CTC press release regarding bad news.



D

David Martin

Guest
CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation

7th August 2006



Cyclist who refused to stay in the gutter loses court case

A cyclist who was prosecuted for obstructing the highway, whilst
cycling in accordance with the National Standard for cycle training,
has today been found guilty by a District Judge in Telford Magistrates
Court and fined £100 with £200 costs.

CTC member Daniel Cadden was cycling fast downhill on a single-lane
approach to a roundabout when he was stopped by police who believed
that the position he had taken in the centre of his lane was forcing
cars to cross the solid white line in the centre of the road illegally
in order to overtake. But rather than stop the cars that had broken the
law, the officers decided to charge Daniel Cadden with obstructing the
highway.

Cyclecraft, the book published by The Stationery Office on skilled
riding techniques, states: "The primary riding position (the centre of
one's lane) should be your normal riding position when you can keep up
with traffic, or when you need to prevent following drivers from
passing you dangerously."

CTC Director, Kevin Mayne, said "The police at the scene said that
Daniel should have been cycling well over to the left - effectively in
the gutter - but the judge felt that Daniel should have crossed three
lanes of busy traffic and used a segregated cycle track to save
fractions of seconds off the journey times of a few motorists. CTC
continues to fight a re-draft of the Highway Code, which says cyclists
'should use cycle paths where provided', in order to tackle the
attitude, held by many people in the judiciary, police and public
alike, that cyclists should be out of the way of motorists."

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. The CDF paid for John Franklin,
author of 'Cyclecraft', to appear as an expert witness for the defence.

Chair of the CDF, Colin Langdon, said: "This is an extremely
regrettable judgement and I fully expect it to be contestable. Daniel
Cadden clearly needs to take legal advice about the options open to
him. However, this is exactly the sort of case for which the Fund is
always in need of donations, so that we can defend the rights of
cyclists as road users and more generally to raise awareness of
cyclists' position in law."

To donate money to the Cyclists' Defence Fund, go to
www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk


Ends
For more information including photography contact CTC Media Officer
Yannick Read 0870 873 0063

Notes to editors

* CTC fears that the re-drafted Highway Code, which states that
cyclists should "use cycle paths where provided" can only increase this
kind of hostile prosecution of cyclists by reinforcing the perception
that cyclists should keep out of the way of motorised traffic. Earlier
this year, over 11,000 cyclists lobbied their MPs for a change to the
new version of the Code, which is due to be published next year.

* CTC is the national organisation for all cyclists in the UK and
Ireland, including children, families, and commuters. CTC has 70,000
members and affiliates and is the oldest and largest cycling body in
the UK. www.ctc.org.uk

* The Cyclists' Defence Fund is an independent registered charity,
originally founded by CTC in 2001. Its formation was prompted by the
claim of insurer Provident against the parents of nine-year-old cyclist
Darren Coombs who was brain damaged when hit by a car. Its aims and
activities have since been widened (see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk
for full details), but its focus is still on issues of cycling and the
law, including support for court actions with the potential to affect
the general position of cyclists or cycling in law.
 
That is sickening. Cars being 'forced' to cross the line sounds like
the rapist's excuse.

I know I shouldn't mention former European totalarian regimes on
Usenet, but wouldn't it be very effective to to stage a demonstration
against the HC changes should they come in: have people dressed as
Waffen SS (Traffic Staffel) directing cyclists onto the cycle paths,
with some big signs in 40's style and gothic writing imploring citizens
to keep the roads clear for the glorious Blitzkrieg, maybe illustrated
with a cammo Landrover with suitable markings. (Daydreams of a Cycle
Commuter, part 43)
 
On Tuesday 08 Aug 2006 11:13 David Martin, wrote:

> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation

<snip>press release</snip>
Has the story, that this press release refers to, appeared in any
newspapers yet?
--
del :cool:
 
"del" <$/$news/spam/[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tuesday 08 Aug 2006 11:13 David Martin, wrote:
>
>> CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation

> <snip>press release</snip>
> Has the story, that this press release refers to, appeared in any
> newspapers yet?
> --
> del :cool:


I was at the court yesterday, Nathan was too. We attended to just 'be there'
for Daniel & his wife, as I know Daniel from another cycling group. He is a
lovely lad, and his wife is a lovely lady. They have gone through hell
yesterday. If it had been me in Daniel's shoes, I don't think I would have
been able to avoid being reduced to tears and a gibbering wreck.

