Cyclist prosecuted for not using a cycle-path

nicklouse

Not in the UK.

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:

spen666

Why had it better be challenged?

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)

nicklouse

spen666
there is no such law.

dodgy

Daniel Cadden all over again, only in Sweden this time

spen666

nicklouse wrote:

spen666
there is no such law.

well how was he convicted and of what?

sirmy

From the first story about the case:

"“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)

priory

there is some difference between the magnitudes of the offences is there not?

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.

Headhuunter

How can road race training take place in Sweden if cyclists are obliged to keep to cycle lanes? This sounds completely ridiculous! There's no way you can safely travel at 20+mph on cycle lanes anywhere

Tom Butcher

I'm assuming it's a case of keep to cycle lanes where they exist ? It wouldn't be unique in that requirement - doesn't Holland require similar (I haven't cycled in Holland so could be wrong).

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.

Headhuunter

This is exactly why I don't want segregated cycle lanes in the UK. How long would it be before cyclists were obliged in law to use them or at least motorists would expect you to use them and make life difficult for you if you weren't on them (as we see here, by ramming you off the road if you dare to cycle there).

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.

Tom Butcher

Oh yes the kind of lanes we'd have in this country would be totally unsuitable - they'd have to be maintained to at least the same standard as the roads, swept regularly and kept purely for cyclists - not a white line painted on the pavement or a place for people to park.

giropaul

Headhuunter wrote:

How can road race training take place in Sweden if cyclists are obliged to keep to cycle lanes? This sounds completely ridiculous! There's no way you can safely travel at 20+mph on cycle lanes anywhere

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!

Headhuunter

giropaul wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

How can road race training take place in Sweden if cyclists are obliged to keep to cycle lanes? This sounds completely ridiculous! There's no way you can safely travel at 20+mph on cycle lanes anywhere

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...

Berk Bonebonce

Cycle tracks suck. They are so often the brainchild of non-cyclists. The people that build them are not clever enough to be able to make roads that are safer to use by cyclists.

But if a cycle track goes where a road doesn't, then there is a point for them existing.

OldSkoolKona

Headhuunter wrote:

This is exactly why I don't want segregated cycle lanes in the UK. How long would it be before cyclists were obliged in law to use them or at least motorists would expect you to use them and make life difficult for you if you weren't on them (as we see here, by ramming you off the road if you dare to cycle there).

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.

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 )

Headhuunter

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

This is exactly why I don't want segregated cycle lanes in the UK. How long would it be before cyclists were obliged in law to use them or at least motorists would expect you to use them and make life difficult for you if you weren't on them (as we see here, by ramming you off the road if you dare to cycle there).

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.

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...

nickwill

More segregated cycle paths would be the beginning of the end for cycling. The idiots who shout abuse and threaten to run us off the road would have won!

Headhuunter

Nickwill wrote:

More segregated cycle paths would be the beginning of the end for cycling. The idiots who shout abuse and threaten to run us off the road would have won!

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...

OldSkoolKona

Careful... you'll be accused of being part of a secret sect...

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/ve ... -sect.html

ooermissus

The guy is taking his case to the Court of Appeal: http://www.sydsvenskan.se/lund/article1 ... strid.html

Headhuunter

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Careful... you'll be accused of being part of a secret sect...

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.

Headhuunter

ooermissus wrote:

The guy is taking his case to the Court of Appeal: http://www.sydsvenskan.se/lund/article1 ... strid.html

Can't read that!

dodgy

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The guy is taking his case to the Court of Appeal: http://www.sydsvenskan.se/lund/article1 ... strid.html

Can't read that!

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.a ... strid.html

Headhuunter

dodgy wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The guy is taking his case to the Court of Appeal: http://www.sydsvenskan.se/lund/article1 ... strid.html

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...

OldSkoolKona

Headhuunter wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Careful... you'll be accused of being part of a secret sect...

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.

I think there is a lot of credit in what they say, I just wish there was less antagonism against those who they perceive as against them.

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.

Headhuunter

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Careful... you'll be accused of being part of a secret sect...

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.

I think there is a lot of credit in what they say, I just wish there was less antagonism against those who they perceive as against them.

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...

electric_blue

I've yet to see a cycle lane that actually goes where I want to go for any significant distance. the few times I've tried to use one they seem to take you into the middle of a new-build housing estate or round the back of an industrial unit and then suddenly end leaving me lost and confused.

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.

briantrumpet

electric_blue wrote:

I've yet to see a cycle lane that actually goes where I want to go for any significant distance. the few times I've tried to use one they seem to take you into the middle of a new-build housing estate or round the back of an industrial unit and then suddenly end leaving me lost and confused.

It would be quite fun to put up photos of the most nonsenscal cycle lanes. There are plenty of them here in Exeter - there are the ones that just go round corners and then stop, there's one that starts after a roundabout, goes about 50 yards, then disappears into the back of a line of parked cars. The most annoying one is one that goes up a steep hill to a school - sensibly they put a cycle lane in, but then didn't put double yellow lines on it, so cars park randomly along it, forcing children into the middle of the road. Worse than useless.

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.

sirmy

briantrumpet wrote:

It would be quite fun to put up photos of the most nonsenscal cycle lanes.

Have a look at the Facility of the Month section of the Warrington Cycle Campaign site http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

mrodent

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

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...

mapleflot

Since Belgium and race training were mentioned......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 680329.stm