mileburner wrote:
"Paul - xxx" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:


"Paul - xxx" wrote in message
...
JMS wrote:

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:11 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed -
it's a pavement.

http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cy...-not-here-here



Yes - but some cyclists don't realise that pavements are for
pedestrians - hence the signs.

Corrected ..

Of course - they shouldn't need to put any sign up.

You're absolutely right ...

I would disagree. With the amount of footpaths where cycling is
"shared use" or it is expected anyway, they need to make clear which
footpaths it is prohibited on.

They do mostly make it very clear. Pavement cycling is prohibited
unless otherwise signed.

Prohibited? Perhaps in law but no one seems to be bothered about it.

Not even the police.

Might be about to change - and quite rightly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8319630.stm

"The government should do more to target "irresponsible behaviour" by
cyclists - particularly when they break traffic laws, a committee of MPs has
said".


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.