cycling sensibly, albeit illegally

My understanding is the defence of necessity annuls pretty much every law pertaining to cycling. So get out there and take advantage.



  1. Luke says:

    Architects’ children suffer. Traditionally they have been dragged off to visit buildings their (usually) father is interested in so that he can use them in photos to show scale. Now they are being used as unpaid video operators…

    • Steven says:

      Oh no, it is me who is dragged off to look at buildings my children have designed, on minecraft servers. And my eldest was paid with a skateboard to edit videos for me. It is only the force feeding of lentils that should concern you, which in any case, is their mother’s doing.

  2. Lukas junker says:

    I ride on the footpath most days, and am often amazed at the infrastructure provided for the pedestrians that seam to exist in very limited numbers in this town. So, for as long as the pedestrians stick to the air conditioned shopping malls, the footpaths should be considered at least partly cycling infrastructure. I think a more appropriate definition for footpaths could be an ‘exclusion zone’ for motorized modes of transport capable of traveling over 10 km/hr (that may be needed for the wheelchairs).
    In fact I have ridden on overgrown weed infested footpaths along industrial drive, which would make great cycle paths with a little clean up and that I am sure never see a pedestrian, unless his/her car has broken down on the side of the road.
    For short commutes and leasurely rides the footpaths are great. I assume on longer trips they may get a little annoying. Sport cyclists would probably avoid them like the pest?
    Should the pedestrians suddenly decide to crawl out of their shelters and out into the fresh air, this may have to be revisited. I imagine a footpath along George Street in Sydney could make even me choose to ride on the road.

    • Vicki says:

      I agree with you Lukas, the little-used footpaths around here could work very well for cyclists, with very little change being made to them.

    • Steven says:

      yes, give half of every wide footpath to cycling, let the roads reach the “why bother” levels of congestion as they reached in London and Times Square etc., then widen the footpaths and bike paths by reducing the space allocated to the car system that is no longer working. In the meantime though, cars will be getting quite tiny—not much than the size of a lounge chair. So our focus will need to remain on non-motorised zones that give pedestrians and cyclists some means of escape from this menace!

  3. Interesting thoughts, and my immediate question of “Why doesn’t he get off and push?” was answered when the camera dipped to reveal the front of a Bakfiets: I know from experience that pushing a Bakfiets full of kiddies is very difficult.
    I’m still not won over though: when I ride on pavements I feel like I’m saying “I would rather risk your safety as pedestrians than learn to ride safely amongst cars” but that’s a very personal feeling, in a country that is a little more prp-bicycle than Austrailia, and which has narrower pavements.

  4. Sorry:

    “a little more prp-bicycle”

    Should read “A little more Pro-bicycle”

    Morecoffee needed methinks…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.