'Footpaths are for pedestrians' - new DCC billboard

Duke Leonal Felmet

seamus wrote: »

dubmess wrote: »

Studies have been done on a few cities in the States looking at registration of cyclists. The cost of set-up and regulation far outweighs revenue generated therefore it's a non-starter.

Switzerland charges a small fee on bikes, I think it's basically a sort of public liability insurance & tax rolled into one.
The discussion was had here before, but basically in order to make it a reasonable cost relative to a bicycle (i.e. less than €10/year), it costs more to collect the cash and print up the "discs" than the system takes in.

Again, enforcing the law is not about profit or breaking even. The primary objective of a 'tagging' system would be to disincentivise cyclists from breaking the law. If it succeeded at this, then it is deemed a success. Not if it makes money.

Bunnyhopper

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense.

I agree, but if there are two options for how you enforce the law and one costs more than the other, I'd say it's also common sense to go for the more cost-effective option. In this case, that means fixed penalty notices rather than registration plates.

On a related point, I support greater enforcement of the rules for cyclists but I'd argue that that ought to happen in the context of a reassessment of those rules and of the infrastructure. For example, I'd like to see cyclists who go the wrong way on one-way streets getting FPNs, but I'd also like to see a more considered use of contra-flow cycle lanes.

Duke Leonal Felmet

tomasrojo wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

I suggest you take it up with every government in the world (apart from the Swiss) as none of them can be bothered with registering cyclists.

From what I know, the purpose of vehicle registration is primarily to establish ownership and to tax owners, not to fight crime, though I suppose that is a useful side effect.

Then you believe that governments always make the right decision.

Nice.

dubmess

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

I'm not proposing anything, they're not my studies and not my set of moral codes, just the way the world works. Seriously surprised that a government might put revenue first? Read the papers much?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense.

I agree, but if there are two options for how you enforce the law and one costs more than the other, I'd say it's also common sense to go for the more cost-effective option. In this case, that means fixed penalty notices rather than registration plates.

On a related point, I support greater enforcement of the rules for cyclists but I'd argue that that ought to happen in the context of a reassessment of those rules and of the infrastructure. For example, I'd like to see cyclists who go the wrong way on one-way streets getting FPNs, but I'd also like to see a more considered use of contra-flow cycle lanes.

But how often would these FPNs be handed out? One in a thousand incidents, at best? One in ten thousand?

I don't see the deterrent.

BostonB

I'm all for not cycling on the footpath, its just too slow. Also you splill your coffee avoiding buggies and like.

But is this to prevent the recent carnage on the footpath where so many were killed and maimed.

Duke Leonal Felmet

dubmess wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why is this about generating revenue? Applying the law should not about making profit. That's just common sense. If catching serious criminals cost more than revenue generated, would you propose enforcing the law as a 'non starter'?

I'm not proposing anything, they're not my studies and not my set of moral codes, just the way the world works. Seriously surprised that a government might put revenue first? Read the papers much?

I'd take a punt at saying fighting serious assault generates no revenue (dont make a moronic comment about solicitors), and is actually a burden on the state.

So, the government puts revenue first? Why not close prisons? Why bother with criminal law?

It isn't the way the world works. Instead of reading papers, I got an education so I can make my own mind up on matters, instead of regurgitating what is fed to me.

Bunnyhopper

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

But how often would these FPNs be handed out? One in a thousand incidents, at best? One in ten thousand?

I don't see the deterrent.

About as often as someone gets fined for breaking the 30KPH limit in Dublin city centre, I'd guess. If you don't enforce a law then it doesn't matter how many number plates you stick on a bike or a car.

tomasrojo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Then you believe that governments always make the right decision.

Nice.

Well, if it's between the opinion of all the governments and one guy on the internet on an issue of relatively minor importance, I'll go with all the governments in the world.

Zulu

BostonB wrote: »

I'm all for not cycling on the footpath, its just too slow. Also you splill your coffee avoiding buggies and like.

But is this to prevent the recent carnage on the footpath where so many were killed and maimed.

