Bad news from another place

On 07/08/2006 19:07, David Martin said,

Quoted message said:

http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?topic=15999.0 for more of the
gory details.

Please let us have a link that works!! "The topic or board you are
looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."

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

"David Martin" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

In brief as I don't have all the details..

Quoted message said:

A cyclist has been found guilty of obstructing the traffic because he
was not using the adjacent cycle path. More details in another place..

Quoted message said:

CTC are on the case. It was a magistrates court so does not set a
precedent but is still bad.

Quoted message said:

http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?topic=15999.0 for more of the
gory details.

Quoted message said:

...d

I'm not a member and couldn't access the posting.

Must I register to see it?

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

"David Martin" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

In brief as I don't have all the details..

Quoted message said:

A cyclist has been found guilty of obstructing the traffic because he
was not using the adjacent cycle path. More details in another place..

Quoted message said:

CTC are on the case. It was a magistrates court so does not set a
precedent but is still bad.

Quoted message said:

http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?topic=15999.0 for more of the
gory details.

Quoted message said:

...d

I'm not a member and couldn't access the posting.

Must I register to see it?

Arghh, unfortunately yes!

I will post a summary as soon as I have one.

...d

On 7 Aug 2006 11:07:03 -0700,

David Martin said:

In brief as I don't have all the details..

A cyclist has been found guilty of obstructing the traffic because he
was not using the adjacent cycle path. More details in another place..

CTC are on the case. It was a magistrates court so does not set a
precedent but is still bad.

http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?topic=15999.0 for more of the
gory details.

So does that mean I can get a clear ride down the A41 and/or A5 to work
because all the cars have to use the adjacent motorway? If I could get a
clear run then I'd cycle to work but it just takes too long with all the
congestion so I usually take the train instead. (When I cycle to work I
don't actually use the A5 or A41 either except for a very short bit of
the A5 beyond the end of the M1 even though they would be my most direct
route, again because of the cars that should be on the motorway)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Heres what the accused left after being found guilty.

Re: Ed O Brain's courtcase
« Reply #82 : Today at 21:33:15 » Reply with quote

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
All,

Thank you very much for your support. Without it I would be much worse off
and with your help I went down fighting.

I certainly put the prosecutor in his place, however the district judge had
already made up his mind (imho) before I was called to the stand.

The district judge in his summing up decided that I had a choice of using
thed cycle path or the main carriageway. By using the main carriageway I
made a bad decision as inconveniencing motorists when there is an
alternative cycle path is inconsiderate.

The judged dismissed much of what Mr. Franklin had said or written in his
report. He could not be satisfied that I would be more inconvenienced by
using the cyclepath than the motorists would be by me using the carriageway.
He did not accept how dangerous negotiating the traffic where the cycle path
went around the roundabout. the fact that these are the types of junctions
where most cycling accidents occur and also that these types off accidents
were more severe. He dismissed broken glass and doggy doo as nonsense and
was quite happy that I should progress along the cycle path at less than
twelve mph instead of over thirty on the road.

I think this judge was out of touch. He thinks bicycles are toys and treated
us like children.

I hope to be able to appeal but there are several things to take into
consideration.

Express gratitude to the CTC, CDF, forum members that came today and those
that have provided character references. Thanks particularly to Simon L3.

You have all been wonderful and I'm priviledged to know you.

A Telford CM sounds like a wonderful idea, even if it is a one off.

Please someone post the result to Cycling Plus forum. I don't have the
energy left.

Very warm but solemn regards

Ed

Jon_H said:

Heres what the accused left after being found guilty.

Re: Ed O Brain's courtcase
« Reply #82 : Today at 21:33:15 » Reply with quote

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
All,

Thank you very much for your support. Without it I would be much worse off
and with your help I went down fighting.

I certainly put the prosecutor in his place, however the district judge had
already made up his mind (imho) before I was called to the stand.

The district judge in his summing up decided that I had a choice of using
thed cycle path or the main carriageway. By using the main carriageway I
made a bad decision as inconveniencing motorists when there is an
alternative cycle path is inconsiderate.

The judged dismissed much of what Mr. Franklin had said or written in his
report. He could not be satisfied that I would be more inconvenienced by
using the cyclepath than the motorists would be by me using the carriageway.
He did not accept how dangerous negotiating the traffic where the cycle path
went around the roundabout. the fact that these are the types of junctions
where most cycling accidents occur and also that these types off accidents
were more severe. He dismissed broken glass and doggy doo as nonsense and
was quite happy that I should progress along the cycle path at less than
twelve mph instead of over thirty on the road.

