# Do we have to use the Cycle path



## Oneleggedtoad (5 May 2011)

Okay, first time I’ve posted in here so excuse me if thishas been discussed at length. My question is “Do I have to use a cycle path ifthere’s one there?

The problem is in Newbury where I live the standard of theCycle paths are terrible. At the end of my road the cycle path that goes downthe hill is obstructed by a split pedestrian barrier across it, lamp posts,traffic lights and parked cars. Also, because the cycle path and the partpedestrians walk on is only separated by a tatty white line pedestrians willwalk on the cycle path part. At times when the kids are walking to and fromschool they crowd it.

I don’t use it, but this morning as I turned out on to thisroad to go down the hill a vehicle decided to move to within a meter or 2 of myback wheel and beep away on his horn. I turned to look at him and I could seehim waving between sounding the horn and yelling all sorts at me. 

He eventually overtook me but soon got stuck in stationarytraffic so I pulled up along side him to ask “What’s the problem old boy”. 

Well you can guess what kind of reply I got but his pointwas there was a cycle path and I should jolly well use it! He was therefore inthe right to push me out of the away.

What can you do! I mean the cycle path isn’t worth theeffort it took to paint the line on it, the speed limit on the road is 30 whichI can do down the short hill, so I’m not even holding anyone up. 

Its just crazy that people in cars take the trouble to slowdown to tell us to F!*k off! but can’t slow down to give us a bit of room so wecan do what we need to do.

I took a picture of the vehicle on my phone, should I reporthim to the police?


----------



## BSRU (5 May 2011)

You have as much, or probably more, right to be using the road than the car driver who told you to get off it.

I hate cycle paths and avoid them like the plague, I have about 300 metres of cycle path I have to use because of the road layout I always dread having to use it, due to other users not paying attention, poor surface, debris and the increasingly common knob head cyclist who thinks it's their right to go as fast as they can.

I would report it, as using you vehicle to intimidate another road user out of the way would be classed as dangerous driving. Even if the offender just receives a visit from the Police asking for their version of events it will, hopefully, moderate their behaviour.


----------



## yello (5 May 2011)

Oneleggedtoad said:


> My question is “Do I have to use a cycle path ifthere’s one there?



In a word, no.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## jnb (5 May 2011)

IIRC (which means that this is almost certainly wrong) cycle paths, particularly shared use paths are only recommended for low speed usen and the advice if cycling fast is to use the road and not the cycle path.


----------



## marinyork (5 May 2011)

jnb said:


> IIRC (which means that this is almost certainly wrong) cycle paths, particularly shared use paths are only recommended for low speed usen and the advice if cycling fast is to use the road and not the cycle path.



Over 18mph is the official advice. In my personal opinion even this is too fast for the (usual) very low standard of cycle path we have in this country and I think it should be more like 12mph or 14mph. 

You always get some idiot from time to time going on about using a cycle path, I've had it on sections that are heavily populated by pedestrians and been doing 25mph+ on the road and explained to them that it is deeply unrealistic, it being the sort of speeds where you could get a serious injury or even fatality. I think a lot of the stupid beeping and comments is more speculative probing to see if you can get you to use it.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 May 2011)

The Highway code states that;


> *61*
> Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. *Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills*, but they can make your journey safer.


(My emphasis)

So no, you do not have to use them, and if the driver in question stopped to think about it, the very fact that you met him at a queue of stationary traffic means that you haven't delayed him by not doing so. 

This doesn't stop drivers *thinking* that you are legally required to endure them though, so be careful out there.

Not all cycle paths are dreadful, but sadly a large majority of those in the UK seem to have been designed as part of an elaborate practical joke, or for the disposal of smashed glass bottles.


----------



## Over The Hill (5 May 2011)

My gripe with cycle paths is with giving way. 

On a main road with side streets along it the cyclist on the cycle path is made to give way for the side streets whereas the main road of course has priority. 

I have not seen a cycle path that was not either too short and so useless, takes you a long way round, full of obstacles or random dismount signs, slows you down with extra giving way or if it is none of the above it is full of broken glass. 

