EU to fight mud menace?

[Pedalling Pete]

EU payments to farmers will be witheld if crops are harvested when fields are waterlogged, according to draft regulations. This is legislation that the CTC should be supporting. As might be expected, the NFU are raising objections.
DEFRA are asking for views. Since each field cannot be policed, the decision will be made nationally by the Agriculture Minister based on Met Office advice if exceptional weather conditions apply at the relevant harvesting time for the particular crop. And the sanction will only apply where the crop is receiving the EU subsidy, not to unsubsidised crops. If DEFRA accept the objections of the NFU, then farmers will be given the green light to break the law by bringing mud out of their fields onto the roads and endangering the lives of cyclists and motorcyclists. The existing legislation to deal with this mud menace is in practice as ineffectual as the controls on hedge cutting: You can try to sue after the event, while the NFU will use its resources to defend the claims against individual farmers. This is an opportunity for the CTC to raise the issue of road safety in the countryside by contacting DEFRA in support of the draft regulations.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story ... 20,00.html

[avalanche]

Forgive me Pete but how exactly does this impact cyclists? Are you suggesting that cyclists should campaign that there be no mud on countryside roads? If so, is this practical/sensible use of CTC campaigning resources?

[Pedalling Pete]

Having lived most of my life in the countryside I am aware of the hazards to cyclists caused by mud deposited by farmers. I have witnessed a motorcyclist thrown off his machine into another vehicle due to thick mud. Any cyclist could be similarly affected. Consequences could be fractured femur or worse. In the case of the motorcyclist, the farmer had been in and out of the field many times.
There has been a code of conduct, agreed by the NFU I guess, not to re-enter a field after finding that mud has been deposited onto the road by a previous visit. That code of conduct would accept that the first trip might be made without the knowledge of the consequences; but any subsequent trip depositing mud would render the farmer liable to a claim of negligence if injury to occur. The NFU would want to discourage such claims, hence the code of conduct.
As well as being liable for a personal injury claim, there would also be the liability of Police prosecution for obstruction of the highway, if it were unsafe to use by legitimate vehicles such as bicycles and motorcyclists.
Farmers are also aware of a requirement to warn road users if mud has been left of the road, usually black paint of a brown board so only a token gesture at best.
The EU proposals, if you follow the link, simply try to minimise these risks by witholding payments to those farmers who ignore the advice of the ministry of agriculture, when fields with subsidised crops are waterlogged.
If this EU proposal is accepted, it will have two benefits: Firstly by reducing the actual risk of injury to cyclists in these specific instances, and secondly by reminding farmers of their more general responsibility for the safety of road users.
The only resources it requires from the CTC is a formal letter to DEFRA expressing our support for the draft proposal, and expressing our concerns if the NFU were to argue that farmers wanted the right to deposit mud on the roads while receiving EU subsidy when doing so. I would hope that is not too much to expect of an organisation set up to protect the interests of cyclists.

[avalanche]

Thanks for the extra detail Pete. I am not being condescending when I say that I am sure your intentions are honorable. However what concerns me is well... mud? Mud? I too have been cycling a long time and have seen cyclists have accidents due to glass, and ice, and autumn leaves, and twigs on the path/road. But surely it would not be reasonable or sensible to campaign the EU/DEFRA for local or regional bodies to protect cyclists (and motorcylists, and dog-walkers) from these things?

My experience is that it wouldn't amount to anything anyway. I have been hassling Sustrans for months re *cement* that has been dumped on one of their paths - which incidentally I witnessed cause 2 accidents - and their response indicates that they are not interested. I am certain that if I told them a farmer had left muddy tracks on their path that their response would likewise be one of inactivity.

My own pet hate at the moment is rabbits. The wee blighters keep coming straight towards my front lamps and twice I have clipped one with my front wheel, narrowly missing coming off my bicycle. I am toying with setting up a campaign to protect cyclists from accidents caused by rabbit misadventure.

Sorry to be facetious, when I know that you care about this issue. Let the rain wash the mud away.

[Pedalling Pete]

I fully accept the view that the voice of cyclists will generally be ignored by decision makers. In its 126 years, the CTC has failed to put an end to hawthorn hedge clippings being left in the roads. If motorists were regularly inconvenienced by punctures resulting from 6-inch nails in planks of wood in the road, I feel sure the matter would be rapidly resolved.

Just to clarify my point, I am not recommending a campaign using scarce resources of the CTC – just a simple letter. That is hardly a campaign. These proposals are coming from the EU, not the CTC. They are out for consultation. Why should the CTC not respond on behalf of Cyclists’ interests? That is what the club was founded for – defending cyclists’ interests. The EU proposals include a clause to minimise the problem of mud on the roads. The NFU are trying to scupper the particular clause. In the UK it seems DEFRA is the coordinating body. My suggestion is that the CTC should write to DEFRA, or directly to the EU, in support of the proposal to withhold subsidy payments to farmers who ignore the clause in question, and harvest crops when fields are waterlogged.

The subsequent response by DEFRA to the EU would indicate whether or not the interests of agribusiness are more important than road safety in the UK. Whatever the result, let’s hope the EU holds out for road safety.

Regarding the other issues, they nearly all have bodies responsible for their resolution: Sustrans route – if a right of way, then rights of way officer on local authority (has responsibility to keep them passable, glass – highways cleansing dept, Ice – local councillors policy and implementation, Leaves – highways cleansing again, muddy tracks – rights of way officer again (can implement ban on 4WDs), rabbits – shotgun licence for vermin control. Sorry – getting facetious here!

The point is not to take a laissez-faire attitude, waiting for the rain to wash away the mud, but to let the decision makers know we cyclists exist, and to hold them responsible for their failures.

[avalanche]

Pete. OK, I will admit to agreeing with most of your sentiments. I would be reluctant to debate against improvements in road safety given the implication of this for all road users.

I do find it difficult though to take the problem of mud, specifically, seriously. My own opinion is that there has to be a lowest common denominator of what we might regard as an infringement of road safety. Mud, I feel, is just an occupational hazard of the cyclist - like wind and insects and rain.

My concern is that any body (whether the CTC or other) sending letters commenting on how mud on rural roads affects their recreational activities... are going to be seen by the wider community as a mob of whingers. I think that one should choose one's issues carefully, that way they have greater impact, rather than seemingly complain about a wide range of minor things. This comment is in no way disrespectful of your opinion that muddy roads ARE an important issue, for the reasons you outlined.

Clearly we differ on what we regard as important. I won't post again on this topic so as to give other folk an opportunity to add their comments.

[Guy]

avalanche, Mud is a serious hazard. Older editions of the Highway Code had an instruction to the effect that anyone depositing mud on the road had to clear up after themselves. This suggests that mud is not just "an occupational hazard for the cyclist" but is a real hazard for all road users.
I do hope you continue to cycle in your mud-free utopia, the rest of us will continue to treat all hazards seriously when we come across them while using roads in the real world.