Daniel Cadden Case Appeal Result.

David Martin said the following on 26/01/2007 13:47:

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Excellent - that really is great news.

Seems the original judge is getting a reputation for having his
decisions overturned. Maybe he'll be put out to grass.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

David Martin said the following on 26/01/2007 13:47:

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.Excellent - that really is great news.

Seems the original judge is getting a reputation for having his
decisions overturned. Maybe he'll be put out to grass.

--
Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Or taken outside and shot?

On Jan 26, 1:47 pm, "David Martin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Excellent news..

More details will be emerging soon from the lake of champagne in
Shropshire..

That really is good news. Congratulations to Daniel for having had the
determination to see it through.

--
Dave...

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Yay!

dkahn400 said:

On Jan 26, 1:47 pm, "David Martin" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Excellent news..

That really is good news. Congratulations to Daniel for having had the
determination to see it through.

And to all those who contributed to the Cyclists' Defence Fund.

John B

David Martin said:

Excellent news..

Indeed!

The CTC has some further information:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4774

Anthony

"Anthony Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David Martin said:

Excellent news..

Indeed!

The CTC has some further information:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4774

Does he get to claim defence costs? Ie does the Cyclist's Defence Fund get
their money back?

(this question not actually aimed directly at Anthony...)

cheers,
clive

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Excellent news..

Excellent news indeed. Well done to Daniel and all who supported him during
this fiasco.

David Martin said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Excellent news..

More details will be emerging soon from the lake of champagne in
Shropshire..

..d

Are costs for the previous case claimable? What about an action for
malicious prosecution?

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:51:50 +0000 someone who may be Paul Boyd
<usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Seems the original judge is getting a reputation for having his
decisions overturned. Maybe he'll be put out to grass.

He'll probably be promoted for his excellent work.

The police should also not be forgotten. From earlier messages the
police bod responsible for this appears to be "Spencer,David"
<[email hidden]> and others may like to join
me in asking him whether West Mercia Constabulary are going to
apologise to Mr Cadden, verbally and in written form; plus, less
importantly, apologise to the general cycling community for the
malicious prosecution.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

I should think not. Midlands Today (BBC regional news for the West Midlands)
had a surprisingly sympathetic piece about it, and even quoted cyclecraft. I
haven't checked but it may be available as a video at the midlands site.

Quoted message said:

Excellent news..

Indeed it is. I trust the regular poster here who insinuated that the
prosecution was deserved has the bottle to admit he was wrong...

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

"David Martin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Video report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6300000/newsid_6304300/6304307.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

David Martin said:

Completely vindicated. Judge threw out the prosecution case - no case
to answer.

Excellent news..

More details will be emerging soon from the lake of champagne in
Shropshire..

..d

Ugh.

May I interject as a car driver? Surely all this does in create a
dangerous precedent to invalid carriages, JCB's, Tractors et al to hold
up traffic. Is it not in the highway code that if you're holding traffic
up, you should, at your earliest opportunity, pull over if you can to
let traffic by? Since by definition, it's inconsiderate.

Seems we're saying - go ahead, be inconsiderate, you have every right
not to think about others.

I can't speak for the Daniel Cadden case.... But I understand he was
driving in the middle of the lane and cycling "fast" but from the look
of this particular road on Midlands Today, I would say it has a national
speed limit of 60 mph. And if cars were having to overtake him, then,
er, he was holding them up.

Sorry, but if you get some chump driving in the middle of the road at 20
mph without a thought for the people behind him, yes, he should be
charged with inconsiderate driving.

Cyclists, like everyone else, have just as much right to be on the road.
But with that right, they also have a responsibility like everyone else
to obey the rules of the road and to be considerate.

I presume if this guy drives a car, when he's on the motorway, he sits
in the middle lane at 60 mph and saying he has every right to be there?

