On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 17:21:09 +0000 (UTC), David wrote:

On Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:59:02 +0000, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:48:16 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

I realise '*right thing* simply isn't on the radar of a selfish
minority and they will inevitably spoil it for the majority.

How do you define the "right thing" though?

Most the time is though the eyes of how it might (negatively) affect
anyone else (assuming it's legal in the first place etc).

I'm pretty sure that I recall T i m stating a while ago, on here, that he
rode his bicycle on the pavement because it was safer *for him* to do so
and disregarding the fact that is is illegal.

You may be right (in that I said that) but you are 1) missing the
point and 2) taking it out of context.

Its one rule for him when it suits him and another rule for him when it
doesn't.

Nope, same rules in all cases.

I have already stated that just because something is legal, doesn't
make it moral in just the same way, doing something 'illegal' doesn't
make it a bad thing to be doing in some specific instances.

Like, what is the *practical* difference between a straight pedestrian
pavement and a shared use one, if you treat them both identically?

What's the difference between me cycling along the pavement at walking
speed and someone on a mobility scooter (all up weight often 1/4 tonne
or more)?

What I do is both safe (for everyone) and practical and doesn't have
any negative impact to anyone (or I wouldn't be doing it in the first
place) or the environment. What you are proposing to do may not be
safe (Coronavirus risk), is bad for the environment and may well not
work (are you going to be out there in your t-shirts and not dress up
suitably *anyway*)?

As you say, it's your call and I don't have any issues with you doing
it, I just gave you my advice like you asked. ;-)

Cheers, T i m