If ped's are so afraid of 'pavemnet cyclists' why do they walk in cycle paths?

We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is it that pedestrians fear of
cyclists seems to evaoporate when they want to use facilities
supposedly set aside for cyclists? How come almost half the users of
The National 'Cycle' Network are pedestrians? Why is it that
pedestrians seem incapable of walking on the correct side of a
segregated cycle/footpath? Why is it that most shared use paths are
full of dog walkers seemingly oblivious of cyclists actually trying to
get somewhere by using the path?

'Tis a rare old puzzle and no mistake.

P.s

My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about seeing
a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules', which, of course, in
most societies is the prerogative of the dominant social group. (Such
as the users of motor vehicles)...


Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
appropriated by motor vehicle users!

"Howard" wrote in message
om...

P.s

My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about seeing
a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules', which, of course, in
most societies is the prerogative of the dominant social group. (Such
as the users of motor vehicles)...

"My" criticism of pavement cyclists in the local rag the other day wasn't
me - it was an impostor using my name!

--
Simon Mason
Anlaby
East Yorkshire.
53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

My guess is that rants about 'pavement cyclists' are little more then
your average right wing authoritarian getting into a tiss about seeing
a 'low status outgroup' 'breaking the rules'

Or perhaps it's people like me (politically-conservative enthusiastic
cyclist!) who don't want to be run over by 14-year-old yobs cycling on
pavements?

Your prejudices are showing ;-)

On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, Howard wrote:
We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists'

Is this a flame against poor old me? Too bad I have a thick skin and have
been flamed by experts in the past. Most of my points were restrained to
your post in the other thread and I won't repeat them here. But a quick
recap - I have no problems with cyclists on shared use paths, bridleways
etc. and either walk in the ped lane or give cyclists plenty of room,
often stepping to one side of the bridleway.

[snip]

Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian

Are they any on u.r.c?

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

"Andy Leighton" wrote in message
...
On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, Howard wrote:

Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian

Are they any on u.r.c?

Relatively few cyclephobes, but a hell of a lot of authoritarians to compensate!
--
"A kilt opens up new possibilities."
- Gary D. Schwartz in rec.backcountry

"Howard" wrote in message
om...


snip

Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
appropriated by motor vehicle users!

Exactly the same could be said of pedestrians. Pedestrians are permitted to
use all cycleways, cycletracks, cyclepaths bar none. Indeed, as many of
these facilities were once footpaths, to criticise people who wish to
appropriate roads for motor vehicles but then to support the appropriation
of footpaths (by means of a bit of white paint) for cyclists seems somewhat
hypocriticial

I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves into their favoured
road-user group and then adopt an "us and them" attitude, we (as a society)
could work together to resolve these things so everyone can get to where
they wish to go by the means they choose without being unncessarily
endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't happen while people are intent
on pointing the finger at everyone else mind.

I would suggest if people didn't pigeon-hole themselves into their favoured
road-user group and then adopt an "us and them" attitude, we (as a society)
could work together to resolve these things so everyone can get to where
they wish to go by the means they choose without being unncessarily
endangered or inconvenienced by others. Won't happen while people are intent
on pointing the finger at everyone else mind.

U.R.C post of the month in opinion!

On 12 Jun 2004 03:25:23 -0700, (Howard)
wrote:

We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
that this is 'dangerous'.

We should make them wear h*lm*ts

And if that doesn't stop them, b*bsh*rts.

Howard posted:

Oh, and before some cyclephobe authoritarian comes back with 'why do
cyclists use the roads if they are so afraid of cars' the answer is
because that is where they should ride and they see no reason why they
should stop cycling and allow a supposedly public resource to be
appropriated by motor vehicle users!

Which is a damn good argument, virtually identical in fact, for pedestrians
walking on footpaths thereby stopping cyclists appropriating footpaths just
'cos they're daubed with white lines ..

I wonder what your point is ?

--
Paul ...

(8(|) ... Homer Rocks

Howard wrote:
We all see half-witted rants about 'pavement cyclists' often claiming
that this is 'dangerous'. However, why is it that pedestrians fear of
cyclists seems to evaoporate when they want to use facilities
supposedly set aside for cyclists?

Both are dangerous IMO. Roads are for bikes.