Bikes on footpaths - damn...

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

Like has been stated elsewhere, it's consideration that is important
in this
matter.

On the subject, I just rode up to the shop. It is on a very busy
road, and I
have to turn right onto the busy road, ride for about 40 metres, and
then
it's on the right. So what do I do? Cross the busy road twice to get
to the
shop, or cruise up the footpath? I take the footpath of course!

I can't see anything wrong with this. Can anyone?

Not really. Technically, you are breaking the law. If nobody cops you
and you don't injure anyone it really doesn't matter at all. What you
can to stay within the law is the same as you're supposed to do at
marked pedestrian crossings. Get off the bike and wheel it the few
yards. But, if nobody's around, nobody cares.

I just have problems with the hypocrisy of "It's OK for us to ride
(carefully) on their paths, but they mustn't walk on ours" mentality.

Theo

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
is not OK.

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
born with it".

There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

Theo

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
is not OK.

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
born with it".

There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote in message
...
"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
is not OK.


What the hell planet do you live on???? The law says we couldn't ride
through the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne, but we did with the blessing of the
police!!! And yes, that made it OK.

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
born with it".

What the hell does THAT mean????

There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride anywhere I
want. This suggests to me you are incapable of digesting my point of view.
As such, there would be little point in continuing.
---
DFM

Theo Bekkers wrote in message
...
"Deep Freud Moors" wrote

You determine what is OK or not purely by definition of the law?

Not just me, the community does. That is what laws do, tell you what
is not OK.


What the hell planet do you live on???? The law says we couldn't ride
through the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne, but we did with the blessing of the
police!!! And yes, that made it OK.

Here is a tip. Use this when trying to determine if something's OK
or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

That is commonsense. I know commonsense is an abstract concept, but
it
is a commonly understood once. Feel free to embrace it.

Just in case you missed it the first time...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commonsense

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody was
born with it".

What the hell does THAT mean????

There is a law that says you mustn't ride your bike on a path made
specifically for pedestrians. Why do you think they made this
exclusion? Sheer perversity? Or possibly there was a reason? Maybe
'common sense' suggested to some law makers that these forms of
traffic were incompatible. So if you're alone, there is no
incompatibility and no conflict. If a pedestrian is using the path,
you are causing a conflict and should get off and walk. You are then a
pedestrian and have the right to use the path. Simple really.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride anywhere I
want. This suggests to me you are incapable of digesting my point of view.
As such, there would be little point in continuing.
---
DFM

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
Theo Bekkers wrote

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition
of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody
was
born with it".

What the hell does THAT mean????

It means that you were not born with 'common sense', 'common sense' is
learned.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where
ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what
Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride
anywhere I
want.

Contact your local TAFE for Comprehension 101, or Remedial Reading
102.

Theo

"Deep Freud Moors" wrote
Theo Bekkers wrote

A very poor definition of common sense. A much better definition
of
common sense is "Experience you've had so long you think everybody
was
born with it".

What the hell does THAT mean????

It means that you were not born with 'common sense', 'common sense' is
learned.

If you really feel that you should have the right to ride where
ever
you want and to hell with other road-users, then don't do what
Alan
does and complain about pedestrians on bike-only paths.

OK, you have just stated that I feel I have the right to ride
anywhere I
want.

Contact your local TAFE for Comprehension 101, or Remedial Reading
102.

Theo

I suppose there are times and places when cycling on the footpath is ok.
Speeding up a shopping centre footpath is not one of them, just
witnessed a cyclist & pedestrian collision today. No one was hurt, the
cyclist profusely apologised and the pedestrian accepted and went on his
way. BUT so did the cyclist riding exactly the same way he had been.
Next time he may not be so lucky.

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
walkers near the crossing.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

I suppose there are times and places when cycling on the footpath is ok.
Speeding up a shopping centre footpath is not one of them, just
witnessed a cyclist & pedestrian collision today. No one was hurt, the
cyclist profusely apologised and the pedestrian accepted and went on his
way. BUT so did the cyclist riding exactly the same way he had been.
Next time he may not be so lucky.

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a crossing?
I've had the experience of having a cyclist speed out onto a crossing
causing me to brake hard only just missing him. I had checked for
walkers near the crossing.



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

"Cheryl" wrote

What I want to know is what about pedestrian crossings? If a cyclist
has
the right to ride on the footpath what right does he have at a
crossing?

The right to wheel the bike across the road. Not ride.

Theo
Awaiting the avalanche.