07-11-2015, 03:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2015, 03:32 AM by Elmira Guy.)
After speaking (drinking) with several cops tonight, I learned that the laws pertaining to bikes on sidewalks is a bylaw rather than part of the Highways Act, and hearing how in fact NO bikes are in fact permitted on sidewalks, I restate my point that this is how it should be.
You can state all you want how bikes should be permitted on sidewalks, but again I say, why should pedestrians be made to step off sidewalks so that cyclists can ride down them? If so, then surely pedestrians have the least ROW of all. Why should I have to leave the sidewalk simply because one (or more) cyclists decide that they would rather use the sidewalk than the road to ride at speed? I'm 6'3 and 260lbs, so I'm not afraid of holding my ground. But I have seen others have to veer onto the grass because cyclists refuse to leave the sidewalk. But apparently those on bikes have the right to do so?
And I'm sorry, but Lincoln isn't that busy. If you can't cope with it on a bike, take GRT or give your foot a push and start walking.
Or do you see it as some sort of hierarchy with pedestrians (foot) at the bottom of the list?
You can state all you want how bikes should be permitted on sidewalks, but again I say, why should pedestrians be made to step off sidewalks so that cyclists can ride down them? If so, then surely pedestrians have the least ROW of all. Why should I have to leave the sidewalk simply because one (or more) cyclists decide that they would rather use the sidewalk than the road to ride at speed? I'm 6'3 and 260lbs, so I'm not afraid of holding my ground. But I have seen others have to veer onto the grass because cyclists refuse to leave the sidewalk. But apparently those on bikes have the right to do so?
And I'm sorry, but Lincoln isn't that busy. If you can't cope with it on a bike, take GRT or give your foot a push and start walking.
Or do you see it as some sort of hierarchy with pedestrians (foot) at the bottom of the list?