Congratulations to Daniel Cadden

David
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 5:13pm

Postby David » 27 Jan 2007, 10:12am

Pinky wrote:I hate to think of the money expended -- all due to some "plod" who was feeling a bit "liverish" and decided to "pull rank" on an innocent member of the public.


Probably can't wholly blame the Police. Perhaps they should have spent a bit more time thinking about what they were doing BUT the CPS (Criminal Protection Service :roll:) have the final decision on whether to prosecute or not. It should have been thrown out at the CPS review.

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 27 Jan 2007, 10:22am

Well knock me down with feather yer 'onour,how did I guess that would be the answer.
Isn't democracy wonderful ..........especially if your mad judge.

Who said the class system was dead.

Kentish Man

Postby Kentish Man » 27 Jan 2007, 7:34pm

reohn2 wrote:Fantastic news congratulations Daniel, at least there is SOME justicy in this country after all.
Now theres the small matter of the LUNATIC judge at the original trial,what to do about him as this isn't the only mad blunder this man has made in recent years.What can be done to get him the sack,assuming judges can be sacked (please someone tell me they can if they're mad as a hatter like this one is). A campaign perhaps?



Actually, I think that we, as a cycling fellowship, owe a measure of gratitude to the original trial judge. If he had thrown the case out at the original hearing, the chances are that:
a) the case would have been ignored in the national media;
b) thousands of cyclists would would not have felt aggrieved and galvanised into action;
c) the CTC would not have received a huge amount of spin-off publicity;
d) the action would not have resulted in case law to all cyclists' benefit.

So, my hat goes off to Mr Cadden for his strength of character, to the CDF for backing him, to the expertise of the legal team and to District Judge Bruce Morgan who has made all of this possible!

mel

Postby mel » 27 Jan 2007, 7:40pm

Breath a sigh of relief, there's no need for me to say; if the original decision against Mr. Cadden had been upheld it would have had huge repercussions for us cyclists having the freedom to ride on the road at all. However, let’s hope no cyclist assumes he can now ride down the center of any road lane holding up traffic unnecessarily because that wouldn’t endear us to the motoring public. I’m still not sure if the road/lane shown in the CTC Magazine was where the incident occurred and, if it was, if it justified defensive riding in the center of the lane. Also, I wouldn’t be tempted to ride on any pavements, or jump any red lights, around Telford for awhile until the Cops have recovered from losing that case. Me, I'll avoid using cycle lanes where there is a perfectly good road to ride on, unless by using one it provides a very safe alternative or has some scenic value.

reohn2

Postby reohn2 » 27 Jan 2007, 11:23pm

Kentish Man wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Fantastic news congratulations Daniel, at least there is SOME justicy in this country after all.
Now theres the small matter of the LUNATIC judge at the original trial,what to do about him as this isn't the only mad blunder this man has made in recent years.What can be done to get him the sack,assuming judges can be sacked (please someone tell me they can if they're mad as a hatter like this one is). A campaign perhaps?



Actually, I think that we, as a cycling fellowship, owe a measure of gratitude to the original trial judge. If he had thrown the case out at the original hearing, the chances are that:
a) the case would have been ignored in the national media;
b) thousands of cyclists would would not have felt aggrieved and galvanised into action;
c) the CTC would not have received a huge amount of spin-off publicity;
d) the action would not have resulted in case law to all cyclists' benefit.

So, my hat goes off to Mr Cadden for his strength of character, to the CDF for backing him, to the expertise of the legal team and to District Judge Bruce Morgan who has made all of this possible!


I've got to admit an own goal looks just as good on the score board. :0)

mark a.
Posts: 1367
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Postby mark a. » 28 Jan 2007, 1:05am

Forgive me for perhaps being an ignoramus, but has Daniel actually won anything? As far as I can tell from the press release, he's just won the right for a retrial. So, in theory, he could still get charged again for inconsiderate cycling or something else equally ludicrous.

I'm glad that his original conviction seems to have been squashed, but is this really the end of it? Or is this just a nice hiatus before round 3?

Tony
Posts: 408
Joined: 28 Jan 2007, 2:48pm

Postby Tony » 28 Jan 2007, 3:01pm

I read that as well, and I think it should translate not as "Dan has won the right to a retrial" but as "Dan has had a retrial, which he has won".

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15188
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Postby Si » 28 Jan 2007, 4:23pm

Yes, it is definatly the appeal (retrail) that he has won, thus he has cleared his good name and demonstrated that in this particular case he was riding legally and with due care for other road users.

mark a.
Posts: 1367
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Postby mark a. » 28 Jan 2007, 5:02pm

Ah, thanks. Obviously I read the "won the re-trial" the wrong way round.

