I've seen that written down somewhere, it's not the Highway Code, so perhaps Cyclecraft."Ride at a sensible speed for the situation and ensure you can stop in time. As a general rule, if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18 mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road."
No, it died a firey death in the consultation, roasted by responses including pointing out it conflicted with already-adopted government advice to build cycle tracks for 20mph average speed (which most councils failed at, but it was still the official advice).DfT-suggested Code of Conduct for Cyclists (not sure if if was ever formally adopted):
I heard someone - probably in the WWW not who knows how accurate - that originally pretty much everyone drove on the left
but that little (?) French bugger came along and took over most of Europe and decided that he wanted people to drive on the right
and after he got deported toRwandaElba most place he had been kept to the right
The UK - being superior - stayed as we were and exported the concept to the Empire
Some of that history may be a bit dodgy - or outright wrong - but that was something like what I saw
White on blue rectangular signs are information, so it's simply reminding you that cyclists dismount, so don't stand too close unless you like being hit by a leg swinging over.No, I they are actually correct in their actual invented purpose.
Better that than 'no cycling'.
Albeit grammatically incorrect ...White on blue rectangular signs are information, so it's simply reminding you that cyclists dismount
The crazy thing about those signs is they are typically on paths whereby a cyclist wheeling a bike is going to take up the full width.
Exactly
When the Runcorn-Widnes bridge was closed for a year (a year is well over 36 months isn't it????) then bicycles were allowed on the walkway down the outside most of the time
it is quite narrow - OK for about 3 people in width
so a cyclist ona hybrid type bike who is walking would take up most of the width
if they (I) rode - slowly and in a reasonable manner - then they (I) could easily stop and lean against the edge as walker coming the other way passed
but the signs clearly said to walk - which was daft
there was one bloke who complained - while I was actually stopped and allowing him to pass - but I think he was the sort to complain if there was a "Y" in the day!!
everyone else just said "Thanks" and carried on
How long is the path? Unless it is extremely long is anyone really vexed at the thought of walking for a minute or so?
Sounds like the same attitude as motorists who whine about the 20mph limit because it slows them down when, of course, they are perfectly capable of safely driving faster than that.
Its not necessarily the length, its the obstruction caused by someone wheeling a bike compared to if they were cycling.