hackbike 666
Guest
It caused me distress when those three pedestrians ran out straight into my front wheel.TIA
Today I was a ped
- Thread starter jiggerypokery
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Can someone clarify a few things for me?
- if the pathway isn't obviously a pavement, am I right in thinking you are allowed to cycle on it unless there's a "public footpath" sign? Or is the assumption that are all foot only unless specified as a bridlepath or similar?
- the blue signs at some crossings that say "cyclists dismount". Are they mandatory or advisory?
- If there is a strip of grass between the road and the pavement, like here, can I legally cycle on that?
brokenbetty
Über Member
- Location
- London
Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is? If you had every right to be where you were they should have been looking out for you. If they also had a right to be there, you should have been looking out for them as well.
No one says some peds can't be dumbasses, but that doesn't give us the right to ignore them when they tell us they don't like cyclists invading their pavement.
fruitbat
New Member
- Location
- NW England
On that basis car drivers who cycle occasionally can claim to know what all cyclists want.
Tenorman
Active Member
- Location
- Newark-on-Trent
hackbike 666
Guest
Most of the times it's a ped action that put's peds at risk*...apart from the pavement of course...where damn reckless cycling does not help.Yes im a ped sometimes and I see it all.
* Or so it seems.
hackbike 666
Guest
What about number 2?
[QUOTE 1164978"]
Google is your friend, knowledge acquired on your own is always better then knowledge given by someone else.
[/quote]
Thanks Lee, useful response as ever.
I tried Google, but couldn't word it in such a way as to get the answers. So I was hoping someone who already knew the answers would be able to help me.
Google is your friend, knowledge acquired on your own is always better then knowledge given by someone else.
[/quote]
Thanks Lee, useful response as ever.
I tried Google, but couldn't word it in such a way as to get the answers. So I was hoping someone who already knew the answers would be able to help me.
Origamist
Legendary Member
My understanding is that the base assumption is that they are for pedestrians only unless signed otherwise - and even the signposts could be wrong. Only the maps held by the local authority are definitive.
Thus:
1. They are for pedestrians unless specified otherwise
2. Blue circles without a red border are advisory / information
3. Generally no, you can't cycle down it any more than you could drive down it
I'm sure that some pedantic buffoon can come up with instances where you can cycle on pavements (crossing them to get to into your driveway, for instance) but I think those are the generalisations.
If there was a sign, it would be at the start of the path, which is here. As you can see, there isn't a sign and there is, by coincidence, a cyclist doing the right thing by ignoring it.
semislickstick
Guru
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
Not picking holes or being a pedantic buffoon.....but what about one way signs? Advisory? ;-)
vikingcyclist
New Member
- Location
- Bedford
Not really. My point was just that a bit of perspective can be important when looking at a situation. No need to try and strawman it.
semislickstick
Guru
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
[QUOTE 1164986"]
Road markings dictate one way streets when you enter them. This is the RTA act.
[/quote]
Has anyone seen that website where road users try their best to wriggle out/challenge all sorts of tickets and fines?
There was something about road markings in prosecutions, being limited, because they can be easily worn away, covered by snow.
Obviously there are other road clues but I'm amazed how people get around it all.
Road markings dictate one way streets when you enter them. This is the RTA act.
[/quote]
Has anyone seen that website where road users try their best to wriggle out/challenge all sorts of tickets and fines?
There was something about road markings in prosecutions, being limited, because they can be easily worn away, covered by snow.
Obviously there are other road clues but I'm amazed how people get around it all.
[QUOTE 1164966"]
I was giving an answer to a closed question, don't act an idiot Jeezston or it'll be the man in the pink foam outfit.
[/quote]
My question was meant to be rhetorical, not a 'closed question' as you put it. But if you were determined to answer it in your way, feel free. Ho hum.
My point was, there are stock phrases that one by convention uses to start off, when addressing a complete stranger. "Excuse me" is an obvious one. To breeze straight in with an "Out of my way" (note the 'my') is, alas!, outside the pale of social conventions. And I fear, the OP's "make some room" doesn't score a lot better!
Point made?*
*and yes that too is a rhetorical question.
I was giving an answer to a closed question, don't act an idiot Jeezston or it'll be the man in the pink foam outfit.
[/quote]
My question was meant to be rhetorical, not a 'closed question' as you put it. But if you were determined to answer it in your way, feel free. Ho hum.
My point was, there are stock phrases that one by convention uses to start off, when addressing a complete stranger. "Excuse me" is an obvious one. To breeze straight in with an "Out of my way" (note the 'my') is, alas!, outside the pale of social conventions. And I fear, the OP's "make some room" doesn't score a lot better!
Point made?*
*and yes that too is a rhetorical question.
