On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:24:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 23/08/2014 14:12, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:18:03 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:10:20 +0100, Tim Streater

wrote:

In article , Uncle Peter
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:39:14 +0100, robgraham

wrote:

An interesting position exists in Scotland in that the Land
Access laws
define a bike as an aid to pedestrianism (or some equivalent
wording)
hence
allowing bikes on mountain tracks. I wonder if anyone has used
that as a
justification for cycling on the road footpaths.

As usual Scotland has more sensible laws. England actually treats
bicycles
like cars!

And so they should be. Except for children up to, say, 14.

My car can do 110mph on the flat, my bike can do 26mph. My car weighs
1000kg, my bike weighs 100kg. See the difference? E=.5mv^2 so the
car has
179 times more kinetic energy to impart to what it hits.

Gosh, so E equals a half m v-squared? Well, who'd-a thunk it, eh?

Try driving and riding sensibly, not hitting things, and obeying the
rules of the road. Then we shall get on.

How does your argument change the fact that a bike is nowhere near as
dangerous as a car?

It is on the pavement.

Bicycles are safer on the pavements, then they are out of the bloody way of the cars. Now if only buses would fit on pavements....

--
Peter is listening to The Who - Behind Blue Eyes