Definitely good news then!

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10415
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Postby horizon » 28 Jan 2007, 5:09pm

Has anyone got any info on "inconsiderate cycling", which law it is enshrined in, what it means, whether it applies to car drivers and who interprets it. After all, if it is taken to mean (as it was in the original case), using a bicycle on a road while cars were present, then it has a fairly wide remit. I wondered too whether it had been applied to cyclists in relation to pedestrians.

JamesAC

Postby JamesAC » 29 Jan 2007, 11:03am

Great news indeed!

I cycle down several one-way streets, with cars parked both sides. There often is not enough room for cars behind me to safely overtake, so I occupy the Primary Position (sounds a bit rude) .. then, if opportunity arises, I pull over to let following traffic pass.

Mostly, I don't get hooted at by cars trying to overtake;
Mostly, drivers don't acknowledge the courtesy I've just extended to them by pulling over.

Hey Ho.

James

Charlie

Postby Charlie » 29 Jan 2007, 12:08pm

mel wrote:Breath a sigh of relief, there's no need for me to say; if the original decision against Mr. Cadden had been upheld it would have had huge repercussions for us cyclists having the freedom to ride on the road at all. However, let’s hope no cyclist assumes he can now ride down the center of any road lane holding up traffic unnecessarily because that wouldn’t endear us to the motoring public. I’m still not sure if the road/lane shown in the CTC Magazine was where the incident occurred and, if it was, if it justified defensive riding in the center of the lane. Also, I wouldn’t be tempted to ride on any pavements, or jump any red lights, around Telford for awhile until the Cops have recovered from losing that case. Me, I'll avoid using cycle lanes where there is a perfectly good road to ride on, unless by using one it provides a very safe alternative or has some scenic value.


Daniel wasn't riding in the centre of the lane, this has been proven in court.
The Police Officer in the first case, completely contradicting his self in the second hearing.
Last edited by Charlie on 29 Jan 2007, 12:59pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reynard

Postby Reynard » 29 Jan 2007, 12:55pm

Inconsiderate cycling is basically the same as driving without due consideration to other road users ( not to be confused with driving without due care and attention). Various Road Traffic Acts have come and gone but that is the where this offence originates. The interpretation is in the opinion of the police officer reporting the alleged offence. Common sense SHOULD prevail in what they feel is inconsiderate (obviously this wasn't the case with the incident in question) but human nature will mean that on occaision an anti cycling police officer will let his judgement be clouded. However the CPS should have thoroughly reviewed this case and "No further actioned" it. If the officer honestly thought that Daniel was cycling inconsiderately a simple chat and words of advice should have been sufficient, and then Daniel could have explained his reasons for cycling as he was and left a more thoroughly trained member of the police service to continue doing what he is supposed to do, serving the public.

Will
Posts: 315
Joined: 16 Jan 2007, 6:39pm

Postby Will » 29 Jan 2007, 7:35pm

Reynard wrote:If the officer honestly thought that Daniel was cycling inconsiderately a simple chat and words of advice should have been sufficient, and then Daniel could have explained his reasons for cycling as he was and left a more thoroughly trained member of the police service to continue doing what he is supposed to do, serving the public.


From the CCN website:

"The judge expressed veiled criticism of the police for bringing the charges, which seemed to be more a consequence of the cyclist not accepting the 'road safety advice' (to ride in the gutter or on the cycle track) that the police had given than of the cyclist's riding behaviour."

Will

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Postby Simon L6 » 29 Jan 2007, 8:06pm

I did, as Charlie suggested, attend the case, along with Gordon Selway and Peter Mathison, both National Councillors.

The judgement doesn't set a precedent, because it comes from the Crown Court rather than a High Court, but the judge said several things which were of note...

1. riders were not compelled to take to a cycle path, however close it might be to the road.
2. Lack of consideration was a question of fact and degree, not, as Judge Morgan would have had us believe, and absolute. If a cyclist carries on for miles and miles on a narrow road, collecting a huge tail of cars behind him or her, then that's inconsiderate. Causing a 'transitory' delay in preference to take an entirely unsuitable cycle path, is not inconsiderate.
3. The judge accepted that Daniel would have been unwise to ride on the left hand side of the continuous white line that ran at the edge of the road -furthermore he said it would have been illegal.

So, our congratulations to Daniel, to his excellentg barrister, Mr. Francis Fitzgibbon (who did the job for free), to RJW -he solicitors, and to Messrs Geffen and Selway, trustees of the CDF, who took the bold decision to support a cyclist facing a criminal charge - a first for the Fund.

There is a rather longer discussion of this, with links to embarrassing TV bitbobs, on ACF.

Pip-pip!