Roads that give cyclists priority.

Drivers are more likely to break the highway code.
And cars are subsidised in car dominated areas. Cycle paths can be a negative cost. Ie. They grow the economy more than they cost.
Well, more cyclists break the highway code that's for sure...
 
She is on the wrong side of the road, nothing to do with being two abreast. Though the road vandals have turned the road into a single track.

Rule 160.
 
She is on the wrong side of the road, nothing to do with being two abreast. Though the road vandals have turned the road into a single track.
Then there is no wrong side of the road. Not breaking the highway code. Plus do you really think ELC knew that you can ride two abreast?
 
Well, more cyclists break the highway code that's for sure...
That really isn't true.
Here is reference to one of the studies that found this:
We just ignore the times drivers break the highway code more than cyclists. Motornormatvity is a thing.
 
That really isn't true.
Here is reference to one of the studies that found this:
We just ignore the times drivers break the highway code more than cyclists. Motornormatvity is a thing.
In reality, they do.
 
Given the number of cyslists compared to car drivers, that's statistically highly unlikely.

what a ridiculous statement.
Car drivers : numberplate, subject to all road traffic penalties, driving licence subject to points, disqualification, monitored by 10s of thousands of cameras with ANPR etc
Cyclists : not so much.

If I was going to intentionally break traffic law, I know which mode of transport I'd choose
 
Back
Top