Crackdown on pavement cyclists in Chippenham

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

It is to protect the cyclists as well!

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_Chippenham_on_cop_hi t_list/

[JMS]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:18:27 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>
>http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_Chippenham_on_cop_hi t_list/
>


What rubbish:

"There are fears from the police that a pedestrian will eventually be
hurt by a speeding cyclist. "

This never,ever happens.





--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>
> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_Chippenham_on_cop_hi t_list/

It's not clear that it is a pavement or cycling is banned. It says:

“Because cars aren’t allowed, pedestrians don’t think to look left or
right as they usually would, and I think that makes cycling there
dangerous.�


--
Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 21/11/2010 11:32, JMS wrote:

> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:

>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!

>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_Chippenham_on_cop_hi t_list/

> What rubbish:

> "There are fears from the police that a pedestrian will eventually be
> hurt by a speeding cyclist. "

> This never,ever happens.

And even when it does, it doesn't matter, because:

(a) the health, lives and safety of pedestrians simply aren't as important as
cyclists' rights to do exactly as they please, wherever and whenever they
please, and

(b) cars are "much more dangerous" [TM].

[PhilO]

On Nov 21, 11:42*am, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
> It's not clear that it is a pavement or cycling is banned.

The signs at the start of the pedestrian zone do specifically ban
cycling during the day, so absolutely no excuse for anyone to be
cycling there (on pavement or road)

PhilO

[Mr Pounder]

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_Chippenham_on_cop_hi t_list/
>
> It's not clear that it is a pavement or cycling is banned. It says:

> "Because cars aren't allowed, pedestrians don't think to look left or
> right as they usually would, and I think that makes cycling there
> dangerous."
>
>
> --
> Tony

It says "Cycling is prohibited"

Mr Pounder

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 21, 9:18*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>
> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>
It says...

"...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
needs to be paramount..."

What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
roads are too dangerous for them?

BTW, how are deliveries to the shops made?

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[FrengaX]

On Nov 24, 8:27*am, Doug > wrote:
> On Nov 21, 9:18*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>
> >http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>
> It says...
>
> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
> needs to be paramount..."
>
> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
> roads are too dangerous for them?

Your assertion is incorrect (as ever).

[Tony Dragon]

On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>
> It says...
>
> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
> needs to be paramount..."
>
> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
> roads are too dangerous for them?

That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.

>
> BTW, how are deliveries to the shops made?

No idea, rear entrance, limited times (e.g. before 08.30)?
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


--
Tony Dragon

[Marc[_5_]]

On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>
> It says...
>
> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
> needs to be paramount..."
>
> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
> roads are too dangerous for them?

They are ****s!

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 24, 6:19*pm, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > *wrote:
> >> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>
> >>http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_....
>
> > It says...
>
> > "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
> > used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
> > needs to be paramount..."
>
> > What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
> > roads are too dangerous for them?
>
> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>
No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
pavements. The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.
>
> > BTW, how are deliveries to the shops made?
>
> No idea, rear entrance, limited times (e.g. before 08.30)?
>
Rear car parks too perhaps? Heaven forbid though that motorists should
ever be required to dismount and walk!
>
> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

[Tony Dragon]

On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > wrote:
>> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>>>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>
>>> It says...
>>
>>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
>>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
>>> needs to be paramount..."
>>
>>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
>>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>>
>> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>>
> No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
> crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
> pavements.

I have never had a car charging towards me on the pavement, but I have
often had a cyclist do that.

> The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
> removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.

There is no necessity for cyclists to use pavements

>>
>>> BTW, how are deliveries to the shops made?
>>
>> No idea, rear entrance, limited times (e.g. before 08.30)?
>>
> Rear car parks too perhaps? Heaven forbid though that motorists should
> ever be required to dismount and walk!
>>

Lack of sensible answer noted.

