[BBC News] Gold medallist supports velodrome

[ans]

why a cyclist thinks he should have the right to ride in the centre of a road which has solid white lines preventing legal overtaking of him...

 

It may be inconsiderate but I think he does have the right legally.

 

The judge seems to disagree with you. You'll forgive me if I don't take his legal interpretation more seriously than yours, being a judge and all that.

[keyboarder]

The judge seems to disagree with you. You'll forgive me if I don't take his legal interpretation more seriously than yours, being a judge and all that.

 

Well it wouldn't be the first time he's been wrong would it?

[Juan Kerr]

The fact that the island host's so much motor sport seems to breed a moronic speed freak attitude amongst many motorised road users. I think a top quality cycle network could be a real tourist attraction personally, and wouldn't cost all that much to implement.

 

That is just the typical sort of cycling attitude you get here and elsewhere - people who want to go from a to b in comfort and not get sweaty or pissed on by the elements are all "moronic speed freaks". Maybe you have not considered that manx roads are, in fact, very narrow and some daft twat on a bike that thinks its his right to ride well towards the centre line is putting himself and other road users in danger as he's moving slower than most of the other traffic. Slow moving traffic is always advised to move to the left to let quicker traffic through, is that concept too hard to grasp.

 

The roads are too narrow for a network of cycle lanes (every bus route would be off limits as most roads are only wide enough to take a bus as is) but it might work on selected routes and might be worth a go.

 

Its great that cycling is getting a resurgence here because of the world class cyclists we have, but we cannot re-draw every road on the Island to appease a minority which is why they should build a velodrome. Where would we stop - horse lanes? lanes for hoodies on skateboards?

[StuartT]

why a cyclist thinks he should have the right to ride in the centre of a road which has solid white lines preventing legal overtaking of him...

 

It may be inconsiderate but I think he does have the right legally.

 

 

Thanks that's my point exactly. & would the police & the judge have reacted in the same way if say for example he was a juggernaut or a tractor doing the same thing?

 

Also the judge implied that he should have been using the cycle lane by law - there is actually no such law which states this - even in the highway code it is purely a recommendation. Which is why this case has to be challenged.

 

Also is it safe for bikes to ride next to the pavement? I would say not as there is plenty of reasons not to be right on the pavement - for example the danger of pedestrians (who can have bike blindness) stepping out in front of you - at least being in the middle of the lane (as opposed to the middle of the road) gives you the opportunity to do this. On descents bikes can travel at considerable speeds - in this case the rider was descending well above 30 MPH (Isn't 35MPH the speed at which a vehicle has a greater probability of killing someone?). This also limits your manouverability as you have to move further out in to the road to avoid obstacles (eg grids, manholes, potholes, pedestrians & the pavement itself). I use as much of the lane as I can when I need it (eg descending at speeds of 40 - 50MPH) , but when I'm concious of cars trying to overtake me I will move over to the left to let them past if it is safe to do so. As with all vehicles you should show consideration for others, but also not compromising safety comes above that.

[StuartT]

why a cyclist thinks he should have the right to ride in the centre of a road which has solid white lines preventing legal overtaking of him...

 

It may be inconsiderate but I think he does have the right legally.

 

The judge seems to disagree with you. You'll forgive me if I don't take his legal interpretation more seriously than yours, being a judge and all that.

 

 

Judges can & do make mistakes & misinterpretations - this is why the courts of appeal exists. This particular judge has a record of bad case judgements (in the eyes of the public at least). If you have ever studied law at any level you would realise that the way the law is enforced is down to one persons interpretation & that often those interpretations can lead to a statute acting in entirely a different way in which it was intended. Also it is noticable that the judge & the police both differed on where they felt this person was breaking the law.

[ans]

Thanks that's my point exactly. & would the police & the judge have reacted in the same way if say for example he was a juggernaut or a tractor doing the same thing?

 

Oddly enough, a large vehicle doesn't have the option of cycling nearer to the pavement. You did look at the picture, right? You're telling me a cyclist was at a greater risk if he cycled nearer to the line? Yes, the line, there wasn't even a pavement or pedestrians to be concerned with.

