Another considerate cyclist?

On Jul 30, 1:54*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:15:11
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On 29 July, 19:13, JNugent wrote:
webreader wrote:
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/...owtopic=109959

An interesting police officer discussion board.

One or two posters here might like to post #5, which (correctly) makes the point:

"... cycling on a pavement isnt an offence, cycling on a footway is, might be
usefull to know if your issuing tickets for it ?".

"the foot way is the metre next to the road, pedestrian areas more
than a metre from the road are not foot ways and cycling is not
prohibited unless there is a bylaw"

Is he saying what I think he's saying?

That would mean that on wide pavements, cycling is always allowed if
you stay at least a metre from the roadway.

That does seem to be a very strict interpretation of the prohibited
part of the footway ONLY being the path "by the side of" the
carriageway.

I'd always interpreted it as being any path running alongside the
carriageway and within the boundary of the highway, but I suppose it
is possible to put a narrower interpretation on "by the side of".

I don't believe it is correct to do so, and will continue to interpret
the footway as being _any_ part of the roadside footpath, as I believe
is intended by the act.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

As I see it as a layman, footpaths and pavements alongside a road are
primarily for the use of pedestrians, unless there is a clearly marked
cyclepath on them. Carriages and vehicles, including bicycles being
ridden, should use the road/carriageway. However a cyclist pushing a
bicycle is a pedestrian and can use the footways. The same would apply
to a mother pushing a pram, pushchair or babby buggy.

Derek C