On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:13:33 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:02:47 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Justin wrote:
On Dec 10, 11:41 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:07:02 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Looking on google earth the pavements are awash with cyclists, it
must be awful for pedestrians.

Really!?
http://goo.gl/maps/I9zNI

I can see a few bicycles on the footway, and some of those
pedestrians might also be cyclists. But I can't spot anyone riding
a bike on the footway.

I was looking on Google earth (rather than google maps) and the
whole area around the junction was covered in bicycles, probably
around twenty or more, and only one was riding in the road.

They must be big bicycles if 20 were sufficient to cover a whole
area. Idiot.

Is idiot your sig.? You might want to change that.

Anyway, since you don't know how big the area I am describing is,
you are not qualified to comment, but I do realise that perhaps you
are mentally challenged and foreign to boot ('to boot' is an English
idiom, meaning 'also').


It is not unreasonable to believe that you are describing the area
around Cambridge Railway Station.

Looking at Google Earth I can see several pedestrians with long
shadows, but no cyclists on the footway (although I do not rule out
that possibility).

Google Earth has an excellent way of pinpointing lawbreakers with
co-ordinates. If you zoom in on one or two of these footway cyclists,
hover your mouse of the rider, then post the co-ordinates of the
errant cyclist, we will be able to better understand the nature of the
problem to which you are referring.

There's a cyclist riding through Cambridge Station Car Park he
52-11'42.31"N 0-08'15.27"E.
For example.

it depends upon which frame you look at, but 52.220858, 0.134245 viewed from
the middle of the x road shows 6 pavement cyclists in a gaggle at the edge
of the road outside the PC repair place waiting to cross and a further three
pavement cyclists on either of the two arms of the x road. AFAICS those
bits are not shared use. From a slightly different position in the road the
PC repair place is a different shop named Hopper Ltd. So obviously the
different views are completely different dates.

likewise the pavement cyclist with child on the back (in a seat) at
52.220837 0.134338 (diagonally opposite side to the 6 above) The same view
shows a red light jumping cyclist wearing hi-viz.

Very long shadows would of course show early or late in the day and more
probably early, so perhaps your shots are before the cyclists get going?

My first point is that I thought we were talking about the area around
the railway station.

My second and final point is that in the location to which you refer,
there are indications that several of those footways are shared use:
http://goo.gl/maps/5cnYE
http://goo.gl/maps/aA4Rs
http://goo.gl/maps/FLJm0
(In this example, the evidence is more tenuous. Is the white line
indicating a footway cycle path or some boundary between council and
private land?)

However, it is clear that one or two cyclists have contravened best
practice, and possibly infringed a law.