Lifting cycling ban could threaten people's safety

“Cyclists are bad enough on the road let alone allowing them willy nilly through shopping areas. However this could be good news for other towns who dont allow them in.”

“I imagine that 'Cyclists Dismount' means that they can still scoot on one pedal? Otherwise the sign would read 'Cyclists must walk'.”

“According to the anti-cycling brigade, cyclists are already riding through these areas, so where's theall dead or injured pedestrians? I've searched TiG and can't find any reports of them!”

“What really irritates me about this is the fact that irresponsible cyclists are being used as excuse to deny facilities for responsible cyclists. The responsible cyclists are as much the victim of these idiots as anyone.”

“I spend a lot of time running around Cheltenham and Bishop's Cleeve. I never yield to cyclists who are on pavements, and have been clipped more than once. It is, however, the cyclist who comes of worst. I'm more than willing to step off a narrow pavement to avoid a pedestrian, but will never to that for anyone on a bike.”

“Des,
Absolutely spot on.
Signage? What part of 'Cyclists Dismount' do people have difficulty with?
"Cyclists" in this context can be taken to mean anyone riding a bicycle, whether they have reached a sufficient standard of proficiency to be worthy of the title or not.
"Dismount", being the opposite of "mount", therefore meaning "to get off". The infinitive form indicates an instruction or command. Clear? "Cyclists Must Be Dismounted" is a bit more complicated, as it employs the passive form, and can therefore be taken either as an instruction to cyclists to dismount, as above, or for anyone else to knock them off.

But why do pavement cyclists go unchallenged?
Why do so many cases of crime and antisocial behaviour go undetected?
Why is Cheltenham disappearing under a mountain of filth?
Because it's too much like work for the powers-that-claim-to-be to do anything about it.”

“Nurdol - if only this were the case. Now I would suggest that they introduce compulsory registration plates and 3rd party liability cover as a trade off to allowing cyclists impunity to ride into these area's. Then when a pedestrian gets knocked flying, there is a real way of identifying them, and less chance that they will just hop back on, and disappear off into the night as is the case now !”

“This is nonsense. In all shared cycling/pedestrian areas it is the cyclists responsibility, and in their own interests, to avoid pedestrians, sighted or otherwise. Cyclists know that if they collide with pedestrians they will fall off, get hurt and probably prosecuted. All shared areas have to be treated with great care by cyclists. Pedestrians do not need to have macular disease to fail to see bikes coming up behind them.”

“Pingu - A great deal of people whio cycle (not by and large the enthusiasts) take no notice whatsoever of the laws in place. It is far safer to have a blanket law on the area's which have been 'PEDESTRIANISED' . It is a great failing that the authorities are neglecting (and not trying to avoid) their legal duty. Signage needs updating to show the fines clearly, and the plastic police need to earn their crust by policing these area's instead of just handing out parking tickets to stationary vehicles parked on the side of the road - oh hang on, this is a bit too much like hard work !!!”

“Has anyone noticed that TiG just keeps regurgitate old stories to fill in the pages?”