Basingstoke tops my league of stupid councils with a cycle path on the easy bit of road but it stops when you get to the huge roundabout.


----------



## Norm (5 May 2011)

Over The Hill said:


> My gripe with cycle paths is with giving way.
> 
> On a main road with side streets along it the cyclist on the cycle path is made to give way for the side streets whereas the main road of course has priority.


Indeed, my least favourite cycle-path (which is actually just a pavement with blue signs) is this one here. That one not only expects you to give way to any traffic coming out of houses but, at the point in that picture, you have to stop as there is no visibility of anything coming out of Down Place and a car suddenly appearing will push you head first into the traffic on the NSL Windsor Road.



Over The Hill said:


> Basingstoke tops my league of stupid councils with a cycle path on the easy bit of road but it stops when you get to the huge roundabout.


One place where cycle paths have *never *worked is roundabouts. The place for a cyclist on a roundabout is, IMO, in the middle of the lane, I have never seen an acceptable alternative.


----------



## marinyork (5 May 2011)

Norm said:


> One place where cycle paths have *never *worked is roundabouts. The place for a cyclist on a roundabout is, IMO, in the middle of the lane, I have never seen an acceptable alternative.



You can have various bypasses/fly-unders like the ones on the York ring road (they aren't all like this and some of the bog standard path ones are more dangerous). Costly though. Various other systems you could have. 

There's even a fly-under tunnel for a very large roundabout I regularly use, it's such a faff using it though - adding about a fifth of a mile that I don't bother. Another roundabout I'm campaigning on they've considered what cyclists will do on some sides of the roundabout but not on difficult ones.


----------



## Origamist (5 May 2011)

As others have said, you are not legally obliged to use cycle provision. However, if you were unfortunately involved in a collision and were not using adjacent cycling facilities, in civil courts it is likely that you would have to justify why you chose to avoid the cycling infrastructure as it would be an obvious contributory negligence angle.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 May 2011)

marinyork said:


> There's even a fly-under tunnel for a very large roundabout I regularly use, it's such a faff using it though - adding about a fifth of a mile that I don't bother. Another roundabout I'm campaigning on they've considered what cyclists will do on some sides of the roundabout but not on difficult ones.



We have one of these - it's very poorly maintained, and shared use, so requires a fair bit of care. I use it from time to time, although the hairpin corners, poor angles of sight and general pee soaked, graffiti daubed ambience make it something of a trial.

A couple of pictures of it;
http://monkeyphoto.posterous.com/dont-manchesterize

http://monkeyphoto.posterous.com/dont-manchesterize-2


----------



## mark barker (5 May 2011)

BSRU said:


> I hate cycle paths and avoid them like the plague, I have about 300 metres of cycle path I have to use because of the road layout I always dread having to use it, due to other users not paying attention, *poor surface, debris *


That surprises me. I use Swindons cycle routes daily and generally find the surfaces to be in better condition than the roads!



BSRU said:


> *due to other users not paying attention*, poor surface, debris and the* increasingly common knob head cyclist who thinks it's their right to go as fast as they can.*


Bloody cyclists!  

As a general rule I accept that riding on cycle paths can make my journey a little longer and slower, but they're often much more scenic and peaceful compared to the alternatives.


----------



## snorri (5 May 2011)

Oneleggedtoad said:


> as I turned out on to thisroad to go down the hill a vehicle decided to move to within a meter or 2 of myback wheel and beep away on his horn. I turned to look at him and I could seehim waving between sounding the horn and yelling all sorts at me.
> I took a picture of the vehicle on my phone, should I reporthim to the police?



Pass the details on to the police.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 May 2011)

mark barker said:


> As a general rule I accept that riding on cycle paths can make my journey a little longer and slower, but they're often much more scenic and peaceful compared to the alternatives.



I can't think of any locally where the elusive combination of sensible route, decent surface and non lethal design have been combined - you're a lucky man indeed, Mark.


----------



## summerdays (5 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> As others have said, you are not legally obliged to use cycle provision. However, if you were unfortunately involved in a collision and were not using adjacent cycling facilities, in civil courts it is likely that you would have to justify why you chose to avoid the cycling infrastructure as it would be an obvious contributory negligence angle.