No I made a complaint to my dad (the sherrif of nottingham) because my new loafers got dirty when I had to step out of the way of a cycle-terrorist.

Duke Leonal Felmet

tomasrojo wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Then you believe that governments always make the right decision.

Nice.

Well, if it's between the opinion of all the governments and one guy on the internet on an issue of relatively minor importance, I'll go with all the governments in the world.

So I was right in my assumption about you. Oh, and so many fallacies in your statement. Too little time.

seamus

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Again, enforcing the law is not about profit or breaking even. The primary objective of a 'tagging' system would be to disincentivise cyclists from breaking the law. If it succeeded at this, then it is deemed a success. Not if it makes money.

A system which costs the taxpayer money needs to be reviewed to ensure that the cost is proportionate to the benefit society gets from the system.

In this case, you need to ask yourself what extra tools are being provided to the enforcement agencies by way of registration plates. Very little IMO. It still requires Gardai to stop cyclists. "Oh no, my plate was stolen". "It's been very wet today officer, the plate got covered in mud". "I didn't know this was the wrong plate, I bought this bike off some guy online".
Very soon, the controls which you need to put in place to ensure compliance to the plate law (let alone the other laws) start mounting up, and it turns out that all you've done is create another law which costs money to enforce on top of a system which costs money to implement.

It's not the same as for car, because bikes aren't cars. The purpose of vehicle registration has always been to generate money from VRT and motor tax. Enforcement of road traffic laws is just a useful consequence which has emerged as cars have become so numerous.

tomasrojo

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

So I was right in my assumption about you. Oh, and so many fallacies in your statement. Too little time.

Ok, I'm prepared to leave it at that too.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

But how often would these FPNs be handed out? One in a thousand incidents, at best? One in ten thousand?

I don't see the deterrent.

About as often as someone gets fined for breaking the 30KPH limit in Dublin city centre, I'd guess. If you don't enforce a law then it doesn't matter how many number plates you stick on a bike or a car.

I disagree, but I wouldn't expect you to get the point I'm making, as it's quite specific to a topic I spent years studying, and there isn't enough time for me to cover it here. So I'm gonna leave it there.

Enjoy arrogantly cycling wherever you like, guys. Hopefully this sign is the beginning.

Bunnyhopper

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I disagree, but I wouldn't expect you to get the point I'm making, as it's quite specific to a topic I spent years studying, and there isn't enough time for me to cover it here. So I'm gonna leave it there.

Enjoy arrogantly cycling wherever you like, guys. Hopefully this sign is the beginning.

It's unfortunate that you decided on a patronizing ad hominem post rather than one that would make your point clear. If your posts don't make your point and your expertise clear then please don't insult my intelligence by jumping to the erroneous conclusion that the fault is mine.

It has been made abundantly clear that the cyclists you're corresponding with here do NOT arrogantly cycle wherever they like. Someone with the educated and incisive intelligence you tell us you have should be able to discern that.

oflahero

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Enjoy arrogantly cycling wherever you like, guys. Hopefully this sign is the beginning.

Let me guess: you happened on this thread, hoping that you would see piles of messages saying 'How dare they stop me cycling on the footpath like the wild untameable urban sophisticate I am! Nobody's going to stop me mowing down pedestrians as I see fit!'... You didn't see any, because there aren't any, but you decided you did see them after all.

Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?

Bluefoam

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I disagree, but I wouldn't expect you to get the point I'm making, as it's quite specific to a topic I spent years studying, and there isn't enough time for me to cover it here. So I'm gonna leave it there.

Enjoy arrogantly cycling wherever you like, guys. Hopefully this sign is the beginning.

Mods,
The charter prohibits making personal insults/attacks on this site. May I please be exempt momentarily?

Kinds regards, Bluefoam

mcmoustache

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Enjoy arrogantly cycling wherever you like, guys. Hopefully this sign is the beginning.

Err, most of us here hate cycling on footpaths. You should have seen the abuse that one guy here got when he admitted hopping on and off the path during his commute.

