Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-07, 09:35 PM   #1
trekets
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 109
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
'Inconsiderate cyclist' wins re-trial

First Edition Cycling News for February 2, 2007
Edited by Laura Weislo and Ben Abrahams
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...eb07/feb02news

'Inconsiderate cyclist' wins re-trial
British cyclists scored a victory today, as a cyclist who was found guilty last year of inconsiderate cycling has had the verdict overturned upon re-trial. Daniel Cadden was heading on a fast downhill of a single lane road, taking the lane and, according to police, forcing cars to cross the solid white line in the centre of the road illegally in order to pass him. Instead of citing drivers for crossing the centre line, police instead charged Cadden with inconsiderate cycling.

The judge who presided over the first trial said that Cadden should have been on the cycle path instead of on the road, but Cadden's lawyer, Francis Fitzgibbon, was able to demonstrate that there was no legal obligation for cyclists to use the path, and that the brief delay drivers encountered while waiting to pass did not constitute "inconsiderate cycling".

Speaking outside court, Daniel Cadden said: "I am overjoyed that the ludicrous decision to prosecute me has been overturned... This success serves to reaffirm cyclists' right to decide when to use cycle facilities and when they are inappropriate or dangerous. The first judgement was unreasonable in denying this."

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. Over £25,000 was donated to the CDF by cyclists in support of Cadden.
trekets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-07, 10:44 PM   #2
Helmet Head
Banned.
 
Helmet Head's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Bikes:
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Nice glimpse into our future if you facilities fanatics have your way.

The lawyer had to point out to the judge that the cyclist had no legal obligation to be on the path.

Many people, probably including the judge, would consider that an oversight in the law.

This is where "more and more facilities" thinking is taking us, folks.

The next step is to fix the "oversight" in the law.
Helmet Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-07, 11:22 PM   #3
ghettocruiser
Former Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: dropmachine.com
Bikes:
Posts: 4,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I hear now that dedicated transit lanes are being put in here, bus drivers who use other parts of the road will be hauled down to the courthouse.
ghettocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-07, 07:28 AM   #4
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Where I live, plenty of adjacent bike facilities exist. I always ride the road in those places and the numerous police patrols have never once bothered me. In fact, the few times I've encountered police interaction, they supported my right as a cyclist to use the road.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-07, 07:58 AM   #5
cooperwx
Senior Member
 
cooperwx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asheville, NC
Bikes: Trek 7.5 FX
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Knowing that there are special facilities for cyclists could anger motorists when they have to slow down behind us for a few seconds. Just knowing we could be elsewhere could upset them even more.

I still haven't decided where I sit in the facilities argument. The few bike lanes that exist in my city are poorly designed, or are shoulders with a guy on a bike painted on it. All kinds of debris. The WOL design has worked best for me in my experience.

I'm glad this dude won his retrial. He was not breaking any law, it seems.
cooperwx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-07, 11:13 AM   #6
brokenrobot
Sweetened with Splenda
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Brooklyn, Alabama
Bikes: Too many 80s roadbikes!
Posts: 2,335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Nice glimpse into our future if you facilities fanatics have your way.

The lawyer had to point out to the judge that the cyclist had no legal obligation to be on the path.
You're insane. Before there were bike lanes, lawyers had to argue that cyclists didn't have to use the sidewalk.
brokenrobot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-07, 11:49 AM   #7
webist
Huachuca Rider
 
webist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Bikes: Fuji CCR1, Specialized Roubaix
Posts: 4,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Most "bike" lanes in my area are Multi-Use Paths (MUP). This places a cyclist in traffic with pedestrians, many using headphones, dog walkers, strollers, joggers, skateboarders, etc. I find this a hindrance to cycling for a workout, let alone a hindrance to those cyclists in training. Fortunately, though those shouting get off the road do so a bit louder where there is a separate trail, there is no apparent sentiment for denying a cyclist use of the road ways.
__________________
Just Peddlin' Around
webist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-07, 02:54 PM   #8
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooperwx
Knowing that there are special facilities for cyclists could anger motorists when they have to slow down behind us for a few seconds. Just knowing we could be elsewhere could upset them even more.

I still haven't decided where I sit in the facilities argument. The few bike lanes that exist in my city are poorly designed, or are shoulders with a guy on a bike painted on it. All kinds of debris. The WOL design has worked best for me in my experience.

I'm glad this dude won his retrial. He was not breaking any law, it seems.
Your experience is somewhat similar to mine, but there are also exceptions. For the most part I use the road, because I'm used to it and prefer it.

Yet I support those cyclists who prefer bike facilities because I don't expect others to be cut from the same cloth. I think we should support each other's needs/preferences so that the needs of all cyclists will be met.

I'm glad he's getting his day, too.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-07, 02:06 PM   #9
oboeguy
34x25 FTW!
 
oboeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NYC
Bikes: Kona Jake, Scott CR1, Dahon SpeedPro
Posts: 6,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Nice glimpse into our future if you facilities fanatics have your way.

The lawyer had to point out to the judge that the cyclist had no legal obligation to be on the path.

Many people, probably including the judge, would consider that an oversight in the law.

This is where "more and more facilities" thinking is taking us, folks.

The next step is to fix the "oversight" in the law.
Wow, I completely agree with HH for once. Cool!
oboeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-07, 02:29 PM   #10
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Nice glimpse into our future if you facilities fanatics have your way.

The lawyer had to point out to the judge that the cyclist had no legal obligation to be on the path.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brokenrobot
You're insane. Before there were bike lanes, lawyers had to argue that cyclists didn't have to use the sidewalk.
My My, I suppose HH and the Henny Penny Band of Bike Lane Hysterics think all others cyclists should shudder and shake like him, from this real glimpse into the future; one traffic court case in England, thrown out on appeal.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-07, 12:55 PM   #11
hotbike
Senior Member
 
hotbike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Island, New York
Bikes: a lowrider BMX, a mountain bike, a faired recumbent, and a loaded touring bike
Posts: 2,874
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
How fast was he going? It says fast downhill. 40 MPH or so? The drivers weren't forced to do anything illegal, they sped of their own free will.
hotbike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 AM.