I caught a snippet of a local news item on the radio this morning (West Kent for the locals).
The item was about the increase in the number of mini-motorbikes being used in the area, and the danger they cause, particularly as they are often used on pavements.
The bit that wound me up was a comment from a local councillor who said that they shouldn't be used on pavements as they are a danger to "pedestrians and cyclists, who have a right to be there".
Grrr. Not only should these mini motorbikes not be used on the public highway AT ALL, the councillor obviously has no idea that bikes should not be on the pavament, and should use the road, in the vast majority of cases.
I'm just off to listen to the radio to see if they're still broadcasting the same item, so I can listen to it properly.
In article <[email hidden]>, alan. [email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
I caught a snippet of a local news item on the radio this morning (West Kent for the locals).
The item was about the increase in the number of mini-motorbikes being used in the area, and the danger they cause, particularly as they are often used on pavements.
The bit that wound me up was a comment from a local councillor who said that they shouldn't be used on pavements as they are a danger to "pedestrians and cyclists, who have a right to be there".
Grrr. Not only should these mini motorbikes not be used on the public highway AT ALL, the councillor obviously has no idea that bikes should not be on the pavament, and should use the road, in the vast majority of cases.
It depends where you put the comma doesn't it? If he was referring to shared use paths then cyclists do have a right to be there. However they also have a right to be on the adjacent road (unless it's a motorway) - that's what a lot of motorists don't understand. At least he was standing up against off-road motorbikes which are a menace.
