A Menace or Are Street Cyclists Misunderstood? ; the Great Debate
Gloucestershire Echo, The › November 23, 2011
Linked as:
Gloucestershire Echo, The › November 23, 2011
Linked as:Summary
ONLY two people have been fined for cycling on the pavements in Cheltenham over the past year. Many pedestrians say cyclists area nuisance and police should start a crackdown. But cyclists argue the many should not be judged by the actions of a few. Are cyclists a menace? THE good news for pedestrians who find cyclists a problem is that there are very few casualties - only a handful a year. The main threat, which they face with cyclists, is from motor traffic; even on pavements, hundreds of pedestrians are hurt by cars each a year. It would be nice to think there were pedestrians who recognised that they had much common ground with cyclis1ts.
However, there's no doubt that pavement cycling is a nuisance and a worry to many, especially the elderly who are more easily startled. As it happens, pavements are far from hazard-free for cycling, and most people would be much better off on the roads, where the health benefits outweigh the hazards at least 20 to 1. Road cycling is even safer if you ride prominently and learn how to interact with other traffic.See the full content of this document
Extract
A Menace or Are Street Cyclists Misunderstood? ; the Great Debate
Alas, a generation of non-cycling parents have encouraged children to use the pavements and now some older people who lack experience do likewise. Councils don't help when they sign cycle routes o...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United Kingdom
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other documents:
As Good As Gold | B&B s Buzzing Over Bee Award | andy s a hard nut to crack | Steelmen On the Up After Roof Thumped | Watts v Seward School Bd. 381 U.S 126 per curiam 1965 | In Re Head v. 4th Cir 2006 | ANDERSON v THE STATE. 233 Ga 464 211 S.E.2.d 754 | Sokombe vs Gonzales 5th Cir 2006