Telford case: the future.

[thirdcrank]

Now that the euphoria over the Telford success has died down a bit, perhaps we should look to the future.

First, I think that we should remember SimonL6's comment that no precedent has been set. Although it would have been disastrous if the conviction had been upheld, the fact that it was not upheld does not stop something similar happening again.

In particular, it does not affect the statutory and common law powers of the police to direct traffic, which have almost invariably been upheld by the courts. So, for example, if the police in a similar case were to direct a cyclist to ride on a particular part of the highway (including a cyclepath) they might be wise to comply, rather than refusing based on their interpretation of what happened here. (The instruction would only apply to that occasion: I am not suggesting they can say, 'Ride on the cyclepath and don't let me catch you on the road again'.) As always, there are possible legal remedies but refusing to comply would not be one of them.

I hope that the CTC will now really look to the future because this issue is not going away. For example, we urgently need to know the status of, for example, Cyclecraft and National Training Standards. (Incidentally, it is incorrect to say that John Franklin's evidence affected this case. I presume he only gave evidence in the Magistrates' Court. A ruling of 'No case to answer' means that none of the defence witnesses would be called in to bat.) These things need to be on an officially recognised footing, on a par with the Highway Code.

We also need some proper monitoring of what is going on. If cyclists are being regularly advised or directed to ride on cyclepaths when they would rather be on the road we need to know. (I do not know Daniel Cadden's side of his initial encounter with the police. I would be interested to hear his account.) Inevitably, there is also the question of contributory negligence if an accident occurs. That is something else that will not go away unless the position is clarified.

In short, we have won the first skirmish, not the war.

[Simon L6]

I can tell you that Roger Geffen and team entirely agree that this is one event in a long trail.

I'll ask him to post a summary of the CTC's position, and the efforts that we are making

I was at the trial and I believe that Mr. Franklin's written report, submitted prior to the appeal and referred to by Judge Onions on more than one occasion, was of considerable benefit

[disco]

What have Sustrans said about him not using a cyclepath?

[Guy]

What have Sustrans said about him not using a cyclepath?

Tell Sus(pect)trans(port policies) it's none of their business. They want to get bikes off the roads, we want to stay on 'em.

[Marc]

Guy

Sustrans have not passed comment other than to Support Mr Cadden from top to bottom.

Marc

[Hugo]

Cyclecraft and National Training Standards.

The best cyclecraft of all is to avoid using roads. Mr Cadden's victory
may be a pyrrhic one in terms of road deaths.

I see any number of cyclists using the A35 to Bournemouth, an extremely fast, extremely narrow, extremely dangerous, desperately busy road.

There is a forest track which follows it inch for inch for much of the route.

I have only ever heard of, or seen two other people who use it, many thinking that forest tracks are private property amd may not be used. Negative permission is the law of the forest..... but NOT the law of the road.

[thirdcrank]

SimonL6

Thanks for correcting me over the expert witness issue. (Expert witnesses are used much more of ten in civil trials than criminal proceedings and my experience is obviously not so wide as I thought.)

An update and outline of plans for the future from RG would be a valuable contribution.

[reohn2]

I have a feeling the number of cycles on the road will grow in the next few years and with the bigger presence will come a bigger voice.I can only see this as being the way to not being marginalised,after all it is because we are a small group that we treated as some kind of throwback to the 30's by society.
So whilst we should and no doubt will welcome the judgement on the Daniel Cadden case it is indeed only a minor win in the battle for recognition as part of the traffic system of this country,and a very enviromentally clean and healthy one at that.
That somehow needs to be taken on board by the rest of society.The current traffic situation cannot carry on and I believe the motoring public recognise this as much as we do, and therein I think lies the problem.I believe at a deep level motorists are frightened of what will happen when they no longer can just jump in the car and go wherever they please,they see the alternative evertime they see a cyclist and it frightens them.
I also think the police are not policing for the good of society but firefighting,treating the symptoms.I think is being done at senior level due to a lack of officers and a lack of strategy brought about by a need for results, any results,ie if you can't get the real criminals, find someone to criminalize and that usually means minorities.
So the future,as i see it relies on more cyclists on the roads.

