Which side of the road?

modsandmockers

Q1 - On a road with no footpath, why are pedestrians advised to walk towards any opposing traffic?

Q2 - On a road with no cyclepath, why are cyclists not advised to pedal towards any opposing traffic?

ps - you have to answer Q1 before tackling Q2

Bollotom

Q1 If you were walking with your back to traffic you may not hear them, certainly couldn't see them. Walking towards reduces the risk as you become aware and can step to one side.

Q2 A cycle is classed as a road vehicle and has to obey the rules of the road...same as horses.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Q1 - On a road with no footpath, why are pedestrians advised to walk towards any opposing traffic?

So they can see approaching traffic, and be in a position to jump out of the way if necessary.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Q2 - On a road with no cyclepath, why are cyclists not advised to pedal towards any opposing traffic?

Because vehicles in the UK must travel on the left of the road.

A walking pedestrian does not move very quickly, so they are equally easy to pass whether they are walking with traffic or against it.

A cyclist moves much faster, making it much more difficult to safely overtake a cyclist riding against traffic than with it.

Thus, it is safest for pedestrians to walk on the right, and cyclists to ride on the left.

armyknife

modsandmockers wrote: »

Q1 - On a road with no footpath, why are pedestrians advised to walk towards any opposing traffic?

Q2 - On a road with no cyclepath, why are cyclists not advised to pedal towards any opposing traffic?

ps - you have to answer Q1 before tackling Q2

Really, who says.

On topic I think it's best if all road users stick to the highway code and also look out, in more ways than one, for the more vulnerable road users.

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

A cyclist moves much faster, making it much more difficult to safely overtake a cyclist riding against traffic than with it

Not true - passing any road user will be quicker if the direction of travel is opposite. A cyclist is indeed faster than a pedestrian, and that is why overtaking a cyclist takes longer and is more tricky than passing a cyclist who is travelling in the opposite direction (assuming, of course, that the cyclist will have the same sense of self-preservation as a pedestrian).

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why is it exempt from pretty well every construction and use regulation with which other vehicles are required to comply?

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why does it not have to be registered, and why does its rider not have to be licensed?

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why is it officially allowed to use the pavement, even though it is technically illegal?

esuhl

Ha ha ha! :rotfl:

Why play games? Why not just put all that your first post instead of wasting everyone's time with another tedious "cars are the best" rant?

P.S. You must laugh out loud before tackling the second paragraph.

Johnmcl7

modsandmockers wrote: »

Not true - passing any road user will be quicker if the direction of travel is opposite. A cyclist is indeed faster than a pedestrian, and that is why overtaking a cyclist takes longer and is more tricky than passing a cyclist who is travelling in the opposite direction (assuming, of course, that the cyclist will have the same sense of self-preservation as a pedestrian).

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why is it exempt from pretty well every construction and use regulation with which other vehicles are required to comply?

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why does it not have to be registered, and why does its rider not have to be licensed?

I don't know what you are referring to when you claim 'a bicycle is to be classified as a vehicle' - bikes are already defined in law and the definition is quite clear in terms of what bikes can and cannot do and what the legal requirements are. A pedal cycle is defined as “a unicycle, bicycle, tricycle, or cycle having four or more wheels, not being in any case mechanically propelled unless it is an electrically assisted pedal cycle of such class as is to be treated as not being a motor vehicle for the purposes of the 1984 Act.”

Bikes have their own construction and use regulations which include requirements for lighting and reflectors similar to other vehicles so they're not exempt from them all. There is no legal requirement for pedal cycles to be registered nor their owners licensed and from a practical point of view, no-one has been able to suggest a workable implementation of such a system. If you disagree with the current law, feel free to take up your anti-cyclists rants with your local MP instead.

If a bicycle is to be classed as a vehicle, then why is it officially allowed to use the pavement, even though it is technically illegal?

Pedal cycles are not legally allowed to use the pavement, there is discretion for children (although it's not legally defined) otherwise cyclists can only cycle legally on the pavement if it's defined as a cycle path or shared pavement.

John

modsandmockers

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Pedal cycles are not legally allowed to use the pavement, there is discretion for children (although it's not legally defined)

Why on earth is it legal for unaccompanied children to take to the highway on a bike and compete on equal terms with trucks, buses and rush-hour commuters?

armyknife

It's like the trolls all took a new years resolution to try harder.

I bet he through long and hard when writing the OP, so he could catch us all in this his devastating trap; I think I'll give up cycling, it's been that decisive.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Why on earth is it legal for unaccompanied children to take to the highway on a bike and compete on equal terms with trucks, buses and rush-hour commuters?

Why is it legal for grown adults to drive heavy machinery where children are riding their bikes? Good question. Maybe we should ban all cars to stop the irresponsible adults who really should know better from putting everyone else in danger.

If cars had only just been invented, they'd be banned instantly on health and safety grounds.

martindow

In some countries cycle lanes in towns are marked on one way streets going in the opposite direction to cars. Seems a good idea and feels much safer for the cyclists.