Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

CTC press release regarding bad news.

5 views
Skip to first unread message

David Martin

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 6:13:49 AM8/8/06
to
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.

sothach

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 6:25:21 AM8/8/06
to
That is sickening. Cars being 'forced' to cross the line sounds like
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)

Message has been deleted

wafflycat

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 6:45:02 AM8/8/06
to

"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
> <snip>press release</snip>
> 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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 6:59:38 AM8/8/06
to
del wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:07:35 AM8/8/06
to

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.
>
> <snip>
> 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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:12:56 AM8/8/06
to
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.

Graham

Andy Cox

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:15:25 AM8/8/06
to
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).

Andy Cox

citizen142

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:35:08 AM8/8/06
to
And on that invite.....

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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 7:40:11 AM8/8/06
to
> 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).

jcb...@googlemail.com

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 8:16:30 AM8/8/06
to
I've emailed Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary
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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 9:29:39 AM8/8/06
to
It is indeed very bad news. I've been laughed at in the past for
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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 9:36:13 AM8/8/06
to
jcb...@googlemail.com writes:

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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 12:10:35 PM8/8/06
to

Phil Cook

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 12:23:54 PM8/8/06
to
Dan Gregory wrote:

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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 2:02:46 PM8/8/06
to
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.

--
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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 2:14:05 PM8/8/06
to

"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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 3:19:28 PM8/8/06
to
David Martin wrote:
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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 3:19:07 PM8/8/06
to
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?

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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 3:29:05 PM8/8/06
to
In article <WrKdnex4ssH...@bt.com>, w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn
£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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 3:37:58 PM8/8/06
to
In article <4js1u9F...@individual.net>, ju...@raven-family.com
> 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.

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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 3:57:15 PM8/8/06
to
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.
>
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.....

Helen Deborah Vecht

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 3:56:57 PM8/8/06
to
Marc <initial...@btinternet.com>typed

> Done!

Done!

--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.

Jim Price

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 4:26:02 PM8/8/06
to
Dan Gregory wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 4:19:54 PM8/8/06
to
"David Martin" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 4:22:36 PM8/8/06
to
In article <3130303037363...@zetnet.co.uk>,
helen...@zetnet.co.uk says...
> Done!
>
> Done!
>
And reminded me to join the CTC

Helen Deborah Vecht

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 4:18:34 PM8/8/06
to
Dave Larrington <smert.s...@privacy.net>typed

> and dance around
> the funeral pyre, playing a violin?


Sing Rickety-tickety-tin?

Toby Sleigh

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 4:34:51 PM8/8/06
to

"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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 5:34:50 PM8/8/06
to
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:14:05 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<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

unread,
Aug 8, 2006, 6:12:16 PM8/8/06
to
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.
>

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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 3:00:02 AM8/9/06
to
Phil Cook said the following on 08/08/2006 17:23:

> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 3:18:20 AM8/9/06
to
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?

goo...@woodall.me.uk

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 3:29:11 AM8/9/06
to

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.
>
For everyone who is giving and is a tax payer, make sure you gift aid
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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 3:33:18 AM8/9/06
to

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Dave Larrington <smert.s...@privacy.net>typed
>
> > and dance around
> > the funeral pyre, playing a violin?
>
>
> Sing Rickety-tickety-tin?
>
Damn. Now I'll have that idiotic, repetitative, refrain buzzing around
in my head for the next week! ;-)

wafflycat

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 3:59:12 AM8/9/06
to

"Tony Raven" <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:4jtghuF...@individual.net...

> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 4:03:45 AM8/9/06
to
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:02 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

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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 4:09:42 AM8/9/06
to
Adrian Boliston wrote:

>
> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 4:12:35 AM8/9/06
to
On 8 Aug 2006 12:19 iar...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 4:27:14 AM8/9/06
to
wafflycat wrote:

> http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/

Dosh sent.

--
Arthur Clune

MJ Ray

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 4:32:40 AM8/9/06
to
"mikef" <mikef...@yahoo.com>
> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 5:08:28 AM8/9/06
to
Phil Cook wrote:
> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 5:34:54 AM8/9/06
to
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:15:25 +0100, "Andy Cox" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote:

>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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 5:36:10 AM8/9/06
to
MJ Ray (m...@phonecoop.coop) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:03:25 AM8/9/06
to
Paul Boyd <no_...@ddress.com> writes:

> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:05:03 AM8/9/06
to
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> writes:

>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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:10:22 AM8/9/06
to
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:59:12 +0100, "wafflycat"
<w*a*ffŁyŁcat*@Łbtco*nnŁect.com> wrote:

>http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/
A bit more into the kitty.

Pete

Alistair Gunn

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:23:03 AM8/9/06
to
Tim Forcer twisted the electrons to say:

> 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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:38:19 AM8/9/06
to

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

unread,
Aug 9, 2006, 6:49:51 AM8/9/06