reported a dangerous driver - now charged with dangerous cycling. Help please

Andy Rob wrote:

Highway Code isn't law. There is no charge "Breaking rule 68" Nobody has ever been charged in Court with breach of the Highway code.

The bits that say "MUST" and "MUST NOT" are law "SHOULD" and "SHOULD NOT" are recommendations. The relevant bit of RTA legislation is given at the end of MUST rules, for example Rule 68 states ..

You MUST NOT

carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.
Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

He's been charged under section 26 of the 1988 RTA not the highway code.

smileydave wrote:

section 28 actually. thanks for oyur input

Section 26 ...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/26

26 Holding or getting on to vehicle in order to be towed or carried.

(1)If, for the purpose of being carried, a person without lawful authority or reasonable cause takes or retains hold of, or gets on to, a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence.
(2)If, for the purpose of being drawn, a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence

Section 28 ...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/28

28 Dangerous cycling.

(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.]

Have they charged you under the correct section ????????? You may well have been hanging on (an offence under sect 26) but not dangerous cycling (sect 28)!!!. Is it a moot point ? Unfortunately, you'd prob need to speak to your defence again to find out!

The penalties are as follows ... so dangerous cycling is lot more serious than just hanging on.

RTA section 26 Holding or getting on to vehicle, etc., in order to be towed or carried. Summarily. Level 1 on the standard scale.
RTA section 27 Dogs on designated roads without being held on lead. Summarily. Level 1 on the standard scale.
RTA section 28 [F303 dangerous] cycling. Summarily. [F304Level 4] on the standard scale.
RTA section 29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling. Summarily. [F305Level 3] on the standard scale.

Bear in mind that the original post resembled an application to be on the Jeremy Kyle show, but....

if you don;t think hanging onto a taxi while you're being towed up the road is dangerous, where exactly would you draw the line?

I think the OPs point is that the driver pulling off with him holding onto his car is dangerous, to which some cynical lawyer has replied 'yes it was dangerous, because you held on...'

exilegareth wrote:

Bear in mind that the original post resembled an application to be on the Jeremy Kyle show, but....

if you don;t think hanging onto a taxi while you're being towed up the road is dangerous, where exactly would you draw the line?

I think the OPs point is that the driver pulling off with him holding onto his car is dangerous, to which some cynical lawyer has replied 'yes it was dangerous, because you held on...'

Hanging on to a moving vehicle is a lesser cycling offence (Section 26 of the RTA). Dangerous cycling is much more serious (section 28 RTA), which he wasn't (according to the account) - he was just hanging on (an offence under section 26).

In the OP he admitted to hanging on (RTA section 26) not dangerous (RTA section 28) cycling. This looks to me like plod has made a mistake and the OP needs to get some proper legal advice ASAP.

BigglesMeister wrote:

smileydave wrote:

section 28 actually. thanks for oyur input

Section 26 ...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/26

26 Holding or getting on to vehicle in order to be towed or carried.

(1)If, for the purpose of being carried, a person without lawful authority or reasonable cause takes or retains hold of, or gets on to, a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence.
(2)If, for the purpose of being drawn, a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence
[...]

I'm fairly sure that the OP is either a troll or at the least not giving a full and accurate version of events, but as an aside, hanging on to a vehicle because it has moved off and you fear falling if you let go is likely not an offence under section 26, due to the "If, for the purpose of being carried" qualification. If you can convince a magistrate that you were holding on for any reason other than getting a lift (such as being too scared to let go), then they should not convict you.

This is of course irrelevant as the OP now states it is section 28 and in any case I am not sure they could convince a magistrate of anything based on this thread. One alternative reading between the lines view of the incident could be that the OP continued to hold on to the cab door after it drove off in order that they could continue to remonstrate with the driver. This would be covered by section 28 I think.

As several others have said to the OP: get legal advice. Speak to someone who is qualified to help you, and tell them the full truth. Avoid any temptation to make comments about their mothers. You may also want to speak to Citizens Advice as a first stop (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk) - they will probably also advise you to speak to a lawyer, but might be able to help you do this and give you some good, free impartial advice along the way.

Finally, what is it with some riders and their aversion to unclipping?.
It's fair enough all these people teetering at the lights with trackstands of varying quality, but if you're going to stop and talk to a driver (let alone argue with them), it's pretty damn rude to balance yourself by leaning on their vehicle unless you know them and know they are fine with it. Try using a random cyclist to balance yourself on at a set of lights and see how you get on if you disagree

hylozoist wrote:

BigglesMeister wrote:

smileydave wrote:

section 28 actually. thanks for oyur input

Section 26 ...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/26

26 Holding or getting on to vehicle in order to be towed or carried.

(1)If, for the purpose of being carried, a person without lawful authority or reasonable cause takes or retains hold of, or gets on to, a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence.
(2)If, for the purpose of being drawn, a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence
[...]

I'm fairly sure that the OP is either a troll or at the least not giving a full and accurate version of events, but as an aside, hanging on to a vehicle because it has moved off and you fear falling if you let go is likely not an offence under section 26, due to the "If, for the purpose of being carried" qualification. If you can convince a magistrate that you were holding on for any reason other than getting a lift (such as being too scared to let go), then they should not convict you.

26 (2) "If, for the purpose of being drawn" qualification may cover it.

