Aug 10 '06 - 1284 W, 1 I - Vote Good + 6 :: Bad - 8 Judge fines cyclist for using road
Published August 8, 2006 by Shropshire Star
Photo: Daniel Cadden on his bike. Shropshire Star.
Telford -- National cyclists’ groups reacted with outrage
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. He was backed by the Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) and the Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF).
CTC director Kevin Mayne said: “Police said Mr Cadden should have been cycling well over to the left — effectively in the gutter — but the judge felt he should have crossed three lanes of busy traffic and used a segregated cycle track to save fractions of seconds off the journey times of motorists.”
Colin Langdon, chair of the CDF, said: “This is an extremely regrettable judgement and I fully expect it to be contestable.”
Mr Cadden said afterwards: “I’m considering an appeal.”
We asked if you thought cyclists should be banned from the road — here is a selection of your replies:
Steve Whalley, of Shawbirch, Telford, writes:
I
couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this story. It’s unbelievable! I’m
a keen cyclist — both on and off road. Several of my riding routes take
me on similar roads to the one this cyclist was fined for using, so
this case worries me immensely.
My first point is, when the council/government build cycle paths without stupid gates in them, then they can gladly ban me from the roads!
I hate cycling on the road due to the attitude of some car drivers. I’ve had objects thrown at me, abuse thrown at me, been close to being knocked off my bike at a roundabout when a car driver looked straight through me (despite the fact I was wearing a flourescent yellow waterproof jacket, with my front and rear lights on — in daylight!!).
I would guess the majority of cyclists feel the same. Cycle paths which are made by halving the pavement are just not a viable option for someone cycling for fitness like I do.
The constant stopping and starting while you navigate the ‘zig zag’ type gates design to slow you down is frustrating as hell! The best cycle paths are ones which use the area of the road where a cyclist normally rides.
However, tarmac, and new kerb stones cost more money than a load of white paint, so guess which option we get 90% of the time.
To fine someone who is making the effort to cycle to work in this day and age with all the environmental worries we are constantly reminded of is nothing short of criminal.
Reading things like this just fuels my ambition to emigrate away from this country. Disgraceful!!!!!
Ron Harrop, of Sarisbury Green, Southampton, writes:
Public
highways are for everybody to use except motor vehicles, which because
they are dangerous need the drivers to have a test and driving licence
and insurance.
A cyclist has the right to use a public highway and can only be prosecuted if he commits a traffic offence as laid down in the highway code.
The recent case of a prosecution is not lawful as the cyclist was not a danger to other road users. Obstruction is not an excuse to deny a road user the right of passage.
A horse and cart can use the road as well as other forms of wheeled transport.
Peter Lambton, of Fishers Lock, Newport, writes:
Yes, of course ban cyclists from the road. Then we can all enjoy:
Greater levels of road congestion
Greater demand and cost for fuel
More pollution
Worsening climatic change
Increased incidence of respiratory disease
Increased levels of obesity
Further demands on the hard-pressed health system
Detrimental effects on businesses and employment related to cycling
Increased absenteeism (people who cycle work take fewer sick days)
Fewer opportunities to enjoy the countryside
Suppression of personal freedom
Higher taxation to cover the cost of building more roads,
extra provision of health services, unemployment benefits… and all for
what?
Just occasionally it’s necessary to slow down for a few seconds before you can pass a cyclist on the road. How often does that really happen?
Compared to the regular occurrence of being stuck behind a slow moving motor vehicle for mile after mile it barely even registers!
Jake Perks, of Ryder Drive, Muxton, writes:
What
a coincidence. I was driving home from work yesterday from Stafford
Park to Muxton. A cyclist was going hell-for-leather down Redhill Way,
virtually adjacent to the cycle track but on the main carriageway.
Perhaps he thought the cycle path to be beneath him as a “serious” cyclist — who knows? Anyway, all I know is that he was putting himself in danger by choosing to ride on the main road whilst unnecessarily causing a tailback.
Simon Withers (freelance cycling writer and former full-time cycling journalist) writes:
Ah
yes, Britain. Drive a car with dodgy tyres and kill four cyclists and
you rack up a hefty six points on your licence and a 180 quid fine.
Ride a bike on the road legally — and it’ll cost you £300.
Cycling is the healthiest, greenest and often the quickest form of transport possible (try driving across or through any major urban area in Britain and the bike will nearly always beat you).
Bike paths are rarely kept to anything like the same standards that road surfaces are; they’re often ill-lit, poorly maintained and badly routed.
This fine sends out all sorts of wrong signals: that cyclists shouldn’t be on roads; and in doing so enforces the commonly held belief that cyclists are fair game for abuse — either verbal or physical — from the much put-upon and oh-so-vulnerable car driver.
Another travesty for a clueless country that upholds the rights of the driver above anything else — even the law in this case. He had every right to be on the road, as would an equally slow-moving agricultural vehicle. He chose to exercise that right.
Richard Burton, of Bristol, writes:
No, no and
no again. Perhaps we should be banning car-centric judges, who clearly
don’t understand anything about safe cycling though.
Daniel Cadden was riding in a safe manner, in line with all advice, including the government’s own “Cycle Craft”.
For the judge to expect a cyclist to cross three lanes of busy traffic and then use a cycle path which is much more dangerous than riding on the road demonstrates the depth of this judge’s ignorance.
In a previous case, that of the policeman driving at 159mph, this judge was over-ruled when he found the policeman not guilty of dangerous driving, and a retrial was ordered.
It is to be hoped that, due to the obvious miscarriage of justice, an immediate retrial will ensue in this case. And perhaps Judge Bruce Morgan should consider early retirement?
Would you like to contribute to C.I.C.L.E.? Do you a have bike-related article, news story, event, idea, suggestion, etc...? Check out our submissions page.
I hope we can make as much fuss about this highly opinionated and capricious judgement as possible. I will be happy to contribute to a defence fund and/or write in support of any campaign to investigate and appeal against the creation of a dangerous precedent.
Simon Baddeley (Email) - August 13 '06 - 10:21
That was a sad and preposterous ruling; and makes me wonder if transportation is actually further ahead of the USA in the UK rather than our religion of car tail fins reaching for the stars and weapons of mass destruction (also known as SUVs) here. Perhaps Holland is becoming the most civilized nation for road travel by default.Chris Jordan (Email) - August 13 '06 - 11:36
Ok so i see how this is a pretty silly ruling. I find it important to see all sides of this, though:Where i live i find cyclists nipping on and off pavements with cycle lanes next to them. There’s a apparent feeling that they can cut out traffic junctions by using the pavement and then back on the cycle lane after.
I’ve had abuse from cyclists because I’ve been walking in their way.
I even found a cyclist on a tricycle filling the entire pavement who couldn’t understand my problem.
There were cycle lanes on BOTH sides of the road in ALL these cases.
Then there’s the apparent feeling that red lights – particularly pedestrian crossings – don’t apply to them.
I enjoy cycling, walking and driving and i obey the road rules in all cases. I see the advantages of cycling in terms of environment. I agree that there should be better conditions on the roads.
The inconsiderate nature of some cyclists needs to be addressed, however. For example, a car going through a red light may be caught by camera and fined, a cyclist has little change as there are no number plates or cyclists licenses involved. This gives rise to a feeling that they can get away with anything.
Maybe it’s time we created formal licenses and identification for cyclists?
Crotchety Mc Moaner (Email) - March 15 '07 - 07:50