Nuxx:MPG.2732c7d0308a0831989829@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cycle lane no cycling sign. Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:36:26 +0100 References:  Lines: 18 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 101027-1, 27/10/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 3d39ff09.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=C6BBY]7J>5>>1R_Td>lHi1nok4Z\_4KE=9lfi9En, simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk says... > > Confusing no cycling sign for a pavement where none is needed - it's a > pavement. > > http://road.cc/content/news/26248-cycle-here-no-not-here-here

So would you, Simon Mason, Guardian of the Law (that's The Law no matter what, and sod common sense), cycle there or not? Would cycling there be as bad as shoplifting? If not, why not?

Personally, I think that road (not to mention 99% of other urban roads these days) would better serve *everyone* if the politically correct clutter that infests it weren't there in the first place. But that wouldn't appease those whose number one aim is to piss off car drivers, and never mind how it impacts on anyone else, including "legitimate" road users like cyclists.