Highway Code Revision

Peter Amey said:

Just a reminder. Comments on the (bad) HC revisions are open until 10th
May. I have finally got round to writing something. You can find it
(if you are interested) and links to the HC site on my web pages (in sig
below).

I dug out a mid-1970s copy last weekend. Under "Extra rules for
cyclists", it said

"If there is an adequate cycle path by the side of the road, ride on it."

I suppose you could argue that virtually none are adequate!

Zog The Undeniable said:

I dug out a mid-1970s copy last weekend. Under "Extra rules for
cyclists", it said

"If there is an adequate cycle path by the side of the road, ride on it."

Excellent wording. Exactly right for a path that might be .. um ..
adequate for some cyclists but not others.

--
not me guv

Zog The Undeniable said:

"If there is an adequate cycle path by the side of the road, ride on it."

I suppose you could argue that virtually none are adequate!

Maybe it's just me, but the word 'adequate', in my mind, is synonymous
with, and automagically replaced by, the word '[censored]'. Most cycle paths
are, indeed, 'adequate'. If you don't mind a circumlocutory passage
that will involve broken glass, a flat tyre, and a significantly later
arrival time.

It deeply saddens me that 'adequate', in so many instances, is the upper
limit of our aspirations :-(

Russell Fulker said:

If you don't mind a *circumlocutory* passage

What was I banging on about! That isn't the word I thought I'd typed
last night :-(

Russell Fulker said:

Russell Fulker said:

If you don't mind a *circumlocutory* passage

What was I banging on about! That isn't the word I thought I'd typed
last night :-(

You're not going to talk your way round that one ...

...d