PUBLISHED: 07:00 16 March 2013
If I could be allowed to reply to Jim Beed’s letter from the Journal of February 28, who I suspect wrote, at least in part, in reply to my letter of the previous week.
Having run the path by the River Otter, ending at Lime Kiln, I can confirm it is not a shared path - no cycling posted at either end - hence my previous letter stands.
I agree, having enjoyed some ‘fair-weather’ cycling in the summer, that cyclists can be also at the mercy of errant pedestrians/dogs/horses, etc, on shared paths - but this cannot excuse the behaviour of some (by no means all) cyclists.
My main gripe is the view of (again) some cyclists - particularly in more urban settings (such as Exeter and Exmouth) - that most or all pavements are ‘fair game’ for the bicycle, ignoring the illegalities of this action, even if they are patently at risk of imminent collisions.
This can probably be traced back to the sprouting of shared paths on pavements-creating confusion, for some, whether pavements can or can’t be cycled on.