I think this judge was out of touch. He thinks bicycles are toys and treated
us like children.

I hope to be able to appeal but there are several things to take into
consideration.

Express gratitude to the CTC, CDF, forum members that came today and those
that have provided character references. Thanks particularly to Simon L3.

You have all been wonderful and I'm priviledged to know you.

A Telford CM sounds like a wonderful idea, even if it is a one off.

Please someone post the result to Cycling Plus forum. I don't have the
energy left.

Very warm but solemn regards

And this is what it refers to.

http://www.edobrain.homecall.co.uk/ed_o_brain/OtherPages/edCyclingCommentEffectivePolicing.htm

...d

David Martin said the following on 07/08/2006 22:15:

Quoted message said:

And this is what it refers to.

http://www.edobrain.homecall.co.uk/ed_o_brain/OtherPages/edCyclingCommentEffectivePolicing.htm

This is all very disturbing. Surely the judge was in the wrong, as it
isn't compulsory to use cycle lanes in this country. I wonder if
there's more to this than we've been able to read here - I can't help
but think that's the case because there seem to be no grounds otherwise
for any action to be taken at all, never mind court proceedings. I just
wish the police in this area were as keen to stop cars jumping red
lights and speeding etc.

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

Tim Woodall said:

On 7 Aug 2006 11:07:03 -0700,

David Martin said:

In brief as I don't have all the details..

A cyclist has been found guilty of obstructing the traffic because he
was not using the adjacent cycle path. More details in another place..

CTC are on the case. It was a magistrates court so does not set a
precedent but is still bad.

http://bikereader.com/forum/index.php?topic=15999.0 for more of the
gory details.

So does that mean I can get a clear ride down the A41 and/or A5 to work
because all the cars have to use the adjacent motorway? If I could get a
clear run then I'd cycle to work but it just takes too long with all the
congestion so I usually take the train instead. (When I cycle to work I
don't actually use the A5 or A41 either except for a very short bit of
the A5 beyond the end of the M1 even though they would be my most direct
route, again because of the cars that should be on the motorway)

Tim.

would the police have wanted to prosecute a driver for doing 30mph on
the same road, which is a lot more difficult to overtake than a cyclist.

pete whelan said:

would the police have wanted to prosecute a driver for doing 30mph on
the same road, which is a lot more difficult to overtake than a cyclist.

An interesting point in this case is that the judge and the police seem
to have taken different views. The police stopped him in the first
place because they wrongly believed that the shoulder of the road was a
cycle lane and that he should have been riding in it to allow cars to
overtake. In court the defence proved that motor traffic could not have
overtaken safely and legally even if the cyclist had been riding at the
extreme left edge of the shoulder.

The judge took the view that the cyclist was commiting an offence
simply by being on the road when he could have used a dangerous and
highly inconvenient cycle track.

The police were wrong and the judge was wronger.

--
Dave...

pete whelan said:

would the police have wanted to prosecute a driver for doing 30mph
on the same road, which is a lot more difficult to overtake than a
cyclist.

The highway code claims otherwise:

<http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139>

| Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should

....

| * give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much
| room as you would a car when overtaking

Granted, a bicycle is a couple of metres shorter than a car, and does
not obstruct visibility so much, but I wouldn't say that makes it "a
lot" more difficult.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

If taken to its logical conclusion, the judgement implies that cyclists
should use alternative routes (vaguely parallel minor roads) to avoid
"obstructing" major routes. One might even argue it implies that
cyclists should not use the roads at all. This is beyond surreal.

Question - can one complain to someone about the judge in this case?
Who appoints these people? Attorney General, or some such? I would
think a large number of scathing letters might get someone to "have a
word" with the judge or even issue some guidelines.

--
Peter Headland

Peter Headland ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

If taken to its logical conclusion, the judgement implies that cyclists
should use alternative routes (vaguely parallel minor roads) to avoid
"obstructing" major routes. One might even argue it implies that
cyclists should not use the roads at all. This is beyond surreal.

There's a subtle detail being forgotten here - the solid white line.

HC108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means
you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to
pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road
maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Given that he was travelling at 20mph, it would have been illegal for
drivers to overtake, since they would have had to cross the solid centre
line to do so.

If there weren't solid lines, there wouldn't be any possible issue of
obstruction, since other traffic would be free to overtake.

I don't know Telford at all - *is* there a good reason for the solid lines
on this stretch? Or is it another of those many stretches that's gaining
solid lines for no discernible reason at all?