[Albert Tatlock]

Also the judge implied that he should have been using the cycle lane by law - there is actually no such law which states this - even in the highway code it is purely a recommendation. Which is why this case has to be challenged.

As you can be charged with dangerous or careless and inconsiderate cycling, I would have thought that not using an available cycle path would be classed as at least inconsiderate cycling, and especially so if competent cyclists would have used it.

[StuartT]

Thanks that's my point exactly. & would the police & the judge have reacted in the same way if say for example he was a juggernaut or a tractor doing the same thing?

 

Oddly enough, a large vehicle doesn't have the option of cycling nearer to the pavement. You did look at the picture, right? You're telling me a cyclist was at a greater risk if he cycled nearer to the line? Yes, the line, there wasn't even a pavement or pedestrians to be concerned with.

 

 

Ah but that picture lacks a number of things.

 

For one it does not indicate his actual position on the road does it?

 

Also it is noticable that if he was even one foot from the line it would necessitate the cars having to move out over the double white lines to overtake him or stay behind him at a slower speed. One foot is hardly a great distance from the line is it? Do you ride that close to the edge of the pavement?

 

Also it only shows one section of the road - do we know what the rest of the road was like? How can we know if he was on some particularily difficult bends at the point at which he was observed? Certainly he was descending yet in the picture we do not see much evidence of a hill.

 

Also in the booklet "Cyclecraft" distributed by Her Majesty's Stationary Office it 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.” If it is illegal to do so, then why would HMSO sanction & distribute any document which advocates this? Also the evidence of a Mr John Franklin who wrote the above document & who appeared as expert witness in the trial was dismissed by the judge!!

 

Anyway the matter is not so much the Police charging him with causing an obstruction (though they do not dispute his right to use the road - purely the position in which he was riding - as stated above by HMSO "the primary riding position"- it is with the judge convicting on the basis that (in his opinion interpreting the recommendation in a redraft of the highway code that cyclists should use cyclepaths rather than the roads) he felt that in his summing up:-

 

“The district judge in his summing up decided that I had a choice of using the cycle path or the main carriageway. By using the main carriageway I made a bad decision as inconveniencing motorists when there is an alternative cycle path is inconsiderate.

 

“The judge dismissed much of what Mr. Franklin had said or written in his report. He could not be satisfied that I would be more inconvenienced by using the cyclepath than the motorists would be by me using the carriageway. He did not accept how dangerous negotiating the traffic where the cycle path went around the roundabout, the fact that these are the types of junctions where most cycling accidents occur and also that these types of accidents were more severe. He dismissed broken glass and doggy doo as nonsense and was quite happy that I should progress along the cycle path at less than twelve mph instead of over thirty on the road.”.

 

There is no law that states that cyclists must use the cyclepaths in preference to the roads - purely a recommendation in the highway code. Therein lies the danger however that cycling could become severly compromised as a form of transport & as a sport.

[Albert Tatlock]

There is no law that states that cyclists must use the cyclepaths in preference to the roads - purely a recommendation in the highway code. Therein lies the danger however that cycling could become severly compromised as a form of transport & as a sport.

There's no law that says a parachutist should use a parachute either - it's all about commonsense and what a competent cyclist would have done in the same circumstances (that's what the Road Traffic Act actually says).

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

[StuartT]

Also the judge implied that he should have been using the cycle lane by law - there is actually no such law which states this - even in the highway code it is purely a recommendation. Which is why this case has to be challenged.

As you can be charged with dangerous or careless and inconsiderate cycling, I would have thought that not using an available cycle path would be classed as at least inconsiderate cycling, and especially so if competent cyclists would have used it.

 

 

You can also be charged with dangerous or careless & inconsiderate driving. If it is inconsiderate to be cycling in such a manner that it causes cars to limit their speeds, it is also by definition inconsiderate to cause cyclists to limit their speed (I've know a few motorists that have done this). By forcing cyclist to use cycleway or to ride in close to the pavement you are therefore limiting their speeds (anyone who actually cycles & has the capability do to it at speeds higher than 15MPH will know exactly what I mean) you are displaying exactly the same kind of 'inconsideration' that you are convicting the cyclist of!!