I think that the consensus around here is that it's only OK if you are a child or bringing children on a little cycling trip. Most people here even use the road when there is a cycle-lane on the footpath. Where you got the idea that the cyclists around here like footpaths is a mystery.

I really don't know what your point is but you're starting to come across as one of those crazy types who has arguments with walls and statues. Maybe a mod deleted comments by the posters who like to use footpaths and maybe that's why it looks like you're arguing with nobody.

I don't know.

rich.d.berry

rich.d.berry wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Do you think reg plates are an idea? I had a theory that if it were easier for authorities to identify them and issue fines, you would have a lot less stunt cycling through Grafton St on a busy Saturday.

You're just trolling, aren't you?

I believe that my first assessment has been proved correct.

Undercover Elephant

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Actually, the law says that the edges of a cycle track should be marked either with a thick white line on the right-hand edge of the cycle track or on the right-hand and left-hand edges of the cycle track. So in this case, you could argue that it's not a cycle lane beside a footpath, it's a wide cycle track. In many cases the markings and signage used on cycle facilities by local authorities are confusing at best.

That's not a cycle track. Two white lines might make a cycle track if it is "part of the footway", but where is the rest of the footway in that photo? And without visiting it, I am prepared to bet that there is no legal upright sign - probably just one of those Shared Space things which have no legal basis whatsoever.

I know this seems like pedantry, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to expect the state to follow the laws it sets for the rest of us and not just make it up as it goes along.

Paparazzo

Most people on here are pretty interested in cycling. You're forgetting not everyone is like you. On your commute home, take a look at other cyclists, ones that don't have a clue and just hopped on a bike with no idea about rules of the road.
Like this guy:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056441907
There's plenty more out there. That's who this is aimed at. I saw another sign today saying "Cyclists: Obey the rules of the road".
There's cyclists out there in busy rush hour traffic that still think they're kids messing around on bikes in their estate.

Kintarō Hattori

tomasrojo wrote: »

Does anyone know what happened to the plan to create laws to allow FPNs for cyclists?

Varadkar dropped it saying that as there was no central registration of cyclists and because they weren't required to carry ID that it was essentially unenforceable.

blorg

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Varadkar dropped it saying that as there was no central registration of cyclists and because they weren't required to carry ID that it was essentially unenforceable.

The obvious thing would be to confiscate the bike in lieu if the rider wasn't able to pay the fine. They can already do this in some circumstances AFAIK.

rich.d.berry

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Varadkar dropped it saying that as there was no central registration of cyclists and because they weren't required to carry ID that it was essentially unenforceable.

I cannot see how the ID requirement is a show-stopper. How do they enforce the summonses they issue at present if that is the case?

seamus

I suspect it was Varadkar's way of saying, "I couldn't be arsed drafting legislation for this". Or maybe the Gardai decided they couldn't be arsed stopping cyclists and confiscating bikes and told Varadkar that, "Uhhh, yeah, but they don't carry ID, so how do we enforce it?".

Jawgap

The sentiment is well founded and quite correct, but this smells of arising from a combination of some money being left in the road safety promotion budget needing to be spent by year end and the perception of a problem that isn't really a problem because some people complained loudly to their councillors (and to Joe!)

What about motability scooters?

CramCycle

rich.d.berry wrote: »

You're just trolling, aren't you?

My spider sense is tingling.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I disagree, but I wouldn't expect you to get the point I'm making,

Quick, fetch my hammer

as it's quite specific to a topic I spent years studying, and there isn't enough time for me to cover it here.

You can be a genius without ever having set foot inside of a classroom but more importantly, you can remain a moron no matter how often you have set foot inside of a lecture there.

Bluefoam wrote: »

Mods,
The charter prohibits making personal insults/attacks on this site. May I please be exempt momentarily?

Kinds regards, Bluefoam

Sorry Bluefoam but the rules of the forum are like the laws from the Road Traffic Act. They apply to everyone that uses them (well almost, the owners of the website and the Gardai being the obvious exceptions).

galwaycyclist

rich.d.berry wrote: »

I cannot see how the ID requirement is a show-stopper. How do they enforce the summonses they issue at present if that is the case?