If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would be
entirely understandable. Not because Daniel is 'wrong' but because of the
stress, worry and hassle the legal system causes to ordinary folk. If this
is the case, I hope people can still offer support/donations to the
Cyclists' Defence Fund to enable it to continue its work in the future as it
is much needed. If Daniel is advised by the CDF to take it further and he
does take it further, I hope he will have the support of every single
cyclist who cycles legally on road. Daniel was cycling according to the
principles set out in Cyclecraft. John Franklin was in court yesterday in
his capacity as an expert witness. His entirely sensible and rational
evidence was ignored in favour of contradictory and uncertain evidence (IMO)
given by the prosecution.

Yesterday was the first time Nathan has observed any form of legal
proceedings hand it left him shaken in the sense that now he has no faith at
all in how the police and the legal system treat cyclists. Can't say I blame
him for that.

In the meantime, Telford is an advert for cycling hell.

Cheers, helen s
 
del wrote:
> Has the story, that this press release refers to, appeared in any
> newspapers yet?


>From http://www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=47443


"Judge fines cyclist for using road

National cyclists' groups reacted with outrage today after a
Shropshire judge ruled that a cyclist broke the law because he chose to
ride on the road instead of a cycle path.

Daniel Cadden 25, of Sceptre Close, Aqueduct, Telford, left court with
a bill of £300 in fines and costs after District Judge Bruce Morgan
found him guilty of inconsiderate cycling.

He was stopped by police on West Centre Way while cycling fast downhill
on his journey home from work at Telford Town Centre.

The judge said he had known full well that following traffic on the
60mph route would be restricted to his speed because of double white
lines preventing overtaking.

Mr Cadden, who had denied the charge, told Telford Magistrates' Court
he did not use the cycleway on the other side of West Centre Way
because it was dangerous and slow."

MikeF
 
mikef said:
del wrote:

<snip>
The judge said he had known full well that following traffic on the
60mph route would be restricted to his speed because of double white
lines preventing overtaking.

<snip>
MikeF


that;s interesting IIRc (maybe from ACF posts) the road was described as a 40mph limit not 60. So perhaps the judge just thinks that it's a 60 limit. Hope he gets knicked next time he goes that quick down the road. B@stard! I really can't believe this, and the police needa kick up the @rse too, what a waste of time and money, for something that was totally legal, good job they weren't an armed unit, they most likely have shot him.

Fortunately for me the police in Lodon seem to ignore all traffic whether committing an offence or not.

Bryan
 
It seems it was District Judge Bruce Morgan - who was overturned in 2003 for
clearing PC Mark Milton who drove at 159mph
on M54 in 2003.

Graham
 
Erm, not wishing to stir things up in a difficult situation, but I belive
this is the same district judge resposible for this:
http://tinyurl.com/ndkod

Cue allogations of car friendly cyclist hating members of the judiciary
(alegedly).

Andy Cox
 
And on that invite.....

Bet you:

All the duty Magistrates drove in their cars to court.

Bet you:

All the Clerks and Solicitors drove their cars to court, also ushers,
clerks etc.

I could lose of course......nah I doubt it.
 
> Cyclist who refused to stay in the gutter loses court case
>
> A cyclist who was prosecuted for obstructing the highway, whilst
> cycling in accordance with the National Standard for cycle training,
> has today been found guilty by a District Judge in Telford Magistrates
> Court and fined £100 with £200 costs.


This is very bad news indeed. Any suggestions as to what we could do to
help? Would it help to write to our MPs? Who was the blogging Labour MP
espousing cycling recently?

How about a petition? Or any other thoughts?

We should collectively do something about this - if this goes
unchallenged, it will be the thin end of the wedge for all of us (as
one who is regularly yelled at for using roads rather than ****,
unsafe, slow cycle paths in West London).
 
I've emailed Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary
Cycling Group.

>From looking at the thread on Another Cycling Forum, Ed has encouraged

people who feel strongly about this to make a donation, no matter how
small, to the Cyclists' Defence Fund. I've sent them a cheque.
 
[email protected] wrote:
>> Cyclist who refused to stay in the gutter loses court case
>>
>> A cyclist who was prosecuted for obstructing the highway, whilst
>> cycling in accordance with the National Standard for cycle training,
>> has today been found guilty by a District Judge in Telford Magistrates
>> Court and fined £100 with £200 costs.

>
> This is very bad news indeed. Any suggestions as to what we could do to
> help? Would it help to write to our MPs? Who was the blogging Labour MP
> espousing cycling recently?
>
> How about a petition? Or any other thoughts?
>
> We should collectively do something about this - if this goes
> unchallenged, it will be the thin end of the wedge for all of us (as
> one who is regularly yelled at for using roads rather than ****,
> unsafe, slow cycle paths in West London).
>

It is indeed very bad news. I've been laughed at in the past for
suggesting that there is a growing threat to our right to cycle on the
roads, but now look at this. A policeman and a judge who apparently hold
that drivers of motor vehicles have a protected right not to be
"obstructed" by a cyclist who chose to cycle on the road rather than on
some sort of cycle path. This could very quickly get close to the thick
end of the wedge.

For now, I've also sent a cheque to the Cyclists' Defence Fund. It
seems like approaching the problem from the wrong end, but at least it
might help the cycling community not to have to lie down in the face of
this ludicrous threat.

--
Brian G
 
[email protected] writes:

>I've emailed Emily Thornberry MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary
>Cycling Group.


>>From looking at the thread on Another Cycling Forum, Ed has encouraged

>people who feel strongly about this to make a donation, no matter how
>small, to the Cyclists' Defence Fund. I've sent them a cheque.


And for those like me who missed the button the first time and are too
unorganised to send cheques: there is a button "Make a Donation" which
links to Paypal. Virtual monies now paid.

Roos
 
wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>
> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would
> be entirely understandable.


I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that
will be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My
cheque to the fund will be in the post shortly.

I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
following up all the reported offences.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat wrote on 08/08/2006 11:45 +0100:
>>
>> If Daniel decides not to appeal yesterday's decision, I think that would
>> be entirely understandable.

>
> I hope he does appeal otherwise the ruling will set a precedent that will
> be used against us legally until someone does challenge it. My cheque to
> the fund will be in the post shortly.
>
> I feel tempted to visit Telford with a colleague/witness and start
> reporting HGV's using that road at 40mph (legal limit) and obstructing
> cars from going faster. That and a few tractors that clearly should use
> the country lanes and not busy roads. The police could be quite busy
> following up all the reported offences.
>


Should you wish to donate online, the CDF web site now has a 'make a
donation' button on it, where you can, via Paypal, make a donation via a
PayPal account or with a credit/debit card.

Problem is, the judge made a specific anti-cycling decision, IMO. He's
decided that when cyclists have the choice of the road or a cycle path, if
they choose the road, they are inconveniencing traffic and are, by default
in the wrong. He even said that it didn't matter if the cycle path was
covered in dog poo or glass, the cyclist should use it. Danger to the
cyclist matters not one jot against 'inconveniencing' the motorist. It would
appear that if the motorist is 'inconvenienced' by say, a tractor doing
20mph on the same road, this is okay, but if it's a cyclist - orf with his
head.
Go figure...
 
Does all this mean that if, for instance, a learner driver is driving at
40mph on a 60mph road, that they will also find themselves in court?
How about tractors on country roads doing 20mph in a 60mph limit? Or an
HGV doing his legal maximum of 40mph on a single carriageway?

All of these are obstructing the judg^H^H^H other traffic. Perhaps the
arseho^H^H^H judge is trying to say that everyone must drive exactly
*AT* the speed limit.

Time to emigrate to New Zealand, I think! At least there immigrants
have to prove they can support themselves without the locals having to
pay more tax to support them. Whoops - wrong group!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
David Martin wrote:
Cyclist who refused to stay in the gutter loses court case


An ourageous decision. Enough to make me prise my wallet from my
pocket. Donation made to Cyclists Defence Fund.
I don't know what path is open for an appeal but if there is any
options open an appeal must be made.
Iain

..
 
In article <[email protected]>, w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn
£ect.com says...
> Should you wish to donate online, the CDF web site now has a 'make a
> donation' button on it, where you can, via Paypal, make a donation via a
> PayPal account or with a credit/debit card.
>



Done!
 

Similar threads

W
Replies
105
Views
4K
UK and Europe
Eddie Dubourg
E
M
Replies
10
Views
573
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
M
Replies
1
Views
381
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
R
Replies
2
Views
555
R