Cya
Simon

Several points. And made as a car driver as well as a cyclist and a
pedestrian

Daniel wasn't driving: he was cycling.
Drive along any rural *main* road with national speed limit during harvest
time in particular and you'll get held up for more than a few seconds by
farm traffic. I know this from personal experience.
Importantly:- At the original trial (I was there) one of the police officers
said he saw Daniel periodically move into the left of the road to allow
vehicles to pass him. Ergo- Daniel was being courteous. DJ Bruce Moron
ignored this.
At original trial 'middle of the road' was taken to be 1 - 1.5m out from the
gutter - an entirely proper place for a cyclist to be. Many times during the
original trial, when the prosecution said that Daniel was cycling in the
middle of the road, Daniel politely rebutted this, as did his legal team,
saying that he was no more than a metre to a metre and a half from the left
hand side of the carriageway. Given the actual width of the lane this was
*not* the middle of the road, but is well to left of centre of the lane. Yet
the prosecution kept on saying 'middle of the road' and Daniel kept on
politely rebutting that saying he was 1 -1.5m from the left-hand edge of the
road. Nevertheless, this 'middle of the road' has somehow stuck. Daniel was
far more composed than I would have been. Credit to him. Combine that with
the police saying in court at the original trial that Daniel had been seen
periodically moving to the left. Also the 'queue of traffic' behind Daniel
was actually two cars and a police car. So a grand total of three vehicles
'delayed' by a matter of seconds.
The speed limit on the road may well be 60mph but this does not mean the
motorised traffic will be going at that speed - particularly at rush hours.
Indeed, it is entirely possible to catch up traffic that has overtaken you
and then overtake it when you are on a bicycle, as it queues up in front,
grinding to a standstill...
Daniel wasn't in the middle lane of the motorway. He was in the left-hand
lane of the road. As a motorist, I'm quite happy to wait behind a cyclist
until it is safe and legal for me to overtake.
The road in question is a short length of road, it was not possible to
delay traffic by anything more than a few *seconds* at the speed Daniel was
cycling at.
At the original trial, the police officers could not agree with what Daniel
was wearing at the time they arrested him, so Daniel had to tell them..
Daniel cycled the route with John Forester; author of Cyclecraft, which has
been adopted as the cycling method to follow in the new nationally adopted
cycle training standards. Mr Forester felt that Daniel cycled perfectly
properly taking into account his safety.
At the original trial, it was given that the cyclepath was more dangerous,
covered in glass and dog poo. I heard a policeman say that under the glass
was tarmac. Did he expect the cyclist to levitate? The judge at the original
trial said it was not relevant that the cyclepath was more dangerous,
covered in glass or dog poo, but that simply by choosing to use the road,
the cyclist was automatically guilty of an offence. Which is a load of
gonads and exactly why the case needed to be taken to a higher court.

The original judgement was perverse. There was no case to answer and it
should never have gone as far as a court case in the first place.

My personal opinion as to why this came to court? When Daniel was originally
stopped, he disagreed politely that he was doing anything wrong. Cue upset
police ego. That's my personal opinion and nothing I saw happen at the
original trial makes me think anything different; rather it confirmed that
view.

Simon Dean said:

I presume if this guy drives a car, when he's on the motorway, he sits
in the middle lane at 60 mph and saying he has every right to be there?

If the nearside lane is occupied with vehicles moving at a similar /
slower speed, then 'yes'.

wafflycat said:

Several points. And made as a car driver as well as a cyclist and a
pedestrian

Daniel wasn't driving: he was cycling.

No? Was he?

Doesn't make any difference.

Quoted message said:

Drive along any rural *main* road with national speed limit during
harvest time in particular and you'll get held up for more than a few
seconds by farm traffic. I know this from personal experience.

Yes. I know this. Doesn't make that right any more than cyclists... I
also know you'll frequently find horses down country lanes. Now, horses
generally keep to the left. Farm traffic is generally wider than a bike...

Quoted message said:

Importantly:- At the original trial (I was there) one of the police
officers said he saw Daniel periodically move into the left of the road
to allow vehicles to pass him. Ergo- Daniel was being courteous.

Fine by me then. I have no problem with that... if that's what he was doing.

Quoted message said:

DJ Bruce Moron ignored this.

So did quite a few of the news reports.

Quoted message said:

At original trial 'middle of the road' was taken to be 1 - 1.5m out from
the gutter - an entirely proper place for a cyclist to be. Many times
during the original trial, when the prosecution said that Daniel was
cycling in the middle of the road, Daniel politely rebutted this, as did
his legal team, saying that he was no more than a metre to a metre and a
half from the left hand side of the carriageway.

But he was driving in the middle of his lane and ergo making it
difficult for cars to get past him.

Though, as you say, he did move left. However if it's anything like some
of the cyclists I see weaving around all over the place...

Quoted message said:

Also the 'queue of traffic' behind Daniel was actually two cars
and a police car. So a grand total of three vehicles 'delayed' by a
matter of seconds.

You don't hear this on the news either...

Quoted message said:

The speed limit on the road may well be 60mph but this does not mean the
motorised traffic will be going at that speed - particularly at rush
hours. Indeed, it is entirely possible to catch up traffic that has
overtaken you and then overtake it when you are on a bicycle, as it
queues up in front, grinding to a standstill...

Or it can mean traffic could easily go at that speed if it weren't for
the inconsiderate nature of others...

