Adrian wrote:

Y'know, I was always under the impression that the Highway Code applied to
cyclists, and that they were meant to *read* it occasionally...?

shrug
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/23.htm#227

Would you like to hazard a guess as to what the (M) stands for?

I guess the question is how many times have you seen someone cycling on
a motorway (Kenyan team at the Manchester Commonwealth Games excluded)
versus how many times have I seen cars and motorbikes driven on
bridleways? Bet my number is bigger than yours.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I guess the question is how many times have you seen someone cycling
on a motorway (Kenyan team at the Manchester Commonwealth Games
excluded) versus how many times have I seen cars and motorbikes driven
on bridleways? Bet my number is bigger than yours.

Are we back to trying to figure out how many wrongs make a right?

People driving cars and riding motorbikes over RoW without a vehicular
right of way are in the wrong. Simple as that. They should not be there.

However, don't forget that some Bridleways are BOATs, though, and that
vehicles don't need an explicit RoW if they have the landowner's
permission.

Most people cycling on Footpaths are in the wrong, too.

Adrian wrote:
Tony Raven ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :


I guess the question is how many times have you seen someone cycling
on a motorway (Kenyan team at the Manchester Commonwealth Games
excluded) versus how many times have I seen cars and motorbikes driven
on bridleways? Bet my number is bigger than yours.


Are we back to trying to figure out how many wrongs make a right?


So I take it the answer is you have never seen someone cycling on a
motorway. So much for your HC ignorant cyclists.

However, don't forget that some Bridleways are BOATs, though, and that
vehicles don't need an explicit RoW if they have the landowner's
permission.

No BOATs and Bridleways are different. Only the fast disappearing RUPPs
have variable access rights for motor vehicles and most of those will be
reclassified as Restricted Byways with no motor vehicle rights.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I guess the question is how many times have you seen someone cycling
on a motorway (Kenyan team at the Manchester Commonwealth Games
excluded) versus how many times have I seen cars and motorbikes driven
on bridleways? Bet my number is bigger than yours.

Are we back to trying to figure out how many wrongs make a right?

So I take it the answer is you have never seen someone cycling on a
motorway. So much for your HC ignorant cyclists.

I have, actually. But not many people are stupid enough, it's true.

Bear in mind, though, that my post was in response to Jeremy explicitly
asking if cycling on a motorway was legal - to which he really ought to
know the answer.

That doesn't alter the fundamental lack of a 2:1 exchange rate between
wrongs and rights. I've never seen anybody stealing a car, but that
doesn't mean shoplifting is okay, just because more people do it.

No BOATs and Bridleways are different.

You are, of course, right. I was mentally thinking of BOAT as Bridleway
Open to All Traffic, when it is - of course - a Byway Open to All Traffic.
Mea Culpa.

Only the fast disappearing RUPPs have variable access rights for motor
vehicles and most of those will be reclassified as Restricted Byways with
no motor vehicle rights.

Don't remind me. It would seem that exclusive use of 95% of RoWs isn't
enough for some people, and they want over 98% - but, presumably, they
STILL won't be happy. Selfishness abounds, as usual.
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-cou...issues/public/)