Search results

I'd go with that. No. Just enforce the laws. Every copper that goes on patrol - nick the first four cyclists you see riding on the pavement or otherwise defying the Highway Code, give them an on-the-spot fine and confiscate the bike - earn your wages!

No, the difference is between half the pavement (with enough room left for legitimate pavement users) or the whole pavement.

Well, some selfish ****s think they shouldn't have to, it's their right never to be held up for a few seconds.

Half of it may well be common sense, as long as there is room for pedestrians (including those with wheelchairs). The whole pavement - unacceptable.

Application for a disabled parking bay no help? No, I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't. A lot of places built with no thought of where the cars should go - often built before cars were invented, let alone widely owned by most of the population. Converting Victorian terraces to multi-ownership...

Must be so frustrating for motorists, having to slow down before overtaking them when they are scrupulously riding according to the Highway Code, eh? Best tax pedestrians too - waltzing over the road in front of the harassed car driver on zebra crossings or when the green man is showing...

It'll make it a bit tricky for you to rob that bank too, eh?

Exactly. They were built without planning for cars. If the pavements are wide enough, two wheels on the pavement is a solution (although it makes the whole place a lot untidier than the architects originally envisaged it).

Trouble is, many housing estates were built without provision for the number of vehicles the residents own (they still are built that way - the developers only thought is to cram as many houses into a given space that they can). Often the only way to park so as not to block the road is to park...

Let's get cycles off the pavements first!