Cycling on roads illegal 496Alan Holmes Well, I take your point, of course, but you don't *really* mean "saving your life" - you *can't* mean that except on specific occasions when your life is in some identifiable discrete danger that...
Robin
Quote:
"But when cyclist Daniel Cadden appeared before a particular district judge last week, he the district judge threw the book at the 25-year-old software engineer for riding in the road instead of using a special path set aside for cyclists."
Cycling on roads illegal 497Brimstone No, there isn't. There was a case where a judge said that every cyclist must be allowed his wobble, which is not the same thing. Since cyclists do...
"He convicted Mr Cadden of failing to show 'reasonable consideration' - a clause in the 1988 Road Traffic Act normally used to prosecute cyclists who terrify pedestrians by riding on the pavement - and fined him £100 with £200 costs".
Was it wrong in law? That's the issue. Perhaps this judge's decision will now be the leading case-law. Perhaps not.
And the claim in the report: "...motoring law experts believe the judge got it wrong and that Mr Cadden should never have been prosecuted..." is meaningless. The judge doesn't decide who is prosecuted. Perhaps these un-named "motoring law experts" meant "convicted" rather than "prosecuted".
And a rhetorical question only: how *often* is that "clause in the 1988 Road Traffic Act ... used to prosecute cyclists who terrify pedestrians by riding on the pavement"?
The word "normally" (used in the report) gives the impression that it must be fairly frequent, which seems unlikely.
