[ad_1]
The Supreme Court requires bicyclists to think of others before choosing to pedal in the field of public transportation and slow down bus traffic.
The sensible judgment of the Supreme Court confirms a normal sense of common custom: before a cyclist chooses to lie down in front of buses in the field of public transport instead of making a small detour by bicycle, he must consider the disadvantages for all the rest.
The conclusion of the first voter of the Supreme Court is clear: «I find reason to mention that the conclusion does not mean that in practice riding a bicycle on public transport is prohibited. But in the same way that slow-moving road users on narrow roads have to detour at regular intervals to let traffic pass, one must eventually have to cycle to another city to avoid creating a queue.».
THE RETURN: The cyclist demanded to be allowed to ride in the Mosseveien public transport zone, even though Fisker Syversensvei runs parallel and only means a few extra seconds in cycling time.
Photo: Google Maps
I think most people intuitively agree with the Supreme Court that popular mores dictate that one should not put one’s own interests to save a few seconds, in front of several hundred bus riders and other people returning home from work. .
In the case in question, the cyclist opted to pedal in the public transport tent on the E 18 from Oslo at approximately 4.30pm. – As a result of the bicycle, the traffic became congested and there was a queue behind him, thus obstructing the flow of traffic on the site. In addition, he caused potentially dangerous situations for himself, it was found in the fine that the Police issued in October 2018.
But the rider did not give up and was confirmed in District Court. On the other hand, he was sentenced in the Court of Appeal to pay a fine of 8,500 crowns. But the rider stood firm and appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court. But it did not stay there.
Legally, the case is about how article 3 of the Road Traffic Law should be interpreted contrary to the usual traffic regulations, which state that it is allowed to cycle on public transport. The Road Traffic Law states that “everyone must travel with consideration (…) so that other traffic is not unnecessarily impeded or disturbed.”
The keyword is unnecessary and should be interpreted based on the situation. The point is that all road users must be mindful of others and accept a certain restriction in their own right. In this case, the cyclist could have chosen to do like most of the others, that is, cycling in the pedestrian and bicycle lane that runs parallel to E 18 (Mosseveien).
Overall, the Supreme Court finds that the disadvantages to the bicyclist do not outweigh the consideration for the flow of traffic and that they have therefore unnecessarily obstructed other traffic. In my opinion, this is a sensible compensation that can be justified not only on the basis of the letter of the law, but also on the basis of common popular customs. The Supreme Court thus forces the “egocyclists” to take into account other road users, and that really should only be lacking.
Therefore, the highest court in the country has ruled that even if cyclists have a normal right to circulate in the field of public transport, they must continually assess whether cycling creates an unfortunate queue in the field of public transport.
P.S! What do you mean? Do you agree with the Supreme Court, or do you think it should be the right of cyclists to remain in the public transport arena regardless of whether they create a queue? Write a reader post!
[ad_2]