[Simon L6]

Guy

Sustrans have not passed comment other than to Support Mr Cadden from top to bottom.

Marc

would that it were so...

[bikepacker]

Sustrans? Support for Mr Cadden? thats a laugh.

[ed_o_brain]

Cyclecraft and National Training Standards.

The best cyclecraft of all is to avoid using roads. Mr Cadden's victory
may be a pyrrhic one in terms of road deaths.

I see any number of cyclists using the A35 to Bournemouth, an extremely fast, extremely narrow, extremely dangerous, desperately busy road.

There is a forest track which follows it inch for inch for much of the route.

I have only ever heard of, or seen two other people who use it, many thinking that forest tracks are private property amd may not be used. Negative permission is the law of the forest..... but NOT the law of the road.

I'll go back to taking longer to travel shorter distances, arriving at work covered in dirt and spending my evenings stripping and regreasing/replacing components on my bikes that wear out much faster with regular off-road use.

I'm being sarcastic, but this was how I started out in my regular commute and if I carried on that way, I wouldn't have sustained it.

Off road routes are fine for leisure use, but the disadvantages they bring make them inpractical as a mode of transport where by being able to make the journey is more important than how the journey is made.

If cycling is to be a viable alternative to the car for the masses (which it is given the RAC statistic that 50% of journeys by car are < 5 miles), then the solution is to make our roads safer for cycling on then to deny cyclists the right to use them completely.

Even if only 10% of journeys were made by bicycle, I reckon most off-road routes would be pushed over their designed capacity.

[thirdcrank]

ed

Spot on. I wish I had a pound for every time I have explained to some planner that if you want change of travel mode i.e. people cycling to work etc., then you must assume that at least in the short to medium term they will continue to live and work in broadly the same places and will make similar journeys. Somebody who commutes A to B does not buy a bike and suddenly commute Y to Z. Also, something that is OK for a leisure ride on sunny afternoon is unlikely to be any use for somebody riding in for a 6 am start in January - I know because I was that soldier.... We are looking for a big increase in everyday utility riding, not roof rack cycling. It would of course, need much greater efforts to make the roads safer.

(And I do know that the change to the car has meant much greater journey distances which might be reduced by more use of sustainable transport but that change did not occur overnight and it will not be reversed in short order.)

[horizon]

"roof rack cycling"

Hmmm. Good one thirdcrank. Was that original? Sums it up very well. It's taken me a couple of years to actually get the car out of the equation and now I do it I cannot believe I didn't do it earlier.

[thirdcrank]

Horizon

I think I made it up but it is a long time since I did so and I imagine a search would show I have used it before on here. I think the idea first came to me when I realised the extent of the parking problems near some Sustrans trails where drivers metamorphose into cyclists.

I also had a sharp exchange of words at a cyxcling consultation meeting when some official doubted the popularity of cycling. I invited him to stand by the city boundary on any main road on a Friday evening in summer and count the bikes strapped onto cars.

(Before I accused of hypocrisy, I have taken bikes on holiday this way and one reason for getting the notorious Berlingo was so I could shove a bike in the back.

[Hugo]

We are looking for a big increase in everyday utility riding, not roof rack cycling. It would of course, need much greater efforts to make the roads safer.

So until they are, it would be better to roof rackthe bikes and take them to some place it is safe to ride them... and make it a family social occasion too.

There are circular rides in every county in England and Wales for the family to do just that.

Will the Sustrans routes between towns become more, or less, useful, as the years go by? That is the big question. They are not used by roof rack cyclists.
They are used by a certain type of educated leisure cyclist, who know the potential of the bike. Most people do not, even those who roof rack their bikes.

Utility riding may mean 2 miles a day, and if it is a good saving, then those are the people who are sought.

Many older people give up cycling on the grounds of possible injury. It is safer to do an hour's vigorous walking a day, than get on something rather faster and less easy to balance, than on two feet.