Don't quite know what you are saying here - NO bicycles MUST NOT use footpaths and footpaths are called by the great majority of people pavements end of story - simply twisting words to justify what is in effect petty lawbreaking [unless you actually hit one of those annoying pedestrians - oops sorry, bicycles never cause accidents do they] is pretty pathetic really. If there is a sign saying mixed use or cycleway then that is a completely different matter and such things are signed [either on posts or on the ground] and pretty obvious. I am sorry but if I meet a grown adult on a 'pavement' I will not be arguing the toss as to if it is a 'footpath' as a pedestrian I will NOT move over and whoever it is can ride on the road. If you don't follow the rules don't expect motorists or anyone else to do so either I'm sorry but it's time some cyclists stopped crying and just got on with it.
I don't know what you're saying that's different to what mjray said.
On your other point why should I not expect motorists to follow the rules because
some other cyclists don't? By that logic I can justify cutting up motorists because
some other motorists habitually speed. I saw a BMW go through a red light yesterday so does that mean I can consider all BMW drivers (scrub that, all car drivers) to not follow the rules and therefore have a green light (see what I did there?) to do so myself?
Non-cyclists seeing cyclists as a homogenous group where all are tarred with the sins of some is not the sort of thinking that cyclists should be using themselves.