 

Furthermore if you had actually read the article you would have realised that the cyclepath was nowhere nearby to be used & was actually more dangerous than being upon the roads:- The Judge "could not be satisfied that I would be more inconvenienced by using the cyclepath than the motorists would be by me using the carriageway. He did not accept how dangerous negotiating the traffic where the cycle path went around the roundabout, the fact that these are the types of junctions where most cycling accidents occur and also that these types of accidents were more severe. He dismissed broken glass and doggy doo as nonsense and was quite happy that I should progress along the cycle path at less than twelve mph instead of over thirty on the road.”

[StuartT]

There is no law that states that cyclists must use the cyclepaths in preference to the roads - purely a recommendation in the highway code. Therein lies the danger however that cycling could become severly compromised as a form of transport & as a sport.

There's no law that says a parachutist should use a parachute either - it's all about commonsense and what a competent cyclist would have done in the same circumstances (that's what the Road Traffic Act actually says).

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

 

Well if it's all about what a competent cyclist would have done in the same circumstances, then the more competent cyclists generally are found on the roads rather than the cyclepaths. Also as the HMSO document states that a competent cyclist rides upon the roads in the middle of the lane then what reason should the judge have to dismiss this???

 

Hypothetical examples - which is more dangerous?

 

The cyclist who rides in the middle of the lane avoiding the potholes maintaining a steady & predicatable path which motorists can allow for or the cyclist who rides in the gutter either A) swerving out into the roads whenever they spot a pothole or B) riding over every grid & pothole possibly damaging a wheel/puncturing/skidding in the process falling into the path of the motorcar behind?

 

The cyclist who uses the busy pedestrian frequented cycleway (eg Douglas Promenade) or the one who rides at speeds of 30+ MPH in the main flow of traffic keeping pace with the cars (and even overtaking them)?

[hboy]

The cyclist who uses the busy pedestrian frequented cycleway (eg Douglas Promenade) or the one who rides at speeds of 30+ MPH in the main flow of traffic keeping pace with the cars (and even overtaking them)?

 

Thats a poor example.

 

Everyone knows that those two white lines on the Prom that are laughingly called a cycleway were in fact designed to keep old ladies and children from wandering all over the place.

[ans]

Ah but that picture lacks a number of things.

 

For one it does not indicate his actual position on the road does it?

 

The article says he was riding in the centre of the lane. Sorry, but that's inconsiderate behaviour. There's adequate room to the left for him to cycle freely and safely without inconveniencing the other (road tax paying) users.

[StuartT]

The cyclist who uses the busy pedestrian frequented cycleway (eg Douglas Promenade) or the one who rides at speeds of 30+ MPH in the main flow of traffic keeping pace with the cars (and even overtaking them)?

 

Thats a poor example.

 

Everyone knows that those two white lines on the Prom that are laughingly called a cycleway were in fact designed to keep old ladies and children from wandering all over the place.

 

 

Believe me, that's not a poor example. From what I've seen & heard across there are numerous other worse ones (going up & down pavements, into barriers, etc) & the point is anyway that it doesn't matter if it's the best or the worst example, it's a cycleway & if the law stated you had to use cycleways wherever they're available, you would have to use it in preference to being on the Prom!! See what I mean about the dangers of cycleways?

 

Though I was LOL at that last statements, very true indeed!!!

[StuartT]

Ah but that picture lacks a number of things.

 

For one it does not indicate his actual position on the road does it?

 

The article says he was riding in the centre of the lane. Sorry, but that's inconsiderate behaviour. There's adequate room to the left for him to cycle freely and safely without inconveniencing the other (road tax paying) users.

 

 

More inconsiderate & safer than swerving around potholes, manholes & grids falling off into the path of oncoming cars? You've already said that you personally do not ride in the gutter - therefore going by manx road sizes you must be somewhere approaching the centre of the lane??

 

As already said, he was occupying the Primary riding position as advocated by the cyclespecific OHMS document.