“The truth is that most pavement cyclists are young men and their attitude and behaviour is appalling.

They are arrogant, careless and selfish; if you object you get a mouthful of abuse and if they hit you it is your fault for not getting out of their way. Many cycle along with no hands on the handlebars or concentrating on their mobiles as they compose a text!

Those of you who think it is not a problem should try wearing "sim specs" ( glasses which simulate different eye conditions such as macula degeneration which affects the elderly or retinitis pigmentosa) and then walk around the town with only a white cane to guide you. I guarantee you will be screaming for pavements to be free of cyclists within minutes!

It is hard enough for blind people to find their way about with the proliferation of "A boards", rubbish bags, litter, such as plastic drinks bottles to slip on, and pavements being dug up without being scared stiff of people on bikes coming up behind you or heading straight at you. The road is for vehicles and the pavement should be for pedestrians who should feel safe there.”

“I for one definitely agree with you Dan.

Thank you for explaining Troll and imo.”

“APR a troll is someone who is out to cause conflict. Different levels of trolling from mild to the extreme (where they can turn people against each other with a kind of mind game).

ALACitizen doesnt strike me as extreme, just attention seeking from his/her comments.

imo is an abreviated version of "in my opinion"

Just type anything internet speakie you dont understand into Google and it tells you what it means. :-)

I quite agree with you that its not up to cyclists to make the laws and decisions. However if I see a 12 year old or an old woman on a bike pavement riding I'm pretty happy to let them get on with it.

Its those inbetween who I feel have let the side down. They've damaged our right to use the road and turned people against cycling and cyclists. I also think that councils imposing and creating on-path cycle riding facilities dont help. It takes away the confortable segregation pedestrians felt on the pavement. Most off-road facilities around the country are a bit pointless or are problematic for riding on.”

“I think that you are being a little harsh on A Law Abiding Citizen.

I think he is saying that in view of the law it is not for cyclists to decide whether it is acceptable to use pavements.

This is still illegal behaviour.

Unfortunately, I have seen cyclists choose to use pavements even where cycle lanes are available such as in James Street West and Monmouth Street.

I do agree that a sensible approach is required but again it is not for the cyclist to make the decision.

In a democratic country it is always open to a person to seek a change of the law.

I will be grateful if you would explain Troll and imo.”

“Guys. I would say that A Law Abiding.. is simply here to troll, best ignored imo, or use the report function if they get abusive.

On the subject.. we as cyclists know the law and have to set an example imo. Theres a problem with perceptions around cycles and cycling - if you consider pavement cyclists to be dangerous the chances are most are courteous and safe but we only remember the idiots.There is also the perception by some cyclists that the road is dangerous. This is nonsense - a quick email to your council, scanning the paper's archives with google and so on should give you a run down when you see how many use the road in the first place.

I quite like the CTC's Safety in Numbers theory. The more of us using the roads the safer it becomes for us as a whole. We must also not displace our feeling of lack of safety on to others.”

“Tom,

Dear oh dear your petulance will do your liberal views and those of the same persuasion as yourself no good.

It does rather seem that your limited comprehension of the view held by the wider public is now on display.

Thank you for that.

Since I have nothing further to add and it is clear that you are wholly unable to I will direct my efforts in this matter elsewhere.

Hopefully, I will find the intellectual challenge there to be more conducive to a mutually beneficial standard of debate.”

“@A Law Abiding Citizen - from the above article:

"Insp Mildren told the campaigners ¿ who were accompanied by B&NES councillor Nigel Roberts ¿ that there was no zero tolerance approach on the issue and that no action would be taken over children riding responsibly on pavements.

So that blows your own zero tolerance attitude right out of the window. Not be me, but by the local police, who may or may not be following the specific guidance from the Home Office Minister.

Just out of interest, are there any other law issues that concern you, or is it just cyclists you have it in for? Cos I don't recall having encountered your moniker previously. For instance, there's a huge debate elsewhere on these pages about speed cameras which you can contribute to.

@Vernon - spot on. Sensible and pragmatic.”

“As it is currently illegal to ride a pushbike on a pavement, it is obvious that the law needs changing. But not to give carte blanche permission for tearaways to cycle madly in pedestrianised areas, but if a cyclist considers a road (for instance) to be dangerous to cyclists, and the pavement is not busy then why not allow cyclists to ride cautiously on the pavement. The law should be changed to a more sensible approach, which is what the police appear to be doing.”

“Tom,

The Home Office Minister to whom you refer did not even last the course of a now wholly discredited ousted Government.

His dictat did not change the substantive law

Inspector Mildren has said that the issue has been identified as a priority at the partners and community together meetings which aim to air community worries in the city.

As such he has further stated that "We will continue to take appropriate action against anyone who puts other highway users in danger."

Clearly, from the above article, this has the cycling lobby extremely worried.”

“@A Law Abiding Citizen: please read my last post, which explains something about the Home Office recommendations about enforcing this particular law. You are of course entitled to continue to disagree with the Home Office Minister as well as with Insp Mildren here in Bath.”