I have a regular route to work... It's about a mile down a 60mph
lane.... I regularly get caught up by someone travelling at 30mph in a
60mph limit. True, some people will say it's a limit and not a minimum.
But some might also say driving at such low speeds is actually dangerous.

I would be incensed if I was at the back of a ten car queue of traffic
and there was a cyclist hovering in the middle of the lane doing 10 to
20 mph denying cars from overtaking safely because of oncoming
traffic... This is the picture that's painted by the news.

Quoted message said:

Daniel wasn't in the middle lane of the motorway.

I didn't say he was.

Quoted message said:

He was in the
left-hand lane of the road. As a motorist, I'm quite happy to wait
behind a cyclist until it is safe and legal for me to overtake.

Yes, me too, and I will give cyclists all the room I possibly can
because I realise there are all sorts of issues at the side of the road
like yellow lines and drain covers, and the last thing I want is for a
cyclist to swerve and end up going under my wheels!

But in return, I expect the same consideration to be shown back and for
the cyclist to give me and others around him as much room as possible -
ie as much chance to overtake as is safe to do so.

Quoted message said:

The road in question is a short length of road, it was not possible to
delay traffic by anything more than a few *seconds* at the speed Daniel
was cycling at.

Define short?

Quoted message said:

At the original trial, the police officers could not agree with what
Daniel was wearing at the time they arrested him, so Daniel had to tell
them..

????

Quoted message said:

Daniel cycled the route with John Forester; author of Cyclecraft, which
has been adopted as the cycling method to follow in the new nationally
adopted cycle training standards. Mr Forester felt that Daniel cycled
perfectly properly taking into account his safety.

Did John cycle with Daniel at the time he was arrested?

Quoted message said:

At the original trial, it was given that the cyclepath was more
dangerous, covered in glass and dog poo. I heard a policeman say that
under the glass was tarmac. Did he expect the cyclist to levitate? The
judge at the original trial said it was not relevant that the cyclepath
was more dangerous

I agree. It's not relevent. Just as it's not relevent that there was a
cycle path there. I agree with the second judge in that the cyclist, has
as much right to be there as anybody else.

Quoted message said:

covered in glass or dog poo, but that simply by
choosing to use the road, the cyclist was automatically guilty of an
offence. Which is a load of gonads and exactly why the case needed to be
taken to a higher court.

Quoted message said:

The original judgement was perverse. There was no case to answer and it
should never have gone as far as a court case in the first place.

Oh how a different story is painted in the news.... as I say, you
imagine this spotty herbert cycling in the middle of the lane, oblivious
to anyone around him, travelling about 15 mph and holding up many cars,
not moving over once...

Which if that's what he did, then it should be quite right to
prosecute... just the same as it should be right to prosecute farm
traffic drivers who pass perfectly good layby's on their mile journey
between farms... just as it should be quite right to prosecute middle
lane hoggers who don't move over to the left....

Cya
Simon

squeaker said:

Simon Dean said:

I presume if this guy drives a car, when he's on the motorway, he sits
in the middle lane at 60 mph and saying he has every right to be there?

If the nearside lane is occupied with vehicles moving at a similar /
slower speed, then 'yes'.

awww... now you're just being pedantic. yes, in that situation, it would
be right. I think. Well, if they're travelling the same speed or faster
then you have no intention of overtaking and should politely pull to the
left when possible.

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

I would be incensed if I was at the back of a ten car queue of
traffic and there was a cyclist hovering in the middle of the lane
doing 10 to 20 mph denying cars from overtaking safely because of
oncoming traffic... This is the picture that's painted by the news.

No, this is the picture painted by your prejudices which don't match
the facts of the case.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:31:29 +0000 someone who may be Simon Dean
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

May I interject as a car driver? Surely all this does in create a
dangerous precedent to invalid carriages, JCB's, Tractors et al to hold
up traffic.

Nice try. However, the occupants of bikes, invalid carriages, JCBs,
tractors and so on are not some separate species, they are part of
the traffic, just like the occupants of cars.

Quoted message said:

Is it not in the highway code that if you're holding traffic
up, you should, at your earliest opportunity, pull over if you can to
let traffic by?

I am told there is something called the Interweb which allows people
to look things up. http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.htm#145 states,
"145: Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are
driving a large or slow moving vehicle. Check your mirrors
frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let
traffic pass."

There was not a long queue, it was not necessary to pull in and
there was nowhere safe to pull in anyway. Motorists were "delayed"
for a few seconds at most, rather less time then they are delayed at
queues of motor vehicles or junctions.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54