"Frank" <[email protected]
> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> This isn't true there are many instance where it is both much safer and quicker to ride on the
I am sure there are. However, I understand statistics suggest a shared use pavement path is at least
twice as dangerous as the road so I doubt that illegal pavement cycling is safer.
It can only be faster if you are using the pavement to avoid long road diversions. I can
happily travel at 15 mph on the road. Such a speed would be difficult and certainly
irresponsible on a pavement.
> I'm not saying I support rushing past the coffin dodgers from behind.
Now, I am not that old -- though I have, fairly recently, had the experience of nursing a very frail
and terminally ill relative so perhaps have gained a bit more of an understanding of the needs and
the fears of the elderly. Somehow, this sentance says it all. You clearly have a lack of concern for
or any undersanding of 'coffin dodgers'.
> I'm not saying I don't understand that pavement cycling can introduce extra danger when crossing
> roads. You may disagree with Councils misguidedly trying to force cyclists onto pavements with
> shared use paths. But many, many cyclists do use pavements very safely and responsibly.
Sorry, this is oxymoron. Pavements are for pedestrians. It cannot be responsible to be where you are
specificly excluded by law. You will be defending cager's calls to abolish speed limits next.
> You cannot make sweeping statement such as *it is no safer to ride on pavements* this is a gross
> generalisation based on the skimpiest
> flying in the face of common sense,
in the face of uninformed intuition perhaps.
> worthy of Paul Smith. Many times (not all, or even most, but many) you are much safer on the
Yes. When walking.
> The trick is to understand when, where and why.
No trick. Never, nowhere and because it is inconsiderate to pedestrians and illegal.