I am relieved that Alan has made his position clearer by saying, "Nobody disputes that adults shouldn't cycle on pavements."The Highway Code is a distillation of the law, not the other way round. The section which I posted quotes the actual legislation from which it is derived beneath it.Alan supports the police turning a blind eye to children cycling on pavements. It's not worth arguing with him any more that that is still against the law, children often have adults on bicycles accompanying them, children are less experienced therefore more reckless, or that it is the experience of breaking the law and acting in an inconsiderate way at a young age that conditions them to indulge in more serious anti-social behaviour later.What concerns me is that the police do nothing to stop adults, when even all the participants on this board seem to have finally reached the consensus that adults shouldn't cycle on pavements.Re bells - yes, obviously good bells should be fitted and used to warn drivers and pedestrians ON THE ROAD of a cyclist's presence. I am, overall, greatly in favour of cycling, but the trouble is, some cyclists seem to think that they become above the law as soon as they mount their bike. So they don't have bells, I often see them in the evening with no lights, and instead of wearing the recommended bright clothing they are often in black...with hoods!!!Their common sense often deserts them too. They ride on pavements crowded with people and pushchairs, they ride the wrong way up one-way streets, they jump red lights, they don't use the cycle lanes provided, etc, etc.A couple of years ago, I nearly killed a cyclist who was riding their bicycle towards me in the middle of the road whilst TEXTING on their mobile phone - I promise you!Will the madness ever end?
Edward Noel ● 7178d