Surely you just use the maximum speed, safer, less glass, gritted, no barriers etc arguements as to why - since there isn't anything in the Highway code that says you have to use it (coming from someone who does like some paths). And there was the legal case which showed that you didn't have to use it. Has there ever been any cases when it has been successfully argued that they should have lower compensation as a result of not using the cycle infrastructure.


----------



## Dan B (5 May 2011)

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that insurance companies try it on as a means to reduce compensation, but the only even vaguely relevant court case I know of is Daniel Cadden's: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4774


----------



## Origamist (5 May 2011)

summerdays said:


> Surely you just use the maximum speed, safer, less glass, gritted, no barriers etc arguements as to why - since there isn't anything in the Highway code that says you have to use it (coming from someone who does like some paths). And there was the legal case which showed that you didn't have to use it. Has there ever been any cases when it has been successfully argued that they should have lower compensation as a result of not using the cycle infrastructure.




I believe you're referring to the Cadden case (inconsiderate cycling) - that was a criminal matter. I'm talking about civil cases, sd.

Look at: 



> http://www.ffw.com/publications/all/articles/cycle-lanes.aspx
> An example from case law
> 
> Witness the case of Dann v. Brackman where the Claimant (D) cycled along the nearside of a major route in Southampton, close to the dividing line with a slip road. The Defendant driver (B), drove at 40mph along the slip road into the back of the Claimant’s bicycle.
> ...



Remember, what the HC states (my bolds): 

63 


> Cycle Lanes. These are marked by a white line (which may be broken) along the carriageway (see Rule 140). *Keep within the lane when practicable.* When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users. Use of cycle lanes is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, *but they can make your journey safer. *


You can see how a court could intepret this guidance - although of course it would depend on the specifics of the road and cycling infrastructure.


----------



## BSRU (5 May 2011)

mark barker said:


> That surprises me. I use Swindons cycle routes daily and generally find the surfaces to be in better condition than the roads!



My only regular short experience is the shared path along Wootton Basset Rd, from Penzance Drive up to West Lea Drive, uneven due to utilities not repairing the damage they have done, several large raised manhole covers, missing drain covers, lots of tree debris and broken glass very common after the weekend.



mark barker said:


> As a general rule I accept that riding on cycle paths can make my journey a little longer and slower, but they're often much more scenic and peaceful compared to the alternatives.



I feel safer on the roads.


----------



## Mad at urage (5 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> As others have said, you are not legally obliged to use cycle provision. However, if you were unfortunately involved in a collision and were not using adjacent cycling facilities, in civil courts it is likely that you would have to justify why you chose to avoid the cycling infrastructure as it would be an obvious contributory negligence angle.


Well, for a start you can quote in court the hand-book to UK's official cycle training scheme, which (amongst other things*) says "cycle paths are almost never safer for cyclists although they can sometimes be found to be more convenient"#






*Cyclecraft. Chapter 13 IIRC is the one on cycle paths and is extremely amusing as it avoids saying "All cycle paths are crap, don't use them" but spends the whole chapter quietly listing reasons why they are seriously bad news . Worth buying the book for that chapter alone IMO . Certainly worth buying if the (IMHO unlikely) event of being accused of contributory negligence for avoiding a poorly designed cycle facility.

#This is a paraphrase of the second sentence in said chapter (which is there highlighted) - paraphrased because I haven't got the book beside me.


----------



## summerdays (5 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> I believe you're referring to the Cadden case (inconsiderate cycling) - that was a criminal matter. I'm talking about civil cases, sd.
> 
> ........................
> 
> You can see how a court could intepret this guidance - although of course it would depends on the specifics of the road and cycling infrastructure.



Thanks for the clarification ... yes it was the Cadden case I was referring to. Now you have given me some points to ponder on ... especially the keep within the lane ... whereas normally for a cycle lane I'm much closer to being on the line or outside it.


----------



## summerdays (5 May 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> *Cyclecraft. Chapter 13
> 
> #This is a paraphrase of the second sentence in said chapter (which is there highlighted) - paraphrased because I haven't got the book beside me.