Peter Headland said:

Question - can one complain to someone about the judge in this case?

MP? I'd like to see this debated in Parliament. Given that the MP's
are currently on their summer holidays, I'm inclined to wait a couple of
weeks to see what happens next before writing.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"Adrian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't know Telford at all - *is* there a good reason for the solid lines
on this stretch? Or is it another of those many stretches that's gaining
solid lines for no discernible reason at all?

From the photos I've seen, its 3 (2 up, 1 down) lanes, and this bit is at
the top of a hill - ie blind summit.

Ie yes, there is a good reason.

cheers,
clive

Alan J. Wylie said:

<http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#139>

| Overtake only when it is safe to do so. You should
| * give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much
| room as you would a car when overtaking

Granted, a bicycle is a couple of metres shorter than a car, and does
not obstruct visibility so much, but I wouldn't say that makes it "a
lot" more difficult.

You should give a cyclist as much room as you would give a car. That
doesn't mean you need to move over as far as you would to overtake a
car.

If you leave six feet when overtaking a car that is six feet wide and
three feet from the kerb, you will be 15' from the kerb.

If you leave six feet when overtaking a bike that is two feet wide and
three feet from the kerb, you will be 11' from the kerb.

The difference between the width of a car and the width of a bike may
mean the difference between it being safe to overtake or not.

I would always allow much more room than that to overtake horses.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Adrian said:

There's a subtle detail being forgotten here - the solid white line.

HC108: Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means
you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter
adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary to
pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road
maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10mph or less.
Laws RTA sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26

Given that he was travelling at 20mph, it would have been illegal for
drivers to overtake, since they would have had to cross the solid centre
line to do so.

So effectively the rules as implemented in this case add up to a 10mph
speed limit for cycles on sections of road with double white lines. I
doubt plod have accurate speed measurement for bicycles below about
25mph BICBW, and the cyclist isn't obliged to fit a speedometer, so how
is this enforceable? Shirley you could just insist you were only doing
10mph?

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

pete whelan said:

would the police have wanted to prosecute a driver for doing 30mph on
the same road, which is a lot more difficult to overtake than a
cyclist.

On the way home from work yesterday, I was barrelling down a minor piece of
Scenery at about 30 mph when Mr. Balfour-Beatty-Moron in his poxy Astra van
pulled out of a junction on my right and Proceeded in the same direction as
me. I was "forced[1]" to overtake him, crossing the double white lines in
the process.

There's never a copper around when you need one...

1 - as the alternative appeared to be burying my chainset deep into his
tailgate

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
applauded.

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Jon_H said:

Heres what the accused left after being found guilty.

Re: Ed O Brain's courtcase
« Reply #82 : Today at 21:33:15 » Reply with quote

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
All,

Thank you very much for your support. Without it I would be much worse off
and with your help I went down fighting.

I certainly put the prosecutor in his place, however the district judge had
already made up his mind (imho) before I was called to the stand.

The district judge in his summing up decided that I had a choice of using
thed cycle path or the main carriageway. By using the main carriageway I
made a bad decision as inconveniencing motorists when there is an
alternative cycle path is inconsiderate.

The judged dismissed much of what Mr. Franklin had said or written in his
report. He could not be satisfied that I would be more inconvenienced by
using the cyclepath than the motorists would be by me using the carriageway.
He did not accept how dangerous negotiating the traffic where the cycle path
went around the roundabout. the fact that these are the types of junctions
where most cycling accidents occur and also that these types off accidents
were more severe. He dismissed broken glass and doggy doo as nonsense and
was quite happy that I should progress along the cycle path at less than
twelve mph instead of over thirty on the road.

I think this judge was out of touch. He thinks bicycles are toys and treated
us like children.

I hope to be able to appeal but there are several things to take into
consideration.

Express gratitude to the CTC, CDF, forum members that came today and those
that have provided character references. Thanks particularly to Simon L3.

You have all been wonderful and I'm priviledged to know you.

A Telford CM sounds like a wonderful idea, even if it is a one off.

Please someone post the result to Cycling Plus forum. I don't have the
energy left.

Very warm but solemn regards

And this is what it refers to.

http://www.edobrain.homecall.co.uk/ed_o_brain/OtherPages/edCyclingCommentEffectivePolicing.htm

...d

ISTM that this thread is incorrectly titles. It should be "Good news from another place"

:o)

IanH

ian henden said:

ISTM that this thread is incorrectly titles. It should be "Good news from another place"

Depends on your agenda, I suppose.

--
Dave...