Adam Lea <
[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
>
>>>>>
>>>> Wasn't the *first* judge who let him off also the one who found a
>>>> cyclist guilty of riding on the road?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No the cyclist was prosecuted for causing an obstruction.
>>>
>> And you would consider 30mph in a 40 limit approaching a roundabout to be
>> obstructive? The prosecution was preposterous and strikes to the heart of
>> the cyclists _right_ to use the road (as opposed to the motorist, who only
>> has _permission_, not the right that cyclists, horses, columns of marching
>> troops and animals being driven enjoy).
>>
>
>I merely stated what I thought the cyclist was prosecuted for. It doesn't
>follow that I agree with the prosecution. In my opinion the verdict was a
>pile of toss.
>
>Stationg that the cyclist was prosecuted for being on the road is a slight
>exaggeration. There is no law against cycling on the road.
>
>
There is now.
A lot of Uk law consists of judges' interpretations of what the Statutes
and Statutory Instruments mean.
It's irrelevant that the judgement is against government policy (to
encourage cycling) and against government guidance (the Highway Code and
Cyclecraft both tell you what the government thinks the law is) because
the government can easily be wrong here.
In my day job I deal with the Department for Work and Pensions, which
frequently passes legislation that doesn't say what the DWP meant it to
say (so it's against policy) or what the DWP's guidance says it says.
Very often, once a judge has found agains them they "restore the
legislative intention" by passing yet more legislation to correct their
mistakes.
It's hard to imagine the current government passing a law to restore our
right to use the public highway at a convenient speed, so the appeal
against that judgement really is important.
--
Sue ]
My current view is that the judgement means there's a 10mph speed limit for cyclists on roads with
double white lines where a cycle path is within sight.