Chapter 13 in the newer version, Chapter 10 in my older one ... (I have both versions beside me ...   - because I was looking up something this week).


----------



## jonesy (5 May 2011)

It is depressing, IMHO the widespread use of pavement 'cycle paths' has been one of the most detrimental developments in cycling over the last 10 years. My non use of a pavement that people wrongly think is a cycle path has been by far and away the main cause of conflict with drivers on my current commute.


----------



## Origamist (5 May 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Well, for a start you can quote in court the hand-book to UK's official cycle training scheme, which (amongst other things*) says "cycle paths are almost never safer for cyclists although they can sometimes be found to be more convenient"#
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL - why do you think John Franklin's services are regularly called upon as an expert witness on cycling matters? Insurance companies will always look for ways to try to lower settlements by suggesting the non-use of facilities equates to contributory negligence! You might be surprised to learn that whilst Cyclecraft is highly regarded by cyclists, the judiciary are rather harder to convince where matters of cycling best practice are concerned.


----------



## Norm (5 May 2011)

marinyork said:


> You can have various bypasses/fly-unders like the ones on the York ring road (they aren't all like this and some of the bog standard path ones are more dangerous). Costly though. Various other systems you could have.
> 
> There's even a fly-under tunnel for a very large roundabout I regularly use, it's such a faff using it though - adding about a fifth of a mile that I don't bother. Another roundabout I'm campaigning on they've considered what cyclists will do on some sides of the roundabout but not on difficult ones.


None of which are an improvement on using the road, IMO. Especially the flyover/under which add an extra 10m of climbing for no good reason. 



Origamist said:


> ...whilst Cyclecraft is highly regarded by *most *cyclists, the judiciary are rather harder to convince, where matters of cycling best practice are concerned.


You just missed a word out there, Origamist.


----------



## Origamist (5 May 2011)

Norm said:


> You just missed a word out there, Origamist.



....off, Norm. 







Damn, done it again.


----------



## vorsprung (5 May 2011)

I normally hate cycle paths

There is a shared use facility on the route I commute home and since having a head on collision on it with a woman on a MTB with defective brakes I stick to the (safer) road

However, at the weekend I was trying out the new route for an audax I organise. It was using the cycle paths on the A4171 ring road in North Bristol. They are really good. Clean, good surfacing, wide enough to avoid the rare pedestrians and other bikes and minimal problems with giving way to major roads


----------



## marinyork (5 May 2011)

Norm said:


> None of which are an improvement on using the road, IMO. Especially the flyover/under which add an extra 10m of climbing for no good reason.



It depends. At particular times ring roads can be heavily traffic dominant in one direction, I don't think it's therefore a bad idea having a bypass tangentially to that. Such road set ups where you have peak flow constantly going in one direction and the cyclist is trying to go in another direction (with no traffic lights) scares the living daylights out of some people. We used to have road fly-unders built in the 60s, but they've been busy taking all of them out at great cost to make bigger and nastier roundabouts. You're still allowed to use the roundabout. I'm campaigning for more joined up facilities on a major roundabout, I shall still nearly always use the road (except when turning right where I might take the short route round).


----------



## marinyork (5 May 2011)

Norm said:


> You just missed a word out there, Origamist.



All men are greeks.


----------



## Norm (5 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> ....off, Norm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 May 2011)

+1


yello said:


> In a word, no.
> 
> Welcome to the forum.


----------



## summerdays (5 May 2011)

vorsprung said:


> I normally hate cycle paths
> 
> There is a shared use facility on the route I commute home and since having a head on collision on it with a woman on a MTB with defective brakes I stick to the (safer) road
> 
> However, at the weekend I was trying out the new route for an audax I organise. It was using the cycle paths on the A4171 ring road in North Bristol. They are really good. Clean, good surfacing, wide enough to avoid the rare pedestrians and other bikes and minimal problems with giving way to major roads



Mr Summerdays uses the A4174 (assuming that's what you meant) and so does mgarl10024 as far as I know ... I think they can get quite busy in the summer months at peak commuting times ... and in the winter time there is a bit of battle of the Lumens going on but I doubt Mr Summerdays would have taken up cycle commuting if it wasn't for that path.