I asked a Guard about this one night. His view was that although most people are not required to carry id - most people actually do.

So how I think it works is that although you are not required to do any more than state your name and address - the Guard is within his rights to ask you to accompany him to the station if you don't have any corroborating documents. (And in 99% of cases an adult would have an ATM card or something.)

I could be stretching things here we would need to ask a legal person. Anyway he was of the view that this wouldn't stop him if he had the power to issue FPNs.

So my instinct is that the rejection of FPNs for cyclists is more to do with mandarins finding excuses not to do stuff.

tomasrojo

Yeah, they have FPNs in the UK, and they're fiercely protective of the right not to carry ID in the UK.

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/fixed-penalty-notices

Bunnyhopper

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

That's not a cycle track. Two white lines might make a cycle track if it is "part of the footway", but where is the rest of the footway in that photo? And without visiting it, I am prepared to bet that there is no legal upright sign - probably just one of those Shared Space things which have no legal basis whatsoever.

I was suggesting (a bit mischievously) that there is no rest of the footway. It's not a footway at all: it's a cycleway (not the same as a "cycle track"). There is some mention of shared use cycleways in the 1993 Roads Act.

Yeah, I didn't want to start into the whole upright sign thing at that point - yet another can of worms

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I know this seems like pedantry, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to expect the state to follow the laws it sets for the rest of us and not just make it up as it goes along.

I agree. Part of my point was that it's all so confusing and inconsistent that it can be hard to tell what's what.

galwaycyclist

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

I was suggesting (a bit mischievously) that there is no rest of the footway. It's not a footway at all: it's a cycleway (not the same as a "cycle track"). There is some mention of shared use cycleways in the 1993 Roads Act.

More michief but (only partially)

Yep IIRC Section 68 defines a Cycleway as a road dedicated to pedal cycles. And the road is the bit between the boundary walls defining the public right of way. So you can't have a cycleway on a footway. But you can set aside a footway on a road that is a cycleway.

Bunnyhopper

galwaycyclist wrote: »

More michief but (only partially)

Yep IIRC Section 68 defines a Cycleway as a road dedicated to pedal cycles. And the road is the bit between the boundary walls defining the public right of way. So you can't have a cycleway on a footway. But you can set aside a footway on a road that is a cycleway.

Yeah, there is a road/roadway distinction, isn't there?

So a cycleway would have to be the whole thing between the boundaries rather than a "lane" along side a roadway. If it's a "lane" (i.e., only part of the road) it's a cycle track and therefore cannot be shared use with pedestrians. Is that right??

If you set aside a footway on a cycleway do they have to be separate lanes? Section 68 just says that the road authority can declare "that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians".

No wonder people get confused…

greenmat

Noticed that Ad and posted in another Thread slagging it recently. I for one like many of the regular cyclists here never use "Footpath Cyclelanes" as they are too dangerous. Pedestrians, dogs, buggy's, children as well as stopping at every junction, driveway, gateways to look over your shoulder to make sure it's safe to proceed. It's safer and quicker to stay on the road. The one decent off-street cyclelane I used a lot is full of pedestrians, when there is 2 footpaths either side for them to use but many seem to use the cycle lane.

For me the Ad is annoying because D.C.C. are telling me to stay off the path and at the same time putting cycle lanes on paths clearly not suitable. Cyclists don't want them there so don't waste the money providing them.

manwithaplan

blorg wrote: »

The obvious thing would be to confiscate the bike in lieu if the rider wasn't able to pay the fine.

Hardly. The guard is only issuing a notice, not sticking the cash in his pocket.

galwaycyclist

greenmat wrote: »

Noticed that Ad and posted in another Thread slagging it recently. I for one like many of the regular cyclists here never use "Footpath Cyclelanes" as they are too dangerous. Pedestrians, dogs, buggy's, children as well as stopping at every junction, driveway, gateways to look over your shoulder to make sure it's safe to proceed. It's safer and quicker to stay on the road. The one decent off-street cyclelane I used a lot is full of pedestrians, when there is 2 footpaths either side for them to use but many seem to use the cycle lane.

