• theplanlessman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you are saying that you support the construction of comprehensive segregated cycle paths then I am very much on your side.

    Yes they can have their lane

    It would be nice if motorists also kept to their lane, then. Too often I find my cycle lanes blocked by drivers who feel that the road was"entirely built entirely by motorists for motorists". I would also be happy to keep to my lane if it always existed. As it is, a lot of the time I’m left with no other choice but to join with the motor traffic as the cycle lanes just stop existing. In the UK it’s illegal to ride on the pavement, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?

    It’s also important to note here that the UK now has the Hierarchy of Road Users, which explicitly states that the more vulnerable the road user, the more priority they should be given. Pedestrians have top priority, followed by horses, followed by cyclists, and then with motorised traffic at the bottom. It’s a very new development, and one that I don’t think has been tested in law yet, but it’s there in our Highway Code.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      emergency vehicles and transit are motorized as well which hold vulnerable people(if not the most vulnerable). That should be taken into account.

      and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?

      As a cyclist I don’t do this as it’s my decision. so you don’t speak for all cyclists. Don’t hold me hostage with your behaviour decisions as I’m not holding you hostage with mine. You can Manage your own behaviour like a responsible person without making threats as a bad faith argument. It’s beneath all of us to act this way and undermining legitimate arguments at best.