its door.
--
Tony
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Jim Price
> I worked on 2 farms owned by brothers separated by about a mile and a half
> of public road. I didn't own a car at that time, and had to buy a
> provisional license and then take a tractor test in order to be legal.
Just checked the DSA site, and it would appear that is the case now. I
suspect it hasn't changed and I was told some porkies. It beats me how
you practice if you're only allowed on the road to drive to the test
under the age of 17.
> The
> examiner came out to the village for the test, which i took on Massey
> Fergusson 165 with brakes I'd worn out while doing short turns on
> headlands. The "emergency stop" was a fraght experience :)
Our tractor was fitted with a T bar, and the most fraught experience I
remember was driving into the garage whose entrance headroom was less
than the height of the T bar. So I've wheelied a tractor.
> This was in 1971. Tractor was single seat, and had to carry L plates while I
> was driving it. You can imagine the laughter in the pub.
It was nearer to walk to the pub than the tractor where I was brought
up, but I can imagine the laughter.
Rob Morley
Jim Price <jim.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marc wrote:
> > In article <EJmCg.1102$r61...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, spambin@ap-
> > consulting.co.uk says...
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> >> I took a tractor driving test, lomg ago before I held a full driving
> >> license,
> > Me too, I often wondered if I was the only one
>
> I just got a one year provisional licence at 16 for driving the tractor
> on the road and got a car test the next year (which now seems to cover
> me for enormous vehicles with enormous trailers unlike other people I
> know who didn't get the tractor provisional licence).
ITYF that's because the types of vehicle the holder of a normal car
license are allowed to drive have been somewhat restricted by changes in
the license - maybe at the same time they placed restrictions on
minibus drivers? I know I'm allowed to drive a 7 1/2 tonner with a 4
1/2 tonne trailer, and I never had a tractor license.
Rob Morley
MJ Ray
> Let's not get too far down the line of "But what about everything else
> slower-than-free-moving-traffic? Horses? HGVs? Caravans? Tractors? Eh? Eh?"
>
> They *can't* legally be other than on the road - they're plain not allowed
> to use the footpath/cycle lane/shared use thingymabob.
Well, I could have sworn that I've seen horses on green and brown non-roads
outside this town. I understand they're called fields and bridleways. Are
the horses on them doing so illegally? ;-)
Are horses compelled to use bridleways in preference to roads?
[...]
> So - it comes down to *should* cyclists use cycle lanes or not, where
> available? Personally, I tend not to. There aren't that many round me
> anyway, but those that are are worse than useless. Should cyclists have a
> right to use the road, even if there's a cycle lane available? Of course we
> should.
I use some of the cycle tracks and paths provided here, where they serve
a purpose. Even so, on-road use is vital at times. I can only think
of one cycle lane nearby and it's short, narrow and unhelpful. I used to
like using Norwich's bus/cycle lanes - the best of both worlds?
MJ Ray
> I frequently get stuck behind tractor drivers who think it is
> acceptable to drive on an NSL main road at 20mph in the rush hour for
> several miles.
>
> There are other roads they could use. There are other hours they could
> But on a main road, in the rush hour, it is delaying a large number of
> motorists - and that is at least as much cause for prosecution than
> this cyclist.
I'm amazed anyone posted that. Tractor drivers are helping to produce
our food. If they judge that a NSL road for several miles at that time
is the best way for them to get from A to B, then that's fine by me.
It is perfectly acceptable for them to do that.
(I just wish I'd check the date of first beet harvesting before finding
out the hard way on a cross-country drive to Bury St Edmunds.)
--
MJR/slef
Dave Larrington
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> jone...@hotmail.comtyped
>>
>>
>>> Taking on the law is not for the feint of heart. So it may require
>>> that someone else put his or herself up for human sacrifice. I'm
>>> sure someone will volunteer. Not all of the outraged are here just
>>> ranting on UK.RC.
>>
>> Many of the outraged on uk.rc have put their money where their mouths
>> are, so they're not just 'ranting'.
>
> ... guilt money for someone else to do the job.
I'm sorry, but I'm afarid I don't currently have the time to keep going to
Telford and riding up and down a hill in order to prove a point. Perhaps
you'd like to do it on my behalf?
Thought not.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
There ought to be a /La/ against it.