For me the Ad is annoying because D.C.C. are telling me to stay off the path and at the same time putting cycle lanes on paths clearly not suitable. Cyclists don't want them there so don't waste the money providing them.

I would not assume that the council is a homogenous entity. Likely there are different factions some of whom view cyclists and pedestrians with contempt and some who are trying to do the right thing against institutional opposition. So you might get a mess like the Samuel Beckett bridge from one crowd and a really useful contraflow from the other.

On some routes in the DCC area of operations, the crap shared footpaths may actually have been imposed by the Dublin Transportation Office or NTA as the funding agency for the scheme. In others it may have been imposed as a condition of planning permission by some gombeen in the planning office or an architect with a vestigial knowledge of cycling but a great eye for what looks good in the artists impression.

The question you need to ask yourself is which faction do you want to win? In whose hands do our best interests as cyclists lie?

The people behind this may have gone out on a limb to do it.

If our analysis is that these people have the right vision for us then maybe we need to get behind them regardless of what their less sympathetic colleagues are at?

al28283

droidus wrote: »

The cycle lane is located ON the footpath. Its as clear as day. Splashing some paint on the footpath does not change the fact that it is a footpath.

I dont think this is a particularly difficult principle to grasp, but it I guess it takes all sorts.

In the case where cycle lanes are on the road, is it therefore ok for cars to drive in the cycle lane?
Splashing some paint on the road does not change the fact that it is a road.

blorg

manwithaplan wrote: »

Hardly. The guard is only issuing a notice, not sticking the cash in his pocket.

I was confusing FPN with an on the spot fine. Anyway, the point still stands, they can take your bike if they suspect you of giving a false name or address. They have had this power since at least 1961:

"A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a
person in charge of a pedal cycle whom the member
suspects of having committed any crime or offence or of
having been concerned or involved in a collision or other
event in a public place causing injury to person or
property, the name and address and date of birth of such
person, and if such a person refuses or fails to give his or
her name and address and date of birth or gives a name
or address or date of birth which the member has
reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading,
the member may take the cycle, by reasonable force if
necessary, and retain it until such time as he or she is
satisfied as to the identity of such person."

alfalad

Zulu wrote: »

And yet this stretch is exactly were I've had problems with cyclists using the footpath/not using the cycle lane.

And every cyclist who cycles there regularly will tell you that they have had their fair share of pedestrians walking in the cycle lane, or my personal fav is when they walk on the footpath section but they let their dog on an extendable lead walk over to wall therefore cutting off the whole cycle path, then throw you a look when you cycle round them.
Closer to town there at Clontarf you have the cyclepath inside the wall but the footpath either beside the road or along the water and yet plenty of people walk along there 3 abreast. But you don't get grumpy about it, you get on with your ride.

Zulu

alfalad wrote: »

And every cyclist who cycles there regularly will tell you that they have had their fair share of pedestrians walking in the cycle lane, or my personal fav is when they walk on the footpath section but they let their dog on an extendable lead walk over to wall therefore cutting off the whole cycle path, then throw you a look when you cycle round them.

Well to be fair to the dog walkers who bother to pick up after their dogs, (of which I'm one) all the dog waste bins are on the other side of the cycle path, as is any exit from the walkway so it's impossible for a pedestrian not to cross. However, I'm not interested in getting into one-uppery, the point on when pedestrian choose to walk is well conceeded.
Can you explain to me why some many cyclists choose to cycle out of town on the footpath on the right hand side of the road (from the wooden bridge to St.Annes Park) prior to that stretch we are talking about? It's a narrow path & there a cycle lane on the left hand side of the road.

greenmat

Zulu wrote: »

Well to be fair to the dog walkers who bother to pick up after their dogs, (of which I'm one) all the dog waste bins are on the other side of the cycle path, as is any exit from the walkway so it's impossible for a pedestrian not to cross. However, I'm not interested in getting into one-uppery, the point on when pedestrian choose to walk is well conceeded.
Can you explain to me why some many cyclists choose to cycle out of town on the footpath on the right hand side of the road (from the wooden bridge to St.Annes Park) prior to that stretch we are talking about? It's a narrow path & there a cycle lane on the left hand side of the road.

