Barmy Judge shafts cyclist.

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

The cycling world (at least in England) seems to be seething with rage about the conviction of Daniel Cadden for "Inconsiderate Cycling". He was riding his bike at a fair lick on a road with double white lines down the centre, so motorists wishing to pass him would be breaking the law if they did so. Police stopped and arrested him, initially for not riding sufficiently over to the left, tho' this was changed to not using a nearby cycle path. The Judge ruled that because the cycle path was available and he chose not to use it, he was being inconsiderate to other road users.

The path was not a good one, being covered with dog mess and broken glass; who wants to be repairing a punctured and shit-covered tyre? Also the design of the path made steady progress impossible. The DOT's own advice is that cyclists wishing to ride faster than 18mph should use the road rather than cycle paths.

Daniel Cadden was clearly not breaking the law, but the Judge (the same one who decided not to convict a police officer who drove along public roads at 160 mph to "familiarise himself with his car") fined him £100 with £200 costs anyway. Daniel Cadden has had a lot of support and cyclists have raised a lot of money to help with his appeal, but it is possible that no appeal will take place because he found the Judge's hostility in court so unpleasant that he is deterred from going back.
Unless I have missed something, there has been no mention of this on Cyclingforums up til now. This surprises me, it is a very significant legal ruling against all cyclists in this country, as well as being a great injustice against Mr. Cadden.

WOW WHAT A STRANGE RULING,:confused:
I was always led to believe the British judicial system to be of the fairest in the world.

It would never happen here in Cape Town,but that is only because we don't have any cycling paths.:rolleyes:

The cycling world (at least in England) seems to be seething with rage about the conviction of [color=#191970]Daniel Cadden for "Inconsiderate Cycling". He was riding his bike at a fair lick on a road with double white lines down the centre, so motorists wishing to pass him would be breaking the law if they did so.


I can't say that was ever much of a deterrent for motorists in my experience. Sounds like a stinker of a judgement to me. Cyclepaths are --ing deathtraps in 9/10 cases. :(

I have to wonder whether he was being genuinely inconsiderate... Was he riding in the middle of the road for 20 miles or something ? Seems unlikely to me.

I can't say that was ever much of a deterrent for motorists in my experience. Sounds like a stinker of a judgement to me. Cyclepaths are --ing deathtraps in 9/10 cases. :(

I have to wonder whether he was being genuinely inconsiderate... Was he riding in the middle of the road for 20 miles or something ? Seems unlikely to me.This is copied from another forum site:-
According to the court, Daniel was stopped after 300 - 350m along the road which was 0.59km long, IIRC. The 'delay' factor to motorists was *seconds*

This is copied from another forum site:-
According to the court, Daniel was stopped after 300 - 350m along the road which was 0.59km long, IIRC. The 'delay' factor to motorists was *seconds*

Ah right, so it was a case of Policemen looking for trouble backed by a judge who hates cyclists. Any chance of having the buggers who made that conviction stick being convicted for wasting time and being Nazis ?

Ah right, so it was a case of Policemen looking for trouble backed by a judge who hates cyclists. Any chance of having the buggers who made that conviction stick being convicted for wasting time and being Nazis ?Probably not in Telford.
Although the case was not important enough to set a legal precedent, and the verdict might be reversed if it goes to appeal, there is already some evidence that some other British police are regarding this as a way of preventing cyclists from using real roads if there is some "cycling facility" near by.
Time to be worried.

An appeal has been made.

This is both good and bad. It's good because the conviction is likely to be overturned, resulting in justice for Mr. Cadden and a reaffirmation of our right to cycle on the roads and choose whether or not to use cycle paths.
It's bad because if the appeal fails, it will set a legal precedent that could result in cyclists being banned from using any road that has a nearby "cycling facility", however inadequate or unsafe that facility is.

On the basis of the judgement in the Rhyl CC case recently (4 riders were killed by a motorist - who's sentence amounted to some points on his drivers licence) and this latest case, it's obvious that m'lords have got their heads up their proverbials, when it comes to cyclists and cyclist safety, on roads in Britain.

Daniel Cadden has won his case on appeal!!!!!

Cyclists are still allowed to ride on the road like real people!!

Cyclepaths are --ing deathtraps in 9/10 cases. :(

I can say that in my area, that is absolutely the case. After I broke 3 ribs last year on one, I will not ride again on MUT's.

You're probably safer riding a bike on a superhighway.

110 years ago, the Worthing Excelsior wrote to the West Sussex County Council. So did the Chichester and District C.C. and the Sussex Chapter of the National Cyclists' Union.

Was the turnpike system fell apart and roads fell into decay, militant cyclists all over Britain fought to ensure that some sort of road network survived.

Their reward is barmy judgements like this.

By the way, is this the first recorded instance of "You cyclists don't pay tax"?

:confused: John :confused:

Daniel Cadden has won his case on appeal!!!!!

Cyclists are still allowed to ride on the road like real people!!

Justice, if a little late. Any chance of the Judge having wages docked / fired / jailed for making a ruling that was so blantantly against the law ? :)

The whole sorry issue did have some beneficial side-effects.

The Cyclists Defence Fund gained about 25 grand from donations made by cyclists who wished to see the original ruling overturned. Since they won the case, they'll keep all that money.

The right to ride on the road is re-affirmed.

Judge Bruce "Bananas" Morgan has been made to look a fool; again.

Justice, if a little late. Any chance of the Judge having wages docked / fired / jailed for making a ruling that was so blatantly against the law ? :)I believe that a vigorous bare-buttocks spanking was proposed as a suitable chastisement for the magistrate. However, His Worship's eager enthusiasm for this led to the idea being discarded.

"His Honor's been a very naughty magistrate, hasn't he?...."