On Jan 12, 1:23*pm, ash wrote:
http://www.braintreeandwithamtimes.c...erious_runner_....

But at least the cyclists were safe from motorists.

That has to make it alright then !

Rumour has it that the police in Witney (the constituency of our dear
leader David Cameron) do indeed turn a blind eye to pavement cyclists
for this very reason.

Statistically it's explicable - some stats suggest that cyclists in
traffic are more likely to be seriously injured by a car than
pedestrians on the pavement are to be by a cyclist - so for any given
cyclist, you *could* argue that there's less chance of a serious
accident if they're on a pavement. And if Dame Rumour is not merely
lifting her skirts for anyone, that seems to be the conclusion the
local law-and-order-emphasis-on-the-order chaps have reached.

But in terms of the sort of society I want to live in, I'd rather
drivers be made to accommodate all road users, and cyclists feel safe
enough to stay off pavements, so that the statistics tip in favour of
off-pavement cycling, rather than cyclists to be gradually compelled
by cultural and social pressure onto the pavements, to just pander to
existing driver selfishness. Still, while I never pavement-cycle, I
look at some of the driver behaviour in Witney and I understand some
of the fear and reaction to vitriolic, red-faced hostility that
prompts some people to do it.

(And I see cars on pavements all the time, dozens of them every
commute. It's like Car Abandonment Central round here. Maybe they got
there without driving, by somehow dropping from space, but I can't
help but feel that that would be *more* dangerous without everyone
being issued with sort of special reinforced umbrella.)

J-P