German Court rules on Road Use

[Klaus]

I have just come across a news item from Germany.

A few days ago the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) in Leipzig has ruled that cyclists are entitled to ride on public roads and that local authorities may only in exceptional circumstances make the use of cycleways compulsory.

The chairman of the ADFC (the German equivalent of the CTC) got this favourable judgment at the highest court, in response to the city council of Regensburg having enacted an order making the use of cycleways compulsory. The city council used road safety consideration as a defence.

The presiding judge pointed out that personal responsibility of road users should be strengthened and that cyclists must not be forced onto sub-standard cycleways. This is probably a swipe at the "nanny state".

Hope I got the gist of this right - the Bundesverwaltungsgericht rules on lawfulness of rules and regulations made by public bodies. I think such a ruling is very important because it prevents that cyclists become second class citizens in terms of road use. Not sure how one would get such a ruling here in the UK.

Link to German web page- http://www.neumarkt-tv.de/default.aspx?ID=378&showNews=891209 if you want to try your German.

 

[downfader]

Could dump a bit of that text into google translate, though its not that effective on German to English from my experience (better with French)

 

[e-rider]

I think we did get the same ruling here a few years back - or at least there was pressure to make cyclists use cycle lanes instead of roads where they were provided or something like that

it was something to do with specific wording of the highway code revisions

 

[dellzeqq]

it was indeed. The word 'should' was going to put in an appearance, and the CTC lobbied to have it kept out. The thought was that a cyclists clipped from behind by a car on a road flanked by a cycle path would contribute to his or her own injuries by being negligent.

The other landmark, which has no legal effect, was the Daniel Cadden case in which the CDF paid for the defence of a cyclist who was prosecuted for inconsiderate cycling. Daniel had been on a two lane road and was stopped by the police who told him to use the cycle path. He objected, they took him to court, Daniel was convicted, but found not guilty on appeal.

 

[hatler]

it was indeed. The word 'should' was going to put in an appearance, and the CTC lobbied to have it kept out. The thought was that a cyclists clipped from behind by a car on a road flanked by a cycle path would contribute to his or her own injuries by being negligent.

The other landmark, which has no legal effect, was the Daniel Cadden case in which the CDF paid for the defence of a cyclist who was prosecuted for inconsiderate cycling. Daniel had been on a two lane road and was stopped by the police who told him to use the cycle path. He objected, they took him to court, Daniel was convicted, but found not guilty on appeal.

Hmm. I thought the police on the spot wanted him to cycle to the left of the 'edge of road' marking, that thick white line beyond which lies the verge, crap and broken surfaces. It was the judge who thought he should have pulled off the road and used the parallel cycle path (on the right side of the road). Hardly very practicable for a short downhill stretch with a traffic jam at the bottom.

 

[dellzeqq]

the police weren't entirely consistent at the first trial, but, yes, they did say 'keep to the left' at the time and then suggested at the first trial that he should have crossed the junction to get to the cycle path - if I remember correctly Daniel said that they hadn't mentioned the cycle path at the time and the dominant policeman (they were an odd couple) insisted that he had. As you say, the judge (sitting as a magistrate) suggested that Daniel should have taken the path. A long to and fro about dog shoot followed. To be honest it wasn't much of an advertisement for our justice system. The judge summed up by saying that if Daniel delayed traffic by one second then he was cycling without consideration. My principal concern was for the well-being of the dominant policeman and anybody he came in contact with. His biceps were just too large.

I didn't mention that the road had a solid line down the middle, and that cars had overtaken Daniel, and, in doing so, crossed the white line - which was illegal. The crux of the prosecution case was that Daniel had obliged the drivers to break the law. All very odd.....


The appeal really didn't consider anything much at all. The police, faced with a less indulgent bench, looked like idiots - the submissive policeman barely testified. The chair of the bench stopped the trial after the presentation of the prosecution evidence and simply said that the police and Daniel didn't get on, and that there was no case to answer.