We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
"Cyclists Prohibited"
Comments
-
The "not recommended" would be because it would not be a particularly pleasant experience - "dangerous for cyclists" would be more accurate if this is the case but I'm not convinced DC adds danger, as it mainly adds discomfort due to higher traffic speeds. If a motorist is blind enough not to be able to see a cyclist cycling normally then they should not be driving.I wonder, if you rode on this section and were hit by a car, if the 'not recommended' sign would count against you in any court case? "M'Lud, the plaintiff was clearly the author of his own misfortune, as he deliberately and recklessly ignored a sign put there by the authorities which was plainly intended to protect him from this kind of incident. I move the case be dismissed."0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards