Cyclist Killed

kr79:

Carryfast:

ROG:
I live near an industrial estate where there are 3 council yards and many who work for the council cycle to work and use the pavements without any incidents at all probably because there are very few pedestrians on them

It would not always be safe for cycles to use pavements but where it is safe they should be encouraged to do so

Safe cycling on pavements = plod not interested

If that’s the case then why doesn’t ‘plod’ and TFL make that very clear to everyone concerned and then go a step further by nicking cyclists for not using pavements where plod considers it safe to do so :question: :question: . :bulb:

How would you identify sutiable pavements ?
Back in England near where I lived there was a main road rmthat had a very wide pavement on one side so the council painted a line in the middle had one side for cycles the other for pedestrians. Whenever I used to cycle along there people would be walking in the bike bit and I felt safer on the road.
Must admit I don’t like road cycling. Much I used to just cycle from my house to the river Thames to the pathway and cycle along there much safer and enjoyable.

It’s just a case of cyclists needing to get used to the fact that they’re not involved in a Tour De France time trial and then shifting the responsibility which cyclists expect from road traffic onto that which pedestrians should expect from cyclists.In which case the majority of pavements in the country would be safe enough for use by cyclists.The fact is it would be a lot easier for cyclists to keep pedestrians safe in that environment than for road traffic to keep cyclists safe under the present one.

As I’ve said the issue is all about the authorities wanting to make cycling more attractive,by removal of as much responsibilty as possible from cyclists in their use of the roads and shifting all that responsibility onto motor traffic road users and cyclists themselves taking advantage of that situation.