>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 27, 10:36*am, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > *wrote:
> >> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > * *wrote:
> >>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>
> >>>>http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_....
>
> >>> It says...
>
> >>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
> >>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
> >>> needs to be paramount..."
>
> >>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
> >>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>
> >> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>
> > No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
> > crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
> > pavements.
>
> I have never had a car charging towards me on the pavement, but I have
> often had a cyclist do that.
>
I have been hospitalised three times by drivers, which beats you then!
>
> > The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
> > removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.
>
> There is no necessity for cyclists to use pavements
>
It is assumed to increase their safety but I have my doubts that
pavements are any safer from crashing/ramming drivers than roads.
>
>
> >>> BTW, how are deliveries to the shops made?
>
> >> No idea, rear entrance, limited times (e.g. before 08.30)?
>
> > Rear car parks too perhaps? Heaven forbid though that motorists should
> > ever be required to dismount and walk!
>
> Lack of sensible answer noted.
>
Pobably because the question wasn't sensible.
>
> >>> -- .
> >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>> *http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

[Tony Dragon]

On 28/11/2010 08:16, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:36 am, Tony > wrote:
>> On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>>>>>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>
>>>>> It says...
>>
>>>>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
>>>>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
>>>>> needs to be paramount..."
>>
>>>>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
>>>>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>>
>>>> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>>
>>> No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
>>> crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
>>> pavements.
>>
>> I have never had a car charging towards me on the pavement, but I have
>> often had a cyclist do that.
>>
> I have been hospitalised three times by drivers, which beats you then!

On the pavement, that is not what you have reported in the past.

>>
>>> The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
>>> removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.
>>
>> There is no necessity for cyclists to use pavements
>>
> It is assumed to increase their safety but I have my doubts that
> pavements are any safer from crashing/ramming drivers than roads.

If that was true (which it isn't) then why endanger pedestrians by
riding on the pavement.

>>
>>
>>>>> BTW, how are deliveries to the shops made?
>>
>>>> No idea, rear entrance, limited times (e.g. before 08.30)?
>>
>>> Rear car parks too perhaps? Heaven forbid though that motorists should
>>> ever be required to dismount and walk!
>>
>> Lack of sensible answer noted.
>>
> Pobably because the question wasn't sensible.

You asked the original question.

>>
>>>>> -- .
>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > wrote:
>> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>>>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>
>>> It says...
>>
>>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
>>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
>>> needs to be paramount..."
>>
>>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
>>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>>
>> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>>
> No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
> crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
> pavements. The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
> removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.

There is no such "necessity".

We both know that it is done through choice and lack of concern for the
safety of pedestrians.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/11/2010 08:16, Doug wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:36 am, Tony > wrote:
>> On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>
>>>>>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>
>>>>> It says...
>>
>>>>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
>>>>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
>>>>> needs to be paramount..."
>>
>>>>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
>>>>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>>
>>>> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>>
>>> No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
>>> crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
>>> pavements.
>>
>> I have never had a car charging towards me on the pavement, but I have
>> often had a cyclist do that.
>>
> I have been hospitalised three times by drivers, which beats you then!

Did they charge along the footway towards you?

Or did you run out into the carriageway too close for them to stop?

>>> The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
>>> removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.

>> There is no necessity for cyclists to use pavements

> It is assumed to increase their safety but I have my doubts that
> pavements are any safer from crashing/ramming drivers than roads.

There is no necessity for cyclists to use footways.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 16:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>>>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>>
>>>>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> It says...
>>>
>>>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
>>>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
>>>> needs to be paramount..."
>>>
>>>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
>>>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>>>
>>> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>>>
>> No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
>> crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
>> pavements. The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
>> removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.
>
> There is no such "necessity".
>
> We both know that it is done through choice and lack of concern for the
> safety of pedestrians.

