hackbike 666
Guest
It caused me distress when those three pedestrians ran out straight into my front wheel.TIA
It caused me distress when those three pedestrians ran out straight into my front wheel.TIA
Possibly because they also tend to be pedestrians, and therefore have a balanced view of the situation whereas a pedestrian will only have their own.
Don't tell them off for pavement riding...they'll go on and on and on about how "they are on the right path to Salvation and you should change your ways".
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.
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.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?
Thus:
2. Blue circles without a red border are advisory / information
On that basis car drivers who cycle occasionally can claim to know what all cyclists want.