There's also the question of intent and reasonable doubt which is important when considering if an offence has actually been committed. It may even be that plod is just fishing hoping the OP will plead guilty as then he get's a free one to add to the conviction rate.

BigglesMeister wrote:

smileydave wrote:

section 28 actually. thanks for oyur input

Section 28 ...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/28

28 Dangerous cycling.

(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

Have they charged you under the correct section ????????? You may well have been hanging on (an offence under sect 26) but not dangerous cycling (sect 28)!!!. Is it a moot point ? Unfortunately, you'd prob need to speak to your defence again to find out!

Have they charged him under the correct section? Well, let's look at the conditions:

legislation wrote:

(2)(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

I wouldn't expect a competent and careful cyclist to be hanging on to a vehicle, moving or otherwise. It seems most of us here wouldn't, given that many have said he should have just put a foot down. Frankly I'd never touch a driver's car if I could avoid it for fear of getting thumped. The same would be true if I was a fellow driver at the time or a pedestrian. Don't interfere with someone else's property.

legislation wrote:

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

Likewise. It should be obvious that if you're hanging on to a stationery vehicle (presumably one with its engine running?) that it could imminently become a moving vehicle, which would be a bad thing.

legislation wrote:

(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property;

OK, so we're looking for danger of injury or serious damage to property. Considering that the OP ended up injured and with damaged property, an outcome that could have been reasonably foreseen, that seems pretty open and shut.

It seems they've charged him under the correct section. OP should have just put his foot down and not started grabbing onto a car.

smileydave wrote:

i was holding on to a stationary taxi . he drove off knowing i was holding on - tha's dangerous driving.

You should have put a foot down instead of holding on to the car.

Quote:

i wans't holding on to a moving vehicle by choice. if you were in exactly the same situation, what would you have done?

I'd have put a foot down.

Quote:

if i had been a motorist, he wounld't have cut me up, because i was in the middle of the road. i wa only cut up because i was a cyclist.

This is what I mean by some cyclists seeing themselves as victims.

Quote:

he argued with me - I didn't want to get in an argument with him - if it was down to me I'd have sworn at him and fucked off.

So why didn't you ride off? You stopped and held onto his car.

Quote:

I could ahve been killed because of a dangerous taxi driver, and you think I"m painting myself as a victim? you need to take a long hard look at yourself.
I"m fed up with near misses on a daily basis.

You could have been killed because you stopped and held onto his car. You could have carried on you way and forgotten about it. There's no point being righteous and dead.

smileydave wrote:

you obviously had a bad day with your mother yesterday and started drinking early.
If i'd asked for criticism form a sanctimonious prick, I'd have asked for it in the title. instead I asked for help, of which you have contributed precisely nothing apart from keeping the discussion near the top of the board.
when i asked you what you would have done in exactly the same situation. i meant if youhad found yourself getting dragged along hte road by a taxi driver. i' sorry that that wasn't obvious enough for you to realise that I didnt want oyu to bang on your own soapbox about your own pet hates.

it seems to me taht you don't do much utility cycling, otherwise you'd have come across these issues yourself.

I'll assume this is aimed at me so to answer your points:

No, I didn't have a bad day with my mother, she's been dead 17 years. No, I hadn't been drinking early, I've actually given it up for Lent.

It seems you want sympathy but you didn't specifically ask for that, either.

I wouldn't have found myself being dragged along by the taxi because I wouldn't have held on to it. If I was being dragged along by it because I was holding onto it, I'd have let go. Cars don't accelerate that fast.

I ride to work five days a week and get out on a Sunday morning but, no, I've never got myself in trouble with the police.

smileydave wrote:

I"m fed up with near misses on a daily basis.

If you're experiencing "near misses on a daily basis" then the problem is most likely to be due to your own riding competence ... or lack of it. From what I've read from your description of events you seriously need to improve your road-craft and also deal with your own anger-management issues.

I can *just about* understand you holding on to a vehicle whilst 'in discussion' with the driver but ... when it moves off ... *you* let go. All day long. You'll never convince me that holding on to said vehicle was the safer option.

It read to me that he was holding on to a stationery vehicle, and then the taxi drove off. He couldn't avoid breaking rule #68 because he doesn't know it's a moving vehicle until it is a moving vehicle. I believe rule #68 is intended to apply to vehicles that are already moving. Is there a rule which states you shouldn't pull away if someone is holding onto your vehicle or trailer?
That said, if you hold on to it for a period of time then you've kind of brought it upon yourself. Letting go straight away may well still have resulted in being thrown onto the road though, or maybe under the wheels, so was holding on until you thought you had control the only safe option?
I don't really see what the point of a case against you is though.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I don't really see what the point of a case against you is though.

It's a taxi driver, the salt of the earth dontcha ya know ...

ChrisB200SX wrote:

It read to me that he was holding on to a stationery vehicle, and then the taxi drove off. He couldn't avoid breaking rule #68 because he doesn't know it's a moving vehicle until it is a moving vehicle. I believe rule #68 is intended to apply to vehicles that are already moving. Is there a rule which states you shouldn't pull away if someone is holding onto your vehicle or trailer?

Well, the guard of a train in Liverpool is currently doing 5 years for manslaughter for giving the right away when a girl was leant on the train.

So yes, I'd say a person in charge of a vehicle, especially a vehicle designed for public carriage, has a duty to the people around it.