Just come across an interesting case concerning pavement cycling last
year in the High Court in which the judge made some interesting comments: [my emphasis]
http://www.bailii. org/ew/cases/ EWHC/QB/2010/ B11.html
"43. In my judgment, this piece of road was dangerous for all but the most experienced, traffic fast, confident and dominant of cyclists i.e. the 'serious' cyclist as Mr Ibbotson puts it, as opposed to the ordinary prudent cyclist using a cycle to go to work encumbered with his cyclerucksack.
44. In my judgment, although it is illegal for cyclists to use the pavement (unless it is specifically sanctioned by a local authority for shared use), when weighing up the danger to himself (cp danger to
pedestrians) it was a reasonable decision by the Claimant to ride on the pavements in this area rather than the road in the context of the duty of care owed to himself to take reasonable care for his own safety
whilst cycling. In my judgment, although illegal and potentially negligent in any action vis a vis a pedestrian, it was not "blameworthy" in terms of negligence in contributory negligence."
It would be interesting to know whether this has any implications for pavement cycling beyond deciding damagesas it seems to echo then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng's famous statement when pavement cycling FPNs were introduced that “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I wonder if perhaps the fault is on the local government? If the roads were bad enough that it was not rideable by a bicycle, wouldn't you say that it was only a matter of time before someone got hurt?
Interesting stuff this, by the way. Not from the area, so I find the laws in other countries a source of constant interest. Write on! (Wow, no pun intended, honest)
Post a Comment