----------



## Origamist (5 May 2011)

This makes for pretty depressing reading: 
*
'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane*

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/77/article16.html


----------



## evilkitten (5 May 2011)

vorsprung said:


> However, at the weekend I was trying out the new route for an audax I organise. It was using the cycle paths on the A4171 ring road in North Bristol. They are really good. Clean, good surfacing, wide enough to avoid the rare pedestrians and other bikes and minimal problems with giving way to major roads



They are preferable to using the dual carriageway between Abbeywood and Warmley. There are narrow areas, particularly between Hambrook lights and Bromley Heath Road. Thankfully, the idiotic sign (http://cyclingfront.blogspot.com/2011/02/demand-1-repeated-cycle-paths-dutch.html) has now been moved, so I don't need to warn about that one.

South of Warmley, you're dropped into an infestation of small paths with tight curves, bad sight-lines, traffic conflict and glass. 

If you're organising an audax along there, bear in mind that there are often a lot of dog walkers and wobbly kids between Mangotsfield station and Warmley. You might want to take some of the back roads around Siston instead.

evilkitten.


----------



## marinyork (5 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> This makes for pretty depressing reading:
> *
> 'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane*
> 
> http://www.camcycle..../article16.html



Laughable isn't it. The taxi driver actually gets rumbled by the CCTV (doesn't happen often) and still the people giving these opinions don't understand very basic ideas such as a 'lane', 'overtaking' and so on are actually for.


----------



## Mad at urage (5 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> LOL - why do you think John Franklin's services are regularly called upon as an expert witness on cycling matters? Insurance companies will always look for ways to try to lower settlements by suggesting the non-use of facilities equates to contributory negligence! You might be surprised to learn that whilst Cyclecraft is highly regarded by cyclists, the judiciary are rather harder to convince where matters of cycling best practice are concerned.



Well, *lol* was what I was doing a lot of the time when reading Cyclecraft, yes. I was aware that he is called as an expert witness and that is what I was hoping to imply. Not that the evidence of expert witnesses is always appreciated, but the members of "the judiciary" that I personally know are certainly enlightened by some of his revelations (and not at all resistant to being enlightened).



Origamist said:


> This makes for pretty depressing reading:
> *
> 'OK' for car to hit cyclist outside cycle lane*
> 
> http://www.camcycle..../article16.html


Depressing and worrying. Some people just won't be educated and there is a tendency in all bureaucrats to close ranks once a decision has been taken. Given the resource shortages in our court system the result (so far) is hardly surprising: Any excuse not to prosecute will be snatched at. Certainly I won't be putting the rubber stops back in my bar-ends anytime soon (nor will I use cycle lanes where I believe they increase my risk).


----------



## benb (5 May 2011)

jonesy said:


> It is depressing, IMHO the widespread use of pavement 'cycle paths' has been one of the most detrimental developments in cycling over the last 10 years. My non use of a pavement that people wrongly think is a cycle path has been by far and away the main cause of conflict with drivers on my current commute.



Agree. I have changed my commuting route from a dual carriageway with shared use pavements (which I would frequently get gesticulated at, or beeped at, to use), to an equally busy single carriageway with no shared use or cycle lane. The transformation has been impressive. The odd close overtake, but no abuse.

When I'm cycling with my son in the seat on the back I will use them though, even though they are infuriating, especially having to give way at every side road.


----------



## marinyork (5 May 2011)

benb said:


> Agree. I have changed my commuting route from a dual carriageway with shared use pavements (which I would frequently get gesticulated at, or beeped at, to use), to an equally busy single carriageway with no shared use or cycle lane. The transformation has been impressive. The odd close overtake, but no abuse.



I think some drivers tend to get incredibly excited by cyclists on dual carriageways anyway. A lot of the abuse I get is on dual carriageways - some have cyclepaths at the side, others don't. Not much of an alternative for one, hence why I use it.