Know the stretch, and what ur saying is true in fairness. Being lazy, or not wanting to cross over at the wooden bridge to then cross back over to the waterfront at the causeway. I'm afraid I'm guilty on a couple of occasions of doing that and when doing so know it's wrong. 2 other things about that stretch, have had 2 near misses because of the very poor road conditions when I did cross over and do it correctly, road surface is poor and dangerous especially for riders on 23mm tyres so maybe sometimes that plays on my mind to avoid it. Why did D.C.C. build a very good peice of cycling infrastructure between Clontarf and Sutton and leave a 1 1/2 km section in the middle out. Even when they do it well they balls it up.

Zulu

I had a feeling it had something to do with the road quality. That area was flooded bad the last time.

droidus

al28283 wrote: »

In the case where cycle lanes are on the road, is it therefore ok for cars to drive in the cycle lane?
Splashing some paint on the road does not change the fact that it is a road.

Yes, you're exactly right. It does not change the fact that its a road in the same way that a white line on the footpath does not change the fact that it's a footpath.

manwithaplan

blorg wrote: »

I was confusing FPN with an on the spot fine. Anyway, the point still stands, they can take your bike if they suspect you of giving a false name or address. They have had this power since at least 1961:

"A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a
person in charge of a pedal cycle whom the member
suspects of having committed any crime or offence or of
having been concerned or involved in a collision or other
event in a public place causing injury to person or
property, the name and address and date of birth of such
person, and if such a person refuses or fails to give his or
her name and address and date of birth or gives a name
or address or date of birth which the member has
reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading,
the member may take the cycle, by reasonable force if
necessary, and retain it until such time as he or she is
satisfied as to the identity of such person."

Nitpick alert: You weren't confusing a FPN with an on-the-spot fine. On the spot fines aren't paid there and then either. You just couldn't have guards taking cash off people.

I fully agree with the main point of the post though.

tomasrojo

Jorren Knibe at ukcyclerules.com was writing about fixed-penalty notices recently, and has some information about the practicalities of police requesting identification in a jurisdiction that doesn't compel people to carry identification:

As far as I know, what to do about the ID issue is an operational matter for the police – I haven’t come across any laws on this. As I recall, though, the police can arrest you if they think you’ve committed an offence and can’t ascertain your details – so providing ID might be a way to avoid arrest…

http://ukcyclerules.com/2012/01/04/challenging-a-fixed-penalty-notice/#comment-7538

So I guess in practical terms, most people have some form of ID on them most of the time, and when presented with the possibility, however slight, of being arrested, they will show it.

Bad Panda

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but why target cyclist when motorists are much much much worse offenders when it comes to using (parking) footpaths which is effectively ignored.

Rubbish. I've never been nearly run over by a car on the footpath.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

So I guess in practical terms, most people have some form of ID on them most of the time, and when presented with the possibility, however slight, of being arrested, they will show it.

Yep I have been told the same thing by members of the Garda down here. The lack of compulsory id was not seen as the main problem with enforcing the traffic regulations among cyclists.

What was seen as the main problem was the perception that the courts, legal profession and other members of the force would treat the idea of enforcing the laws on cyclists as a matter of ridicule.

Those Garda who wish to see cycling taken seriously see it as something that would be treated as a joke by their colleagues and superiors. And so not worth the bother.

tomasrojo

Bad Panda wrote: »

Rubbish. I've never been nearly run over by a car on the footpath.

I really resurrected the thread to give some information on the practicalities of fixed-penalty notices. I appreciate that footpath cyclists are extremely annoying and sometimes very intimidating, but I think the previous six pages have covered all angles on that one.

Stripey Cat

Was this aspect covered?

Cookie_Monster

Bad Panda wrote: »

Rubbish. I've never been nearly run over by a car on the footpath.

and I've never been run over by a bike QED it doesn't happen :rolleyes:

Obviously I meant it in terms of cars parking on and blocking footpads