pwa wrote:I believe it is the case on the road, but I'm not sure it applies (legally) on shared use paths. But it is certainly the convention. And remember, shared use path are usually places where adults feel able to let young children walk without having a hand held constantly.
"Shared use paths" don't really exist in law, do they? So it's probably best to avoid that confusing term. There are "cycle tracks" which are highways or parts of highways (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/329
) so pedestrians can use them unless specifically prohibited. Sometimes they are created by extinguishing a footway and recreating it as a cycle track with no other works but that's usually a very bad idea.
Vorpal wrote:Most segregated paths are designed for approximately 12 mph, and the Department for Transport say that cyclists going faster than 18 mph should use the road.
Actually, current guidance is to design for 20mph (LTN 2/08 para 8.2.2) and that flawed draft code of cyclists-bowing-and-scraping-to-everyone-else never made it beyond the consultation stage.
I'll respond the same way as I did the last time we discussed it.
"I put it to you m'lud that my client cannot be guilty of drink driving, as his car is not fitted with any device for measuring the alcohol content of his body"
Oh is that why motorists have to carry brethalysers in France now?
[XAP]Bob wrote:Then "flag" it on strava as unsuitable.
That's very difficult to do - maybe impossible if you don't use strava? - and even then, I'm told users can just click through to see the "leaderboards" on flagged sections. Surely Strava should default to unsuitable unless it's either a carriageway or multiple users flag it as suitable with justifications? If the public is going to have to police Strava, then let's fix all its problems at once by closing down all its UK operations with a stonking fine for breaching the Cycle Racing on Highways Regulations.