----------



## Mad at urage (5 May 2011)

On dual carriageways they (usually) have an overtaking lane: They should learn to use it if they want to overtake (mind you, one this morning ... inside lane grew an outcrop as we approached a roundabout, this became the L-turn lane, so I moved right (looked, signaled, etc) and then one overtook me on the inside lane - to go straight ahead. Outside lane was clear for half a mile back!).b


----------



## lit (7 May 2011)

the best thing you can do with dual carriageways is take the inside lane, actually force them to use the outside lane - if they don't like it, then let them sit behind you, their loss.


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 May 2011)

On the rare occasions a driver has told me to use a cycle path, I've asked them why they aren't on the motorway. Most of them get the point.

The other amusing one was a few weeks back in Richmond Park doing 20 mph (the speed limit for all traffic including bikes) when a back seat driver pointed out there was a cycle path. I agreed, but said I'm allowed to use the road as it's quicker, and you're holding me up.


----------



## Red Light (7 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> Remember, what the HC states (my bolds):
> 
> You can see how a court could intepret this guidance - although of course it would depend on the specifics of the road and cycling infrastructure.



There was a big fight by the CTC and others over that wording when the HC was revised recently. Originally it was going to say you should use cycle facilities but the revised wording allows it to be the cyclist's decision. If it ever came up I suspect that would all play to your favour and the CTC would probably be there to help. Since any informed cyclist will know that research shows cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road, it's perfectly reasonable to choose the road for your own safety.


----------



## Red Light (7 May 2011)

Flying Dodo said:


> <br />On the rare occasions a driver has told me to use a cycle path, I've asked them why they aren't on the motorway. Most of them get the point.



Use the Park & Ride is another useful retort in cities that have it.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 May 2011)

Two intersting and useful sources..

Firstly the http://webarchive.nationalarchives....e/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688Annex D: Code of Conduct Notice for Cyclists from the Depertment for Transport



> The following key messages are suggested as the basis for a code of conduct notice for cyclists. The code could be posted at points of entry and at intervals along the route. This will be especially useful when the facility is new.
> 
> 
> If a feature segregating cyclists from pedestrians is present, keep to the cyclist's side. This will be indicated on blue and white road signs and by cycle logos on the surface.
> ...




The second is the Institute of Advanced Motorists Factsheet 17 



> SHARING THE ROAD WITH CYCLISTS
> Cyclists all travel at different speeds and have different levels of road experience. As a driver, you will need to take care to judge their speed as well as the road and weather conditions from the cyclist's point of view. Remember too that some cyclists, particularly younger ones, have never driven a car, and so don’t recognise the problems that they can cause car drivers.	In an accident involving a car and a cyclist, whoever is to blame the cyclist will always be the more vulnerable to a serious injury. The following tips for motorists have been prepared with the National Cycling Strategy Board to avoid adding to the 2,500 cyclists killed or seriously injured each year.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## funnymummy (7 May 2011)

Thnak you for those Cunobelin.....


I had the misfortune to meet a rather stroppy driver the other day, who obvioulsy didn't appreciate my riding in primary so when finaly passing me, decided then to pull directly accross the front of me, and then stop in the ASL at the traffic lights...I really need that ASL, as after turning left, my house is only 20 feet on the right.

But I do know the driver, they know me too - But obviooulsy didn't realise it was me - They are used to seeing me on my MummyBike towing #2 with #3 in front, not on my road bike, lycra clad & helmeted! 
I think they may wake to find a copy of Factsheet 17 with serveral paragraphs highlighted under their wipers in the morn LOL!


----------



## Origamist (8 May 2011)

Red Light said:


> There was a big fight by the CTC and others over that wording when the HC was revised recently. Originally it was going to say you should use cycle facilities but the revised wording allows it to be the cyclist's decision. If it ever came up I suspect that would all play to your favour and the CTC would probably be there to help. Since any informed cyclist will know that research shows cycle facilities to be more dangerous than the road, it's perfectly reasonable to choose the road for your own safety.



I remember the 2006 consultation and like others campaigned against the original, prescriptive wording regarding the use of cycle faclities.

What is considered "reasonable" by cyclsts, is not, IME, the same as the what the police or courts necessarily consider "reasonable" behaviour.


----------

