Another Cycle Lane Letter

[[email protected]]

Bob Downie wrote:

> Good luck with your letter. I only got a response after 2 months only
> because I got a cycle friendly journalist to follow up on it.


Well the EDC website claims they reply to e-mails in 10 days so I'll
see what happens.

The road is wide enough for a safe cycle lane if they eliminate the
joke right turn lane which isn't wide enough for a car anyway. They
could take the right turn lane away and move the cycle lane out without
affecting traffic flow. Any car needing to undertake a vehicle waiting
to turn right would just move into the cycle lane.
The expensive option would be widening the road by taking 3 feet off
the pavement. I don't see that happening.
Or just take the lane away all together. It's no use to me and at
the moment directs inexperienced cyclists into the one place on the
road they should not be.
I would like to think that the danger of a legal claim would mean
they would do something but I am not certain that it will.
My dad brought to their attention a dangerous tree next to a road.
The base of the tree had been fire damaged. There was an obvious danger
that the next high winds would bring the tree down with danger to road
users.
They did nothing. A few months later high winds brought the tree
down on top of some schoolchildren. Luckily it was the smaller limbs
that hit them not the trunk and there were only slight injuries.

Iain

 

[Paul Boyd]

[email protected] said the following on 30/11/2006 16:00:
> Any car needing to undertake a vehicle waiting
> to turn right would just move into the cycle lane.

The trouble is that a lot of car drivers think they can do that
regardless of whether there is a bike in the bike lane or not.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[John Pitcock]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Downie wrote:
>
> My dad brought to their attention a dangerous tree next to a road.
> The base of the tree had been fire damaged. There was an obvious danger
> that the next high winds would bring the tree down with danger to road
> users.
> They did nothing. A few months later high winds brought the tree
> down on top of some schoolchildren. Luckily it was the smaller limbs
> that hit them not the trunk and there were only slight injuries.

A falling council-owned tree fell and killed three people. It had been
reported as dangerous by several people

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1528432.stm
http://www.charteredforesters.org/news_archive2002/news_july.html

www.JohnPitcock.com

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
<"John Pitcock" <j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com>> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Bob Downie wrote:
> >
> > My dad brought to their attention a dangerous tree next to a road.
> > The base of the tree had been fire damaged. There was an obvious danger
> > that the next high winds would bring the tree down with danger to road
> > users.
> > They did nothing. A few months later high winds brought the tree
> > down on top of some schoolchildren. Luckily it was the smaller limbs
> > that hit them not the trunk and there were only slight injuries.
>
> A falling council-owned tree fell and killed three people. It had been
> reported as dangerous by several people
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1528432.stm
> http://www.charteredforesters.org/news_archive2002/news_july.html
>
"Acting Chief Executive, Stewart Dobson commented by saying 'The Council
deeply regrets this tragic accident which resulted in the deaths of
three people.'"

The tree had been reported as dangerous, the council had done nothing to
remedy it, and it's an 'accident'? I hope the families of the people
who were killed took civil proceedings.

 

[[email protected]]

John Pitcock (nospam) wrote:

> A falling council-owned tree fell and killed three people. It had been
> reported as dangerous by several people
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1528432.stm
> http://www.charteredforesters.org/news_archive2002/news_july.html

>From the bbc link "The HSE has charged the local authority with
breaching section 3(1) of the 1974 Act, which requires employers to
ensure the safety of those not in their employment."

and from
www.healthandsafety.co.uk/haswa.htm
Section 3 (1) states
"General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than
their employees.

3. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his
undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably
practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected
thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety. "

I am not a lawyer but I think section 3(1) could make the council
liable under the HS at Work Act for any death or injury caused by a
sub-standard cycle lane. Especially after it has been drawn to their
attention.
Whether the HSE would be interested in taking any enforcement action
against a council to require them to upgrade a cycle facility to a
minimum standard is another matter.
Hopefully the question won't arise as it is obvious to a blind man
that the cycle lane in Milngavie Rd is dangerous and I'm sure my local
council will rectify the problem..
Iain

 

[Jeremy Parker]

<[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> Hopefully the question won't arise as it is obvious to a blind
> man
> that the cycle lane in Milngavie Rd is dangerous and I'm sure my
> local
> council will rectify the problem..
> Iain

Generally, if there is some standard written by a technical
organization, courts assume the standard will be written by a group
of experts who know, more than the court will, what is ok.

Sometimes standards are not really standards, but only guidelines. A
guideline is a standard that you don't actually have to follow, if
your technical expertise tells you it is ok to install a substandard
facility. It's a bit like the Highway Code, which only really
applies if the word "must" is in that rule.

That said, I've often thought it might be worth while trying to talk
to the insurance companies that insure councils, just to ask them
whether they are ever worried about councils' bike facility designs.

Jeremy Parker

 

[[email protected]]

Jeremy Parker wrote:

It's a bit like the Highway Code, which only really
> applies if the word "must" is in that rule.

I would argue that a failure to comply with highway code rules is only
covered by the criminal law if "must" is used but that failure to
follow other rules could result in civil liability. As stated on page 1
of the highway code.

www.highwaycode.gov.uk/
"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be
fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from
driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such
rules are identified by the use of the words MUST / MUST NOT. In
addition the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation
which creates the offence.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not,
it itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be
used in evidence in any court proceedings under Traffic Acts to
establish liability."

The same thing may apply to any public body causing danger by failing
to follow recognised design standards and at the same time creating an
unnecessary hazard..

Iain