First Edition Cycling News for February 2, 2007
Edited by Laura Weislo and Ben Abrahams
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/feb07/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.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
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.
ghettocruiser
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.:rolleyes:
LittleBigMan
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.
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.
brokenrobot
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.
webist
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.
LittleBigMan
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.
oboeguy
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! :)
I-Like-To-Bike
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.
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.
hotbike
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.