"David Splett" wrote in message ...
"Mait001" wrote in message
...
This is nonsense: cycling on pavements is not only dangerous but
anti-social.

Always? How does a carefully-ridden bicycle on a pavement differ from, for
example, a wheelchair?

By being illegal. Do you support the uniform and even-handed
application of long-standing laws? 1. Yes, 2. No.

If pedestrians are so scared of cyclists, why do they often walk on
designated cycle paths when alternatives are available? I refer to
Stevenage, which has a comprehensive system of cycle paths and pavements,
all of which are segregated from each other and from roads. Needless to say
it's *very* common to see people walking on the cycle path. sigh

There are two answers to this

1. Pedestrians (by law) have the right of way over all other road
users on all roads where they are not prohibited (e.g. motorways). It
is your duty to avoid them, not their duty to avoid you. Cycle paths
are for, as it were, "cycles and slower things", not just cycles.

2. If cyclists don't respect pavements, pedestrians, or road traffic
laws of any description, then why should pedestrians bother to respect
cyclists and their needs? This is my point about "anarchy" - the
complete breakdown of all respect for laws, each other, society, etc.

Silas