Respose received - Daniel Cadden

Quoted message said:

So this looks like a total vindication of Mr Cadden.

I propose to send a copy to the CTC for their archives.

Does anyone have contact details for Mr Cadden's legal team or Daniel?

I've emailed the post to Daniel.

Cheers, helen s

"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On behalf of Douglas Alexander
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Dept of Transport.

Dear A***

Thank you for your letter of 23rd November to Douglas Alexander,
enclosing correspondence from Mr xxxx about the use of cycle tracks by
cyclists. I am replying as Minister responsible for cycling.

We are aware of the court case involving Mr Cadden which Mr xxxxx refers
to and which is I believe the subject of an appeal.

The Highway Code is periodically reviewed and republished after
extensive consultation to ensure all views are heard. The current
consultation was carried out by the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) and
the twelve week consultation period ended on 12 May. Many thousands of
responses were received including a great many from cyclists raising
similar points to Mr xxxxx, before the deadline and these issues are
being given careful consideration ahead of any revisions being made to
the code next year.

Mr xxxxx is certainly correct in pointing out that there is no law
requiring a cyclist to use a cycle track or any other cycle facility and
no offence occurs if a cyclist chooses not to do so. I can also assure
Mr xxxxx that while we are still considering the very many comments from
cyclists and other road users on the consultation, the new version of
the code will not make it compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes,
cycle tracks or any cycle facilities, either on or off the road.

Only new primary legislation could introduce such compulsion and we
certainly do not have any plans to introduce any such legislation. The
Highway Code can only explain to road users the requirements of existing
legislation and this is made clear by the use of the words "MUST" or
"MUST NOT" in the rules, which are accompanied by a reference to the
relevant legislation. Other rules in the Code advise road users of safe
practice in general terms, but it will always remain a matter for
their judgement and discretion how and when they follow such advice.

I hope this is helpful.

Best Wishes

[censored] xxxxx

So this looks like a total vindication of Mr Cadden.

I propose to send a copy to the CTC for their archives.

Does anyone have contact details for Mr Cadden's legal team or Daniel?

Your post has been noted on acf (Daniel is a regular there).

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

On behalf of Douglas Alexander
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Dept of Transport.

[...............]

Quoted message said:

Mr xxxxx is certainly correct in pointing out that there is no law
requiring a cyclist to use a cycle track or any other cycle facility
and no offence occurs if a cyclist chooses not to do so. ........ the
new version of the code will not make it compulsory for cyclists to
use cycle lanes, cycle tracks or any cycle facilities, either on or
off the road.
Only new primary legislation could introduce such compulsion and we
certainly do not have any plans to introduce any such legislation.

[............]

Quoted message said:

So this looks like a total vindication of Mr Cadden.

Unfortunately no, its not.
It means the secretary of state thinks there is no law requiring a cyclist
to use a cycle facility.
A judge might think differently, or decide that some other law is applicable
in this case.
Ministers and their civil servants do not decide the law, judges make those
decisions.

Quoted message said:

I propose to send a copy to the CTC for their archives.

Sensible, because its a pretty solid statement of current government
plans/policy.

It is clear that primary legislation is required to change the traffic
(criminal) law, ie. traffic offenses which may interest the police.
However, the outcome of the Cadden case may establish some unhelpful case
law if it does not find for Mr Cadden.

There is still potential a problem over (non-compulsory) guidelines.
Lawyers, insurance companies and judges in civil cases (accident claims) who
may alter the balance of the blame (and thus the compensation) on failure to
follow a guideline.

Quoted message said:

Does anyone have contact details for Mr Cadden's legal team or Daniel?

I imagine that asking the CTC office would get it forwarded.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

So this looks like a total vindication of Mr Cadden.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is.

The implication to me is that they don't see anything wrong with what
they are doing, and while they won't be introducing laws to force
cyclists off the road, they will continue to peddle myths about it
being safer in the Highway Code.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________