On the pavement

[benb]

This was odd behaviour. The pavement is shared use, but I'm pretty sure that only means cyclists and pedestrians.

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf9KBhsJFRI[/media]

 

[GFamily]

This was odd behaviour. The pavement is shared use, but I'm pretty sure that only means cyclists and pedestrians.

It seems that many people here would see no problem with that.

 

[Peter10]

Isn't it possible he is getting his car into a position to reverse into his driveway?

 

[PBancroft]

Or visiting a friend, and got the turning into the driveway wrong. Rather than pull back onto the road only to cross the pavement again a few houses down, he's moving slowly down the wide shared path to get to the right house. Not exactly legal, but...

 

[BenM]

He wouldn't have driven on the pavement if you hadn't had a camera! You deliberately set him up by riding on the pavement in the first place.

Anyway he was being considerate of the other cars in the road because he was uncertain of his destination and, rather than obstruct the red route by travelling below 40mph, he was making use of the overly big shared path - why do tax dodgers and pedestrians need as much tarmac as a lane of cars anyway?.

B.

p.s. have I been reading Bristol Traffic too much?

 

[jimboalee]

You should send that to the telly. You might get £250.

The imaginative viewer will suppose you rode straight into the lamp post when you passed the girl in blue at the very end.

 

[jimboalee]

You should send that to the telly. You might get £250.

The imaginative viewer will suppose you rode straight into the lamp post when you passed the girl in blue at the very end.

Come to think about it. If that is a shared ped/cyclist path, those lamp posts should be painted white with some white lines on the pavement to direct cyclists around them.
Why didn't you ride into the lamp post? You could have claimed compensation.

 

[Bristol Dave]

That was appalling! They should have had their hazard lights on!

BD