Cyclist prosecuted for not using a cycle-path
Not in the UK.
this had better get challenged.
:evil:
Rear-ended cyclist fined for veering off path
Published: 29 Sep 10 14:49 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/29326/20100929/
Share5
A 32-year-old cyclist who suffered minor injuries when hit by a car last autumn has been fined for cycling on the road.
Andreas Grass, a competitive cyclist, faced charges of “travelling on a prohibited carriageway” after refusing to stick to a bicycle path in Lund in southern Sweden.
Grass has now been fined 500 kronor for his indiscretion, reported the local Sydsvenskan daily, while the court has meanwhile cleared a motorist who faced charges for having driving into him from behind.
Grass was taken to task in October 2009 by a motorist who waved instructions at him to move to the cycle path. But the 32-year-old stayed on the road and cycled through a roundabout. He then moved out into the middle of the roadway to avoid being overtaken on a narrow stretch of road immediately after the roundabout.
“That seemed to provoke him because he honked his horn again. In the end he chose to drive into me from behind,” he told the Expressen newspaper when charges were brought in June.
Grass fell to the ground and suffered grazing to his shoulder and knee. He reported the motorist to the police for negligence and fleeing the scene. But the driver also filed a report, complaining that Grass had cycled on the road despite the fact that there was a designated path for cyclists.
When he was hit by the vehicle, Grass was just about to make a left turn on a stretch of road where the cycle track was partly closed.
Grass has furthermore explained that as he regularly travels at speeds of around 40 kilometres per hour, he believes it is often safest to avoid cycle tracks, which he claims are often populated by careless pedestrians and slow-moving cyclists who forget to signal.
this had better get challenged.
:evil:
"Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
0
Posts
If there is a law in Sweden that you must use a cyclepath, then he is going to lose the case.
Its the existence of the law that needs challenging, not the enforcement of the same.
This case is not place to challenge the existence of such a law (assuming it exists)
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_666
there is no such law.
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown
well how was he convicted and of what?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_666
"“He reckons he can win. The law states that cyclists should keep to the cycle track if there is one. But it also states that, if you’re careful and the road offers a shorter route, you are allowed to cycle there.” " (can't say how accurate that is, not being Swedish and all) (sounds like a law framed to keep lawyers occupied arguing the minute details to me)
ramming a cyclist with a car from behind
cycling on the road
If the police do not prosecute for careless driving at least the swede's reputation is goiing down in my book.
And he should be able to sue for damages. Surely even in sweden you cannot ram someone and his bike from behind without expecting to pay.
http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z122 ... =slideshow
To be fair whilst I don't really want to stick to cycle lanes if they were wide and didn't have to give way at every side road I might accept it as a trade off for people who are less confident in traffic being able to use a bike as transport. The ideal would be have the cycle lanes and let people choose whether to use them or not of course - the idea being that if they were so great 90% of people would use them.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
IME segregated cycle lanes are even worse maintained than normal road surfaces, full of potholes, they don't feature high on a councils spending list, they're also usually covered in litter, broken glass etc, they're usually full of people taking up their entire width with dogs on stretchy leads, people chatting with pushchairs etc or they're occupied by slow cyclists pootling along. There's no way you can safely reach and maintain a decent speed on them.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.
In Belgium it is obligatory to use a bike path if there is one. If a group is training and want to use the road then they have to be followed by a car with a warning triangle and message on the roof.
Seems to work fine. Lots of pros on their own or in twos and threes use the paths without a problem, teaches a bit of bike-handling as well!
Sounds like a nightmare...
But if a cycle track goes where a road doesn't, then there is a point for them existing.
Carefull Headhunter, the segregationalists will be along to admonish you ;-)
I do agree with the points you make with regards to current cycle facilities in the UK. The issue is its not black and white and sadly those with strong views on both sides (the "segregationalists" in one corner and the "vehicular cyclists" in the other to give them the terms the use at each other) aren't willing to accept that its not a simple issue.
Sadly, anyone who dares suggest that a mixture of quality cycle facilites (that don't compromise the ability of thoes who prefer to cycle on the road nor act as a means to get you out of the way) and good permeability on 'normal' roads. Confident cyclists who know how to position themselves in the road applying the principals of cyclecraft etc is always a good thing, rather than making cyclists scared to go onto the road unless there is a cycle lane.
I've been reading a lot of blogs recently who show extreme hatred towards the opposing view (mostly, I have to say, from the 'segregationalists') rather than trying to work together. A certain London based blog that doesn't allow comments comes to mind :roll: (no doubt, my post here will mean I'm black flagged
Well I'm definitely anti segregation. It's the last thing I want for cycling...
It also reinforced the stereotype that bikes don't belong on the road and that we don't pay "road tax" and therefore have no right to be there...
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/ve ... -sect.html
I had no idea there were such opposing views! I understand what the "segregationalists" are saying but there's no way that London could have segregated cycle facilities on every road, there just isn't the space without razing the entire city and starting again.
Can't read that!
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.a ... strid.html
That was clever! Even if the English is a bit dodgy in places...
If it weren't for CTC, LCC etc, cyclists would be even more marginalized, such as the attempt a few years ago to word the Highway Code requiring cyclists to use cycle lanes when present no matter how dangerous they be, which CTC successfully challenged.
Really? Thank god they succeeded. Most on road cycle lanes are an utter waste of time at best and utterly dangerous at worst. Probably designed by a desk bound civil servant who drives everywhere and only put in place to adhere to some government target to create x new miles of cycle lane, so they can tick the "we have helped cyclists" box...
that and the fact that they are always in a poor state of maintence, designed only for travelling at less than 10mph, too close or merged with pedestrian paths, without right of way at junctions, and poorly signposted, if at all.
When I starting riding again I started by using cycle ways, but have given up using them as the road is far safer for all concerned. One thing that annoys me is the way pedestrains treat dedicated cycle lanes as paths - if they treated roads in the same way there would be total chaos.
2012 Colnago CX-1
2015 Colnago AC-R
Exeter Wheelers
Have a look at the Facility of the Month section of the Warrington Cycle Campaign site http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/
Rong. London's roads are wide enough. Question is, for what?
Every segregated path gained is motor vehicle territory, motor vehicle sacred space (as an anthropologist might put it), lost.
Every *significant* improvement along these lines would imply a need to make more motor vehicle roads one-way. The squeals from the motor-driving air-heads and taxi-drivers would be deafening. The political pressure just isn't there yet. And may never be. Vast acres of muppet media coverage would be devoted to the supposed "damage to the economic fabric" were any such ideas even to be publicised.
Fact is, most people in London DO NOT NEED A MOTOR VEHICLE. If you are bringing up a family you have a case, although it actually doesn't take that much imagination to see that low-rise London, with its many broad streets, could be a place where mums could safely cycle to school with their kids. With *real* cycle paths and *real* segregation. Not to mention *real* long gaol terms for motor vehicle murderers.
The poison here, the venom, that I would be hoping those on this site at least would be seeking to recognise, and challenge, is the pernicious car propaganda perpetrated year-in year-out by the road industry lobby, through TV adverts and the like.
A London with massively restricted motor vehicle movements relative to the current situation could be wonderful...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 680329.stm