Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: Southpaw82 on May 12, 2024, 12:55:02 pm
-
I've never liked shared cycle paths and much prefer to ride on the road. But it has to be said that cycling on the road instead of an off road cycle path results in a lot of abuse from motorists.
I understand that the council have said that it was not a shared use path.
The evidence at trial is that while it was not a shared use path, the signage was such from a shared use path further along the street that it caused confusion whether or not were the incident happened it was shared use or not.
I have this issue locally where there is no 'end of shared use' signage at the end of a number of shared use paths, you only know shared use has ended by the absence of repeaters.
That said I rarely use shared use paths as they are only safe to use at much lower speeds than I typically cycle at and the one that should be safer at higher speeds (fully segregated pavement markings and a circa 4m wide pavement) the peds ignore the segregation and walk in the dedicated cycle path.
-
"The judge's legal directions contained fundamental and material misdirections of law", ouch.
Failing to talk about the underlying offence in a case of unlawful act manslaughter seems pretty fundamental. But then, the prosecution didn’t address it either.
Isn't this the sort of thing you'd expect an experienced Crown Court judge to raise himself with the prosecution?
I would.
-
"The judge's legal directions contained fundamental and material misdirections of law", ouch.
Failing to talk about the underlying offence in a case of unlawful act manslaughter seems pretty fundamental. But then, the prosecution didn’t address it either.
Isn't this the sort of thing you'd expect an experienced Crown Court judge to raise himself with the prosecution?
-
"The judge's legal directions contained fundamental and material misdirections of law", ouch.
Failing to talk about the underlying offence in a case of unlawful act manslaughter seems pretty fundamental. But then, the prosecution didn’t address it either.
-
"The judge's legal directions contained fundamental and material misdirections of law", ouch.
-
I completely disagree with cyclists (adults... maybe older teenagers) using non-shared paths. Even shared paths are fraught with danger when the pedestrians have to cross the cycle bit (to both peds, and cyclists, as neither sometimes look correctly). This becomes even more dangerous when you bring e-bikes into the equation, plus the illegal use of e-scooters. I also believe the conditioning caused by cyclists continuing to use footpaths, instead of the roads, makes the average driver even more annoyed when cyclists are properly using the road, although don't get me started on the cyclists that refuse to use a perfectly good cycle path on a straight road with no junctions...
I also agree with SP and the appeal outcome. Someone who has a vision problem, and possibly some LD / cognitive impairment too from the cerebral palsy, even if undiagnosed, who is then surprised by a fast moving cyclist in their path is likely to react with a surprise, gross reaction. Just like if I came up behind you and shouted in your ear, I would expect to be clocked by your body or arms.
-
I've never liked shared cycle paths and much prefer to ride on the road. But it has to be said that cycling on the road instead of an off road cycle path results in a lot of abuse from motorists.
I understand that the council have said that it was not a shared use path.
-
I've never liked shared cycle paths and much prefer to ride on the road. But it has to be said that cycling on the road instead of an off road cycle path results in a lot of abuse from motorists.
-
Court of Appeal judgment (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2024/487.html)
I said it was wrong then and it’s wrong now. She should never have been convicted, let alone imprisoned.