Or because the council has applied Magic White Paint(TM), which makes it
Completely Safe(TM) and so justifies drivers trying to intimidate any
cyclist they see on the road.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8pxUAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/JGQH/3AkgHF10jlmn9wHk9gunjGx
e6Ueh46R1SBOB/TBENp51lR2inP6FuC4qKFXQPkSYd1Cq3fbKWfxQrOJZln1pJRA
2nnMyYcwFvXYCuZ0f0Gxw833SUH5yAXFInOmWurtdICO2TOyOp H2Z/xxqQJHcrwL
73wFJq4NRxdUPqaz30VhDkpU2TpJdJNMaJBhPS5EnEmI6Ppptp vL7gp53+9ILHjB
KA8H7+BR1sJlmiTKxJl+nr7SB/0qicMQhb9av4sdmV005toVL9ZtskHtWgI71Nge
7nqY6URJX2qR6hosbzCV/Oa0ZFjf73FjhGtyKw7NXqM5lpICbtTzWeORFFUtU44=
=yrlV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/11/2010 18:15, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28/11/2010 16:51, JNugent wrote:
>> On 27/11/2010 10:15, Doug wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 6:19 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>>> On 24/11/2010 08:27, Doug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 9:18 am, > wrote:
>>>>>> It is to protect the cyclists as well!
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8673982.Dangerous_cyclists_in_...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It says...
>>>>
>>>>> "...“When the town centre is closed off to cars, it should really be
>>>>> used as a footpath so cycling is prohibited. The safety of pedestrians
>>>>> needs to be paramount..."
>>>>
>>>>> What about the safety of cyclists who ride on pavements because the
>>>>> roads are too dangerous for them?
>>>>
>>>> That's right Doug, bugger the pedestrians, they don't count.
>>>>
>>> No there is a hierarchy of vulnerability and danger. Obviously cars
>>> crashing onto pavements is much more dangerous that cyclists riding on
>>> pavements. The obvious solution too is to make roads much safer thus
>>> removing the necessity for cyclists to use pavements out of fear.

>> There is no such "necessity".
>> We both know that it is done through choice and lack of concern for the
>> safety of pedestrians.
>
> Or because the council has applied Magic White Paint(TM), which makes it
> Completely Safe(TM) and so justifies drivers trying to intimidate any
> cyclist they see on the road.

No.

The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary, always
inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the cyclist.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

JNugent wrote:
>
> The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary,
> always inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the
> cyclist.

You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"

Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/11/2010 19:25, Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:

>> The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary,
>> always inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the
>> cyclist.

> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"

You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing out
that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed on footways.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 23:09, JNugent wrote:
> On 28/11/2010 19:25, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary,
>>> always inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the
>>> cyclist.
>
>> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"
>
> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing
> out that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed
> on footways.

Do remember to tell the councils.

- --
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8uT/AAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/RaYH/0oZRGdtsRCEtNHdqf+uOLrF
bG5ImGkIeoQ11SkpEL/YLbgFMfTWv0vqzTIzym7H4f8wyPOLnUgD3rxXd76i3ePt
XpxeADnvgLBgJlgRVykmnvp7mhbCoy9i28z2fl3vJi3DZ23YEM 4W0IGMJRL8koqE
/FPYPVEGtJxbKC9AZRIU9jrKijQTo6ZB8r+vfNAObBs7pqBDWs+ Al0qSpdg2PRuW
d8qTTjPqHkJpvkFaHTATee+gt536FO+fvXyd8grXrbkAvhxzTm 9yW6iWhQf7Qb0g
Dg+0fdawj7rLh8nH7QG0IXFJCmTudgIJpVCLygpCbRYAjDZOzQ HcqdkN9T9bmso=
=HDhO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/11/2010 23:25, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 28/11/2010 23:09, JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/11/2010 19:25, Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>>>> The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary,
>>>> always inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the
>>>> cyclist.
>>
>>> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"
>>
>> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing
>> out that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed
>> on footways.

> Do remember to tell the councils.

No need. They know.

It seems to be only you who doesn't.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

JNugent wrote:
> On 28/11/2010 19:25, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>> The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary,
>>> always inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the
>>> cyclist.
>
>> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"
>
> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing
> out that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed
> on footways.
>

Doesn't seem to put the councils off. Plenty of footways hereabouts
been given the magic paint treatment to encourage cyclists to use them.
In fact it took a concerted effort by cyclists to stop them becoming
quasi-mandatory to cycle on them in the latest edition of the Highway Code.

Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 28/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/11/2010 19:25, Tony Raven wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:

>>>> The subject is cycling along footways. It's always unnecessary,
>>>> always inconsiderate and always self-centred on the part of the
>>>> cyclist.

>>> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"

>> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing out
>> that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed on
>> footways.

> Doesn't seem to put the councils off. Plenty of footways hereabouts been
> given the magic paint treatment to encourage cyclists to use them

....thereby converting them from footways into soemthing else.

> In fact it
> took a concerted effort by cyclists to stop them becoming quasi-mandatory to
> cycle on them in the latest edition of the Highway Code.

It often looks as though cyclists already think it's mandatory to cycle along
footways.

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

JNugent wrote:
> On 28/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>>>> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"
>
>>> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by
>>> pointing out
>>> that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed on
>>> footways.
>
>> Doesn't seem to put the councils off. Plenty of footways hereabouts been
>> given the magic paint treatment to encourage cyclists to use them
>
> ...thereby converting them from footways into soemthing else.

A footway with white paint on it and called a cycle track to disguise
the fact that its the same footway as before with some white paint on it.

Can you enlighten me as to what the difference is in safety for
pedestrians of a footway with and without the white paint and why one is
acceptable for people to cycle on and the other not?

Tony

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 29/11/2010 00:03, Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> On 28/11/2010 23:45, Tony Raven wrote:

>>>>> You missed out "but frequently encouraged by local authorities"

>>>> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing out
>>>> that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed on
>>>> footways.

>>> Doesn't seem to put the councils off. Plenty of footways hereabouts been
>>> given the magic paint treatment to encourage cyclists to use them

>> ...thereby converting them from footways into soemthing else.

> A footway with white paint on it and called a cycle track to disguise the
> fact that its the same footway as before with some white paint on it...

....is not a footway.

Is that clear at last?

> Can you enlighten me as to what the difference is in safety for pedestrians
> of a footway with and without the white paint and why one is acceptable for
> people to cycle on and the other not?

No.

Cycling and pedestrians don't mix. Even in those (relatively) few places
where the law is so misguided as to allow it, cyclists should not endanger
pedestrians. They should have the moral fibre to cycle elsewhere (or to get
off and push in the prence - real or potential - of pedestrians and to leave
them in peace and safety. You know it makes sense.

[al Mossah[_2_]]

On Nov 28, 11:09*pm, JNugent > wrote:

> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing out
> that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed on footways.

To be clear on this, we are talking about Chippenham High St, which
during the day has gates shut at either end to exclude motor traffic.
THere are signs prohibiting cycling during this closed period. The
pavement and road surfaces are at the same heights (different
surfaces) with no curb. Bollards indicate roughly the dividing line
between "pavement" and "road".

The gates are opened occasionally to allow deliveries, bullion vans,
emergency vehicles to gain access.

During the closed period, the main threat to pedestrians is from
cyclists riding fast down the hill.

Observence of the "no cycling" sign is predictable; those considerate
people will dismount, or at least ride through at walking speed. The
inconsiderate ignore them, and are a menace.

I dismount. So I think that that makes me considerate.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 29/11/2010 12:30, al Mossah wrote:

> On Nov 28, 11:09 pm, > wrote:

>> You missed out the bit where I specifically discounted that by pointing out
>> that the subject was cycling along *footways*. Bikes are not allowed on footways.

> To be clear on this, we are talking about Chippenham High St, which
> during the day has gates shut at either end to exclude motor traffic.
> THere are signs prohibiting cycling during this closed period. The
> pavement and road surfaces are at the same heights (different
> surfaces) with no curb. Bollards indicate roughly the dividing line
> between "pavement" and "road".

> The gates are opened occasionally to allow deliveries, bullion vans,
> emergency vehicles to gain access.

> During the closed period, the main threat to pedestrians is from
> cyclists riding fast down the hill.

> Observence of the "no cycling" sign is predictable; those considerate
> people will dismount, or at least ride through at walking speed. The
> inconsiderate ignore them, and are a menace.

> I dismount. So I think that that makes me considerate.

Absolutely.

And the issue of "magic paint" (not one raised by you) is irrelevant.