"Silas Denyer" wrote in message
om...
By being illegal. Do you support the uniform and even-handed
application of long-standing laws? 1. Yes, 2. No.

To be honest, I don't really care if it's legal or not. If a bicycle is
being ridden on the pavement and it doesn't cause me - as a pedestrian - a
problem, I don't have a problem with it.


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.

IMHO the above reeks of arrogance. If there is a perfectly acceptable
pavement, why use a path that has been designed for other modes? All it is
doing is making life difficult for others. I realize that some (pathetic)
people seem to enjoy doing this.

Would you, realistically, expect to be able to walk down the middle of the
A14? Do you think that doing so would be sensible?


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.

Your first sentence is a ridiculous generalization, and breakdown of respect
for laws, each other, society, etc. goes *far* further thay cycling and
cyclists. I would much rather we had a crackdown on muggings in New Cross,
or on uninsured, untested, unlicensed, mobile-phone-using or intoxicated
motorists. Do you really think that pavement cycling is